All Episodes
Previous Next
March 31, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:21
March 31, 2015, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program documented to be almost always right, 9.7% of the time.
Happy to have you here, ladies and gentlemen, Rush Limbaugh, Outpost of Truth, Justice in the American way at 800 282882.
If you want to send an email, it's L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
So Indiana's gonna fix the law.
Pence, Mike Pence, the governor went out there.
He's gonna fix the law, gonna clarify the law.
Why does why does Pence have to fix his law?
Why can't he just refuse to enforce it?
Like Obama does.
Obama can just wai parts of laws he doesn't like if Obamacare comes along and it's gonna be too punitive.
Or some Democrat donors, he just waves it.
He's grantsome exemption.
Why doesn't Pence just say I'll do the same thing Obama does?
You know, I'll just I'll selectively enforce this law.
Or I'll just, you know, I'll refuse to uh I'll refuse to enforce it on those occasions where it would be in my best interest not to enforce it.
Just leave it to me.
Hillary Clinton by the same token.
She can delete emails as she pleases.
She can lie about it.
She can say, no, I I don't know what I'm really doing here.
Uh I just had I had two devices and it got to be too cumbersome, and so I just I just have one.
I just have one.
And I've sent you 30,000 emails and I've deleted the other 33,000 because you don't need to see them.
Don't doubt me, trust me.
Well, Hillary Clinton can just delete emails as she as she pleases.
She can lie about how many devices.
She can shield whatever it is she's doing from anybody, and the media and the Democraty party will wantonly support her.
Why does Mike Pence have to do anything?
Yeah, of course, it damn well it's double standards.
Then of course you have the Apple CEO, Tim Cookie weighed in.
You know, this is an amazing thing that he did.
He didn't insert himself into this.
He inserted Apple into it.
He inserted the company he runs into this whole thing in Indiana and uh and beyond, and the problem there is the iPhone just Apple products just went on sale in Saudi Arabia.
You know what they do to homosexuals in Saudi Arabia?
It's the same thing they do to around.
If they find them, they stone them or they behead them or they put them in jail, and they certainly get them out of sight.
There's no such thing as equality.
Like Mahmud Ahmedinezad at Columbia.
When a student asked him about gays in Iran, he said, we don't have any of those.
So do you know some?
Can you tell me where they live?
He was serious.
So in Saudi Arabia, and by the way, Apple has expressed an interest in opening some Apple stores in Iran now.
But somehow Indiana, Indiana is the focus of evil when it comes to equality.
There's a bunch of Chicoms, there's a bunch of other countries around the world which are genuinely truly discriminatory, violently so, against homosexuals.
Not a word is said about any of that.
So Mike Pence at 11 o'clock this morning, a little over a couple hours ago, took the stage and the microphones to announce that he was going to uh fix the law.
Let's listen to some excerpts of his remarks.
Clearly, there's been misunderstanding and confusion and mischaracterization of this law.
And I come before you today to say how we're going to address that.
I don't believe for a minute that it was the intention of the General Assembly to create a license to discriminate or right to deny services to gays, lesbians, or anyone else in this state.
And it certainly wasn't my intent.
But I can appreciate that that's become the perception.
Not just here in Indiana, but all across this country.
Right.
Well, why?
Why can't does he appreciate that that's become the perception?
Because there's a bunch of demagoguery going on out there.
The Democrats are demagoguing and lying about this.
And so the Republicans have to respond.
Oh, yes.
It's required.
It is incumbent.
Democrats throw out false accusations all the time, like Harry Reid saying he has got somebody told him that Mitt Romney has never paid his income taxes.
It was up to Romney to respond to that kind of blatant defamation and lies.
Harry Reid never produced his friend, and he never produced any evidence.
So we're back to the seriousness of the charge angle.
Even though there's no evidence that there's any discrimination that's been licensed here in Indiana, they still have to defend the charge.
Why?
Why do they have to defend the charge?
This is the same thing that Clarence Thomas was up against for the Anita Hill hearings when he was uh being confirmed for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Baseless charge, no evidence to support it anywhere.
Seriousness of the charge demands that he respond.
It's a trick.
This this law is a shield.
It is not a weapon.
And this kind of discrimination is again trying to make it look like it happens all the time, every day, blatantly so, when it doesn't.
Pence next says that he abhors discrimination, which he no doubt does.
