Rush Limbaugh Program - December 28, 2015, Monday, Hour #3

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 28, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program

35:30

December 28, 2015, Monday, Hour #3

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I'm here.
	We've had an interesting assortment of topics on today's program.
	I want to get into a policy question here, and it's about some Republican sellouts.
	And for once, they're not at the national level, if anything.
	The congressional Republicans have this right, and the selling out is occurring at the state level.
	I want to talk about Obamacare and Medicaid and how a number of states are jumping into this and I think making a terrible mistake.
	When Obamacare was passed, one of the things that it did was expand eligibility for Medicaid.
	Medicaid is not to be confused with Medicare.
	Medicare is health care for the elderly.
	Medicaid is health care for low-income people, generally people on some form of assistance, or wherever the line of eligibility lies.
	Given the fact that Obamacare was being created, and Obamacare, even with the subsidies had carried a cost, Obama wanted to provide an option for the people that were lower, lower middle class.
	And he didn't want to put all of them into Obamacare because he wouldn't have been able to justify making them pay for their health care, and it would have meant even more subsidies, so the numbers on Obamacare would have been even more out of whack.
	So what he did was expand eligibility for Medicaid and tell the states, and the states run Medicaid, it's funded primarily but not entirely by the feds.
	Obamacare said that hey, you states we're going to give you way more money if you agree to expand eligibility for Medicaid.
	Every state with a Democratic governor did it.
	The states with Republican governors, they were split.
	Some states with Republican governors said, we aren't going to do it.
	We don't want anything to do with Obamacare, we're not going to buy into it.
	Other states, however, including Ohio, where the governor there is a guy you might have heard of.
	His name is John Kasich.
	He's running for a big-time job, you may have heard of.
	They agreed to take the money.
	Their argument is look, why would we leave this federal money on the table?
	And secondly, we've got people in our own state.
	This is a way of getting them health care coverage.
	Other states with Republican governors went the other way and said we're not going to do it.
	Story in the New York Times today comments on what's going on in the state of South Dakota.
	It quotes John Thune, who is a Republican member of the United States Senate from South Dakota.
	He voted earlier this month to repeal most of Obamacare and to end the expansion of Medicaid.
	He said that the law is unpopular and unaffordable.
	But at the exact same time that Thune, Republican of South Dakota, is voting to end this expansion of Medicaid and to repeal most of Obamacare, his own state's Republican governor, whose name is Dennis Daughard, said he actually wants to take the Medicaid money.
	He wants it.
	Quote, I know many South Dakotans are skeptical about expanding Medicaid, and I share some of those sentiments.
	It bothers me that some people who can work will become more dependent on government.
	But the most powerful word in the sellout language, but we also have to remember those who would benefit, such as the single mother of three who simply cannot work enough hours to exceed the poverty line for her family.
	The story goes on to say in state after state, a gulf is opening between Republican governors willing to expand Medicaid coverage through the Affordable Care Act and Republican members of Congress convinced the law is collapsing and determined to help it fall.
	Obamacare is falling apart.
	You're seeing right now major insurers like United Health Group saying that they want out.
	They can't make money off of it.
	Everything that the critics of Obamacare said would happen is happening.
	The people who have signed up for insurance to the exchanges are primarily those who need health care Because they're sick a lot.
	The people who are relatively healthy, the young, they haven't signed up.
	So the numbers are out of whack.
	They're paying out way too much in costs, and the premiums aren't coming close to paying what's necessary to keep the program going.
	This is precisely what the critics said would happen.
	And it's going to result in significant increase in the cost of Obamacare and a significant increase in what the subsidies are going to have to be.
	So at the same time that Obamacare is collapsing and imploding upon itself, you've got a number of these Republican governors saying, Hey, we think it's a pretty good idea, let's do it.
	They are the ones that are selling out.
	Now, the argument that they'll make, the argument that John Kasich would make if he's sitting here is look, this is money the federal government is making available.
	Even if we don't like Obamacare, why should we leave this money on the table?
	Why not use it?
	Here's the problem with expanding Medicaid in your state and taking the money.
	It's the old bait and switch.
	That money is going to disappear.
	And the Republicans in Congress are trying to tell them this.
	Obamacare is going broke.