But that's not going to mollify.
He cannot modify these people.
That's not the point.
There is no solution.
Indiana could not solve this.
There is no solution.
The left doesn't want a solution.
They don't want this to end, no matter what Indiana did.
I abhor discrimination.
The way I was raised was like most Hoosiers with the golden rule that you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
And I believe in my heart of hearts that no one should be harassed or mistreated because of who they are, who they love, or what they believe.
We've got a perception problem here because some people have a different view.
This law does not give anyone a license to deny services to gay and lesbian couples.
And look, I I could have handled that better this weekend.
But I going into that interview this weekend, I was just determined to set the record straight about what this law really is.
He's talking about the the gotcha interview with Stephanopoulos.
Uh in which Stephanopoulos was not listening to anything he said.
This is a yes or no.
Yes or no.
Does this law allow Indiana Christians to discriminate against gays?
Yes or no, Governor.
Yes or no, yes or no, yes or no.
And he tried to answer it as he's answering it now, and that was not acceptable.
Next, he said he was taken aback.
It was just he was he was had no idea there would be this kind of backlash.
Now Mike Pence was in the House of Representatives for I don't know, at least a couple of terms.
And he was he was a he was a member of the House when this kind of crap was happening daily.
And to say that that he was taken aback, I don't know.
I don't know how anybody could be surprised at this.
This is predictable.
This is this was I would in fact, if I didn't know better, I would say this whole thing is a Democrat constructed piece of legislation in Indiana designed for this exact purpose.
Now that's not what happened, but it very well could be, because this is exactly what everybody wants out of this.
This is what people don't this the left is loving this.
This is nirvana for them.
Anyway, here's Pence.
Was I expecting this kind of backlash?
Heavens no.
Candidly, uh, when this erupted uh last week, even though I made my position clear weeks ago that I would sign the bill without much discussion.
I was taken aback.
And I have to tell you that the gross mischaracterizations about this bill early on, and some of the reckless reporting by some in the media about what this bill was all about was uh deeply disappointing.
Well, it may be deeply disappointing, but it was imminently predictable.
This is what they do.
The subject of gay rights comes up, it ought to be the biggest red flag.
You ought to know what you're getting into, and if you're gonna go there, you better have a response ready to go.
Um Here's another example of how this defamation continues and the lies and the distortions.
Chris Cuomo, who is the host on CNN's special report.
This is last night.
He interviewed the lieutenant governor of Indiana, Sue Elsperman.
He said, Lieutenant Governor, why did you make this law?
What is the reason behind this law?
Why did you why do you stinking Nazis do it?
He didn't say that, but based on the tweet from the babe at the National Bureau of Labor Statistics, this is what they think.
So here's what she said.
It has a lot to do with the Hobby Lobby law because of Obamacare.
And as that unfolded, we realized here in the state of Indiana that we did not have the state protection that paralleled the federal protections for religious freedom.
And we're a state that really values those First Amendment rights.
Does anybody remember what Hobby Lobby was about?
Would you tell me?
I want to see if you do remember.
I don't, there's no no.
Mm-hmm.
Okay, that's right.
Way to go, way to go, wait a minute.
What the Hobby Lobby was all about was Hobby Lobby is owned and operated and run by Christians, and they do not believe in abortion.
And Obamacare was mandating that they pay for abortive fashions for their employees.
In other words, Obamacare was mandating that the people in Hobby Lobby pay their female employees for the ability to induce abortion.
And they said, we're not going to do it.
If you want to have an abortion, pay for it yourself.
So the regime jumped right on them and said, What do you mean?
You the law is the law to hell with your religion.
The law is the law.
And if your female employees or anybody want to induce an abortion, you gotta make it available in your health care.
And Hobby Lobby won the case.
At the Supreme Court, and what she's saying here, we realized when that started happening, we don't have the same kind of protections in Indiana.
We wanted to double down on them.
All that everybody recognizes here is that religious people in this country are being ganged up on.
There's no denying that because they are a majority.
And as such, they're automatically considered to be oppressors.
If you doubt me, listen to this next bite.
This is what Kumo said after Sue Elsperman's answer.
I'm wondering if we are being open and honest about what motivated this law.
You say, well, it's pushing for religious freedom.
The original law was designed to protect religious minorities, Native Americans from smoking peyote, you know, the Amish for having to put an LED light on their carriages.