	Our country itself is deeply in debt.
	Whomever the next president is, be it Hillary, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, whomever, is going to be confronted with the reality that Obamacare's numbers aren't adding up, and they're going to have to cut something.
	What do you think they're going to cut?
	Do you think they're going to cut the parts of Obamacare that they are in charge of, the federal component of Obamacare, or are they going to cut the aid to the states?
	The first thing any government ever cuts is money that they send to somebody else.
	That high reimbursement, that extra money that's occurring right now from the federal government to the states, that money's going to go away.
	So let's suppose you're South Dakota and you're dumb enough to go and take the Obamacare Medicaid money, or your Ohio, where Kasich has already taken it.
	You end up putting all of these people now on Medicaid in your estate, meaning you are responsible for their health care.
	And you're doing it because you're getting a lot of money from the federal government to pay to do it.
	That money's going to go away, and you're going to get a lot less of it.
	So you're going to end up with the same large group of people needing care from you, but less money from the federal government.
	It's going to impact your budgets.
	You will be holding the bag.
	How can anyone, particularly a Republican, particularly a Republican governor, be dumb enough, and that's my term, be dumb enough to go and join in on Obamacare now.
	Anyone could see that this thing is going bust.
	And anyone could see what the federal government is certain to do.
	They induce the states to come in and take in all of these people and put them on Medicaid.
	And they throw out all this money.
	Then the money starts to dry up and they're going to take the money away.
	The Republican governors who have been smart enough to not jump in on this are the ones that are being responsible.
	Now I know why.
	A lot of them want to go the other way.
	Politicians, and this is the problem at the national level, are short-term focused.
	Let's get through this leak.
	Let's let's get through this month.
	Let's get through this year.
	They don't worry about the future.
	They're worried about the next election.
	The average governor.
	One or two years left in their term.
	Take the federal money.
	Okay, we're going to get a shortfall in 2017 or 2018.
	In 2019, we're not going to be able to pay for any of the people we have on Medicaid.
	Somebody else will be the governor then.
	Or if I'm the governor, then I'll worry about that then.
	That is irresponsible.
	Everything that we have suggested has been done wrong on the national level by the federal government, and all of the appeasing that has been done wrongly at the federal level by Republicans, you are now seeing going on in the states by these governors.
	They're taking on an obligation that they can't pay for in the long haul.
	They're buying into a program that is fatally flawed.
	Obamacare without regard to who wins the election is going to have to be changed because it's going broke.
	I think we ought to just get rid of it.
	But whether we do that or not, some things are inevitable.
	Not enough people are signing up for the exchanges.
	The feds are going to have to create greater subsidies in order to keep any insurance company involved in offering coverage.
	Do you really think United Health Group is the only insurer who's deciding that they can't afford to take part in Obamacare?
	The only way to keep any of them in is the feds are going to have to pay them to stay in.
	That means they've got to get that money from somewhere, and the place they're going to get it from is all of these millions they're shoveling over to the states right now to bribe them to expand their Medicaid coverage.
	In the states that have Republican governors, where the money has been taken, there has not been enough objection from grassroots conservatives.
	The biggest flaw of all of them in Obamacare is the way that they have taken care of people providing them health care.
	So they don't have to go on the exchanges by putting them onto Medicaid and saying, well, let the states pay for it.
	You always have money today until you run out.
	So they're shoveling all of this cash that they don't have at the federal level, they're throwing it out to California, they're throwing it out to New York, they're throwing it out to Ohio, they're throwing it out to all these states that expanded Medicaid.
	So those people don't have to go onto the Obamacare exchanges.
	That money's going to go away.
	And these states are going to be left holding a giant bag.
	And it's going to create a significant crisis when it occurs.
	And all these states, with all these Republican governors that are buying into this, are going to turn around and they're going to have to either cut education funding or raise taxes or gut something else when the chickens come home to roost on this.
	My own governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin is one of those.
	He hasn't had a very good year, by the way.
	He's one of those that has refused to take the money.
	Kasich is raw.
	And one of the problems I have with John Kasich's presidential campaign is it's hard for me to see him as president being willing to stand up and change the federal government and cut spending when he wasn't even able to resist taking the Obamacare money.