You're now empowering the majority, businesses, big groups, largely Christians.
And that is going to be a very different impact.
Exactly.
Exactly what I told you yes, exactly why these people are the enemy.
They are the majority.
And majorities, when the liberals are not in them, are in, they're unjust and they're immoral, and they're not to be permitted.
They are to be destroyed.
When the left is not in the majority, everybody's talking about that majority is automatically an oppressor.
It discriminates, it's mean-spirited, it's radical, it's extreme, it's all these things.
And so he's saying to the lieutenant governor, well, what the Peyotes Native Americans, the fact that they were a minority had nothing to do with peyote being exempted from the law.
It was all about their religion.
It wasn't the it was nothing to do with the fact they're Native Americans.
And the Amish LED, nothing to do with the fact that they're a minority.
It was all to do with their religious belief.
No different here.
Christians, these people that being discussed, do not believe in gay marriage.
They do not believe that homosexual marriage is legit.
And they don't want to be forced to have to honor it.
No different than the Indians, hey, you can't deny me my peyote.
That's part of my religious belief.
And Clinton signed in a law praising it and praising God and all of this.
Chris Cuomo comes along exactly in his tiny little closed mind.
There's no way a majority can be discriminated against.
It's not possible.
Majorities do the discriminating.
Majorities are the oppressors.
You're you're empowering a majority.
Don't you understand what you're doing?
You can't discriminate against a majority.
You can't discriminate against white people.
You can't discriminate against Christians.
You can't discriminate against because they're the majority.
This is exactly what they want everybody to believe.
I told you yesterday.
I read some things about this.
I wanted to get other points of view on this last night.
So I found a couple of posts at uh the corner, National Review.
And here's an excerpt.
And I'm sorry this printed, but it did not print the author.
The second one is Charles uh C.W. Cook.
Uh but I don't.
I can't.
I'm sorry, I wish I knew who wrote this.
I could go back and look and find it.
But here's just an excerpt.
So what's really going on here in Indiana?
What's really going on is a toxic combination of anti-Christian bigotry and sexual revolution radicalism.
It is simply uninformed and bigoted to believe that Christians are somehow lurking in the shadows, ready to deny food, shelter, and basic services to their gay fellow citizens.
Blocked from such vicious actions only by the strong arm of the state.
In my entire life as an evangelical, I have never met a fellow Christian who would gladly, would not gladly serve a gay customer.
If there are exceptions to that nearly universal rule, they are so marginal and marginalized, even in the Christian community, that they're not relevant.
In fact, they're irrelevant, not only to Christendom, but also to the body politic.
But the left, ever vigilant against group-based slights on behalf of favored constituencies, is only too eager to label orthodox Christians as threats to the public, and this bigotry has a purpose.
It serves to demonize the last significant constituency standing in the way of sexual revolution radicalism.
Be right back, folks.
on Grow Web.
Better get into the phones here before we let too much time go by.
People are going to end up being on the on the air talking about things that are hours old.
And that's always confusing.
So we'll start Williamsburg, Pennsylvania with Josh.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
It's great to have you on the EIB network.
Hey, thanks, Rush.
Yeah, uh, my name's Josh Williamsburg, Virginia.
Um good red district.
But anyway, um, I'm a former Hoosier, and I find it odd that uh, you know, you're exactly right when you were talking about how Mike Pence should have expected this.
Every time Republicans wade into these issues, whether it's a religion issue or a social issue, they now go into it that they have their hands tied behind their backs by the media.
They know this.
And if Republicans should know anything by now, it's that they're exceptionally able to shoot themselves in the foot, as far as PR is concerned.
Now, we know, and many people know, that this law isn't about a you know, fundamental Baptist baker who doesn't want to serve, you know, cakes to big to gay people.
This is really about protecting um, you know, that that very, very, very, very, very few businesses that might have some uh religious exception to providing, as you said, uh abortificative drugs or something other like that.
But that's it.
So I guess my question is why do Republicans continue to wade into this?
Well, what are you saying that they should Indiana should not have done the law?
I don't think there's a point.
I think there's legal remedies already in place.
I think the Supreme Court has certainly uh been pretty firm as far as you know discrimination is concerned, discriminatory law is not a good thing.
Not really.