	If he couldn't stop, if he couldn't stop taking his father was a, he does say that push.
	He he he does go with that mailman line quite a bit, doesn't he?
	If he can't resist Obamacare now, when he's a governor when they're throwing money at him, how is he going to be able to resist it when he becomes president of the United States and people start screaming and yelling if we if they they dare to try to repeal it?
	If you don't have the ability to say no to this fake government money, and it's fake because it's going to go away now, I don't think you're ever going to be able to address the issue from the top if you become president.
	You those of you out in South Dakota, which is, I don't know what percentage of the Rush audience, but I know we have affiliates there.
	Don't let your governor do this.
	You're being conned.
	Can you imagine with all we know now to sign up for anything that has to do with federal money for health care?
	There's no way this money doesn't disappear.
	The money will disappear, but the people that you are covered are going to stay on there forever.
	And if we head back into another recession, which I think is likely, that problem is going to get worse.
	My name is Mark Belling, and I'm sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
	Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
	He's crabbing on the governor of uh South Dakota.
	The Democratic governor of Virginia.
	Remember Terry McCulliff, the old Clinton guy is the governor of Virginia.
	Got to give him some business in a few moments here.
	First, let's go to the phones.
	1 800 282-2882 is the phone number.
	Santa Clarita, California, Alan, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program with Mark Belling.
	Hi, Mark.
	Hey, you were talking earlier about the department store executives who eliminated the Christmas displays.
	And I thought I'd call and tell you you might be interested in ABC News or ABC TV, because um I watched that Charlie Brown Christmas special.
	I was excited to see it.
	They waited until Christmas Eve to show it.
	And when they finally did, they um there's two scenes where Charlie Brown's talking about the Trimini of Christmas, and they they scrubbed or dubbed over the word Jesus in front of Jesus Christ.
	You're kidding.
	At first I thought it was wrong, and then I heard my daughter, I said, take a look at this, and she goes, Yeah, that's wow.
	Oh wow.
	So anyway, that's it.
	Well, if I remember that show, don't they even have Linus reading a verse from the gospel?
	Did they was that still in?
	Yes, they do, and it's it's very poignant.
	It's it's really good because he he struggles with the meaning of Christmas.
	Well, if they keep the gospel verse in, what was the point of taking the name Jesus out other than just being idiotically politically correct?
	It was just uh maybe not offend anybody like you talk about.
	I I had not heard that, and I don't know if they've done it before, and I don't know if this is the eleventh year that's happened or not, but that would the whole reason people watch that Charlie Brown Christmas special, then there was only one meaning behind it when you know Charlie Brown has the crappy little dumpy Christmas tree and all of that.
	The whole point of that program, which people have been watching now for 50 years, and everybody's been in love with, is there is a true meaning of Christmas, and we can't get overdone by the commercialization.
	We have to get into love and why we celebrate Christmas.
	So you're saying that the word Jesus was expunged from that scene.
	I I had not heard that.
	Nothing anymore surprises you though.
	If you hear about any attempt to eliminate any reference to Christmas, it probably kills ABC that that popular Charlie Brown special is about Christmas.
	I'm sure that they would prefer that it was the Charlie Brown holiday special and that he just had a tree and there was no reference to Christmas in it.
	But that was done, I think I think this might have been the 50th anniversary of that program.
	1965.
	You know how big that is.
	They still play the music.
	Vince Giraldi.
	He was the guy that did the music that people associate those the music, the Charlie Brown music that was behind that with Christmas.
	Thank you for the call, Alan.
	Let's try Jet on.
	Let's go to Tucson, Arizona.
	Matthew, it's your turn on the Rush Limbaugh program with Mark Belling.
	Yes.
	This is Matt.
	You're on, Matt.
	Oh, thank you very much.
	Um Mark, I I was uh called to talk to you.
	You have so many wonderful conversations going, ideas today.
	Outstanding.
	I was calling it.
	That's why it's good they only bring me in for one day because I'll be pretty much tapped out after that.
	Yeah, wonderful choices though.
	Wonderful choices.
	I was calling about the Etsy.
	Yes.
	And uh I had started years ago in ninety-five with costume jewelry, and I started um selling stones for that and refurbishing and all that.