Let's go to where was it, New Mexico, where a uh photographer lost her business because she refused to photograph a gay wagon uh wedding and a bakery in uh mom and pop bakery in Denver, Silver Colorado, lost their business because they refused to make a cake for a gay wedding.
Even though the federal law exists.
Well, federal law isn't going to control.
Sorry about the sirens.
That's annoying.
What is Amber alert after you or something?
If if we're talking about state law, if we're talking about state jurisdiction, a federal RFRA isn't going to control.
If the business in question is not is not in interstate commerce, then the federal law isn't going to control.
So uh federal law.
Well, I don't know about that, but I bet the you you said that Indiana shouldn't have done the done the bill.
And and I'm telling you why they did.
The lieutenant governor made it clear we saw what happened in Hobby Lobby, but we don't have the protections here because they saw what happened in New Mexico and they saw what happened in Colorado.
And Indiana is a is a much more conservative Republican state than either of those two.
I guess New Mexico and I know it's Colorado, and they wanted to afford the protections.
It's not as though a gay couple can't get a wedding cake in Indiana.
They have to go out and find some place that won't serve them.
I'm not I'm pretty sure, folks, that it's accurate to say that not a single business has gotten away with discriminating against any customers thanks to the uh religious freedom act, whatever it's called.
I'm having a metal block on its name today.
You know what I'm talking about.
The um Mexico has has their own version of the Indiana law.
It did not stop that photographer.
It did not let that photographer refuse to photograph a gay wedding.
She lost her business.
Now, in all of Santa Fe, New Mexico, do you think a gay couple could have found a photography studio that would have agreed to photograph their wedding?
Odds are they could have.
Why did they why did they target what they obviously knew would be a place that wouldn't?
Well, make an example out of them, but to also intimidate and frighten any other opposition to gay marriage.
The photographer in New Mexico wasn't intrinsically.
Her point was that she didn't discriminate against gays, but she didn't believe in gay marriage because of her religion.
She felt it immoral if she were to participate in it.
Her business was shut down.
She lost her business.
The same thing happened in Colorado to a couple.
I think it was a couple that owned a little bakery.
Same thing.
You think in Denver, Colorado, a gay couple could find a bakery to make their wedding cake for them?
Hell.
Head to whatever their publics is out there.
Just do it.
No, they had to find a bakery where they knew the owners would refuse to do it on religious grounds.
Make make they lost their bakery.
They lost their business.
Such was the they and that was the purpose.
The intimidation was such that other customers were afraid to be seen patronizing the business for fear that they would be thought of as also being discriminatory against gay marriage.
They lost their clientele simply on the basis of intimidation.
And that's the objective here.
So that's why the real question here is, when did all this hatred and bigotry for Christians begin?
When did the left's discrimination against Christianity and their hatred for Christianity, when did that start?
And why is it okay?
Why is it promoted and justified?
Now, I told you why, and Chris Cuomo just confirmed it.
They are considered a majority.
Peace.
And as such, they are automatically oppressors of minorities.
In the left's world, every majority that they are not in is an oppressive, mean spirited, extremist bunch of people.
And they have to be taken out.
Now let me let me conclude reading this post from the uh Evangelical at National Review Online on the corner.
This bigotry, the kind I just described, has a purpose.
It serves to demonize the last significant constituency standing in the way of sexual revolution radicalism.
After all, unless you demonize your opposition, the general public will have little appetite for forcing Christians to pay for abortion pills, or forcing Christian groups to open up to atheist leadership, as the Episcopalian church did, or forcing Christian bakers or photographers to help celebrate events they find morally offensive.
In other words, they had to demonize these people.
They had to demonize these businesses.
Unless you demonize your opposition, the general public is not even going to care.
The general public, the general public in and of itself, is not going to rise up and demand that these businesses serve or participate in whatever the gay couples are demanding.
They have to be demonized first.
And when the demonization starts, nobody wants to be on the side of the person being demonized because it's quite obvious you're going to be destroyed.
So if you happen to be a customer of the bakery that refused to bake a cake for the gay wedding, you're going to stop going after you see what happens to that business.
Because you don't want to be seen going in there.
Because then you're going to become a target.
And this is how they intimidate and scare, basically scare and frighten people into not standing up for what they really believe.
This is how they get people who believe in things to shut up and stand down.
And it's what the evangelical writer here, and I'm sorry I don't have his name.
His first name's David, but the last name didn't print.
National Review Online is calling sexual revolution radicalism.
After all, he says, there's no clamor for requiring kosher delis to stock pork.
There's no clamor requiring gay lawyers to represent the Westboro Baptist Church.
It's only working one way here.
So while the religious freedom restoration acts protect people of all faiths from peyote smoking Indians to Bible-toting florists, the left's outrage is narrowly targeted against the Christian people whose livelihoods they seek to ruin, whose consciences they seek to appropriate, and whose organizations they seek to disrupt.
Boycott Indiana is not a cry for freedom.
It's nothing more than an online mob seeking to bully those that it hates.
And I don't want to hazard a guess.
I won't say David French, but I'm not sure, so I shouldn't, it may not be David French, but it's an evangelical first name, David.
Now the next piece of National Review is Charles C.W. Cook.
And he has a rather lengthy lengthy post here.
Corporations can't have consciences unless they oppose Mike Pence.
Now, this is a fantastic take, too.
Watching the protests against Indiana's new religious freedom law this week, I've been struck by something rather interesting.
Namely by how abundantly happy people who are usually critical of corporations have been to recruit them to their side in this case.
Reporting on the backlash on Friday, CNBC recorded that big corporations were among the loudest critics in Indiana.
Columbus, Indiana based Cummins, the world's largest diesel engine maker, opposed the new law in strong terms.
Cummins believes it's bad for business and bad for Indiana and sends the message that the state is unwelcoming, said a Cummins spokesman.
We are a global company in a competitive environment.
It could hinder our ability to attract and retain top talent.
Elsewhere the Indianapolis Star said a number of companies, organizations, athletes, and other high-profile voices have expressed strong opinions to Governor Mike Pence signing this bill into law last week in the Washington Post, meanwhile, Philip Bump notes, since the bill was signed last week, businesses like the NCAA and Apple have expressed similar concerns.
These corporate protests were noted and praised on social media and beyond.
But wait a minute.
Who exactly has expressed similar concerns?
Who has been among the loudest critics?
What has signaled its intentions to boycott Indiana?
Who has expressed strong opinions?
Who has lined up to boycott the state in response?
Or we were told at the time a hobby lobby that companies cannot have consciences.
We were told they can't have feelings.
We were told they're not even people.
We were told they can't corporately opine on moral or legal questions, as might an individual.
And in consequence, they can't be worthy or praise or admonition.
What's changed?
It couldn't be, could it, that progressives are opposed to the idea that corporations are entities that are capable of holding opinions and taking political stance until they're needed in a fight that they care about.
And then when a corporation happens to agree on what the left is talking about, then they're great people.
Then a corporation is people.
Then a corporation does have a conscience.
Then a corporation does have morality when it's on the side of the left.
In political circles, it's common to hear it asserted that in Citizens United, the Supreme Court invented a couple of legal principles from whole cloth, and that those decisions now represent a threat to American democracy, and they are one that corporations are people.
Prior to Citizens United, corporations weren't people.
They're evil entities.
Like Howellburton.
And they pollute and they destroy and they poison and they kill.
And the second thing that really sent them off the loop was that corporate speech was protected by the First Amendment.
They can't, they're they don't have speech.
They're not people.
They're not people.
And remember Elizabeth Warren?
Back in 2012, Elizabeth Warren caused something of a stir when she slammed Mitt Romney for his observation that corporations don't pay taxes, people do.
She said, after all, Mitt Romney's the guy who said corporations are people.
No, Governor Romney, corporations are not people.
People have hearts.
They have kids.
They get jobs.
They get sick.
They thrive.
They dance.
They live.
They love and they die.
And that matters.
That matters.
That matters because we don't run this country for corporations.
We run it for people.
Remember that?
Corporations are not people.
Romney, you're an idiot.
They don't have hearts.
They don't love.
They don't help.
They don't protect.
They don't care.
Obama has used identical language in selling ideas and mobilizing his base to hate corporations.
In the New York Times last week, Adam Liptak, liberals used to love the First Amendment, but that was in an era when courts used it mostly to protect powerless people like civil rights activists and war protesters these days.
A provocative news study says there has been a corporate takeover of the First Amendment.
The assertions backed by data, and it comes from an unlikely source.
John C. Coates IV, who teaches business law at Harvard, used to be a partner at Wachtel Lipton Rosen and Katz, a prominent corporate law firm.
corporations have begun to displace individuals as the direct beneficiaries of the First Amendment, Professor Coates wrote.
The trend is recent, but it's accelerated.
They don't like it in this, you see.
Okay.
So why are we now being told that companies are taking a stand against Governor Pence?
If companies don't have hearts, if companies don't have opinions, if companies are not people, if they don't care, if all they do is kill and maim and poison and pollute, then how in the world can they take a stand like this supporting the left.
Why the lazy language?
Second, I can only presume that all of those who oppose long-standing legal precedent in this area would remain entirely happy if Pence and the legislature in Indiana decided to use the power of the government to silence Cummins, the corporation, Angie's List, Apple, and any other business.
What if Pence decided in the face of all this corporate opposition to act like the left does toward corporations, start insulting them and denying them the ability to do any of this because they're not people?
What would the left say?
The left, no, no, no.
Corporations all of a sudden have become people.
Corporations have all become all of a sudden have a conscience.
Corporations are the greatest thing on earth in Indiana now.
Corporations, they do morality right, they do justice, they're doing everything great.
They're wonderful.
They got people and they care and they live and they work and they die and they don't kill and they know maim and they don't poison anymore.
At least this week in Indiana.
Next week, it's gonna be a different matter.
We'll be back.
Yeah, we've also been told that corporations cannot donate to uh political campaigns or candidates because they're not people.
I mean, you remember Citizens United, the left literally went insane when that law, and they're still insane over it.
Corporations are hated, reviled, despised.
You look at the average Democrat enemy list, and the top ten things on it are going to be businesses, industries, big pharma, big retail, big oil, big tobacco.
They despise them.
And then Citizens United came out granting them the right to First Amendment protections and political campaign access, and they literally went batty.
Until Indiana came along.
Now they love them.
Now the corporations, the greatest things, Angie's list, they love them.
Cummins, they love them.
NCAA, they love.
Even though the NCA last week was exploiting student athletes and using them as slaves last week.
The NCAA, basketball, football, you name it, those student athletes, what a joke that is.
We're being exploited by the evil NCAA and the NFL and the NBA, because they're they're not they're not paid.
They're the product they're generating all these billions and billions and billions and billions in revenue, and the students are getting nothing but half acre meals and cheesy little accommodation.
That was last week.
This week, the NCAA, greatest damn sports organization on earth.
I know, fuck, I look general public, you're gonna see through it.
Who the hell knows?
Odds are not.
Uh Jim in Battle Creek, Michigan.
Uh, great to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hello, uh thank you for taking my call and for all you do for us.
Thank you.
Um building those surfuges deep in the ground, will it be okay for us to start building uh uh nuclear power plants deep in the ground?
You mean like the Iranians are doing?
Yes.
The Iranians are building uh their nuclear facilities are way, way, way down there.
I mean, way down there, folks, so that our bombs or anybody else's bombs can't get to them.
And so if it's okay with them for them to do that, is it okay for us to start building the case?
It's actually not a bad question.
His question, the Iranians maintain that they're not building nuclear weapons, except that they are.
They claim that they're building nuclear power.
They need uh to build nuclear power to be able to fuel their growing nation.
People say, wait a minute, you got more oil than you know what to do with.
And they say, yeah, but we're so behind the times they don't have any refineries.
They have to ship it out, which is true, they don't.
And if we got these uh we've got these embargoes on us, we've got these sanctions.
We need nuclear power plants.
Their facilities are way underground.
His point is we can't build a nuclear power plant in this country without ten years of investigations and regulatory filings and all that.
And what happens if we would build one way underground?
Environmentalist wackos would find something that would be a cause earthquakes if we did it.
His point is why is it okay for the Iranians to do any of this?
Either build a bomb or nuclear power plants wherever they're doing it, and we can't do diddly squat.
There's an answer to it.
Why can the Iranians and why can't we?
Simplest answer often works.
It's called the Democrat Party.
No, I wasn't making that up.
Now that the new host of the Daily Show is one of the biggest anti-Semites that I've encountered in the public domain.
Trevor Noah?
Oh yeah, even.
Well, I'll I'll redo.
Yeah, okay, I'll do it again when we get back.
I've still got other things to get into here, but you sit tight, my friends.
Much more straight ahead.
▲
Export Selection