	And uh we now have about six thousand customers in twenty-five countries, and I refurbished costume jewelry, and so we put uh jewelry on Etsy, costume jewelry, and I've also um you said you have six thousand customers.
	I'm sorry.
	You said you had six thousand customers?
	Yes.
	Before Etsy existed.
	Were you doing this for a living?
	Yes.
	How many customers did you have then?
	Um probably about four.
	So you're doing the same thing, but because this website and this app existed, you have the ability for thousands of people who now want to buy your stuff to be able to do so.
	Absolutely.
	It makes the playing field even for the smaller people.
	That's the thing that it does.
	And as I said earlier, for those just coming in, we're talking about this website and app called Etsy.
	eBay has it, and there's a lot of others that do similar things.
	I was referring to Etsy because I just had some experience with it.
	What this is is just pure capitalism.
	Here's Matt in Arizona, who has a skill and an ability to make a product, but no way for anybody to know of his product or see it.
	The internet comes around and it's connecting the two, and you have people that are willing to buy your stuff.
	I if you don't want to answer this, Matt, I understand that, but can I ask you about how much money you're making a year doing this?
	Honestly, um my wife handles all that.
	Uh she just doesn't like talk on the phone.
	That's that's fine.
	Then then don't mention it.
	Clearly, though, you're implying that the money is real and it's significant and it's having an impact on your life.
	On there.
	Okay.
	Because I was in fine jewelry years ago, and I bought a Jake collection about 20 years ago and it sat there.
	I wasn't doing anything because I had gotten into costume jewelry.
	And now now you I I've got we've got to get to the break here, but I appreciate the call.
	I I mean, you just hear stories like this, and you understand that we have an ability to make the economy work in this country, and we have an ability to connect creators of products and customers, and government didn't do anything to facilitate this happening.
	Mark Bellingham for Rush.
	You know, I was talking about how the internet has allowed capitalism to thrive in ways that we haven't imagined.
	eBay, people doing business there.
	People selling their stuff on Etsy, StubHub allows people to resell tickets to sporting events and concerts and so on.
	There's a zillion others, plus the free stuff like Craigslist and so on.
	That's the good side.
	Here's the bad side.
	Louisville, Kentucky.
	I think this mall is called Mall St. Matthews shopping center Saturday night.
	They had a close early.
	According to the Associated Press, up to 2,000 teens descended on this mall and created mayhem.
	Let me read from the AP story.
	Dozens of officers from four police agencies responded to numerous reports of fights, harassment of customers, and store employees at other problems Saturday night that spread throughout the shopping center, said Officer Dennis McDonald, a spokesman for suburban St. Matthews Police.
	Police started receiving reports of disorderly conduct about 7 p.m.
	And the situation quickly escalated.
	About an hour later, the decision was made to close the mall early, but teens tried to prevent some businesses from shutting their doors.
	No arrests were made, but it wasn't for lack of criminal activity, McDonald said Sunday.
	We were largely outnumbered.
	Our focus was on restoring order and dispersing the crowd.
	And we were focused on the safety of patrons out of our fellow officers.
	Clearly, if they were assaulting innocent people, police would have made arrests.
	Police received reports of gunshots fired, but could not confirm whether the shots were actually fired, McDonald said.
	They reopened the mall yesterday with additional security.
	Why'd this happen?
	If you go deeper into the story, the story says that appears that teens used social media as the disturbances continued.
	So in other words, they were posting on social media, come down to the mall, cause trouble.
	That's how you get the numbers up to 2,000.
	They talk about flash mobs.
	There's been some suggestion that some of the violence that occurred this past summer in Chicago was fueled by social media get on the internet and suggest that y'all come down here and cause trouble.
	It does cut both ways.
	I said I would talk about the governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe.
	Thank you.
	Here's what he's done.
	Virginia, like every other state in the nation, allows people who have permits to carry concealed weapons.
	For the longest time, Virginia has had reciprocity.
	Reciprocity essentially means that if you have a permit to carry a weapon in your state, you therefore would have a permit to be able to carry the weapon in Virginia.
	I actually am a C CW holder from Wisconsin.
	If I had reciprocity with Virginia, it would mean I would be able to legally carry a gun concealed.
	And CCW means just that, concealed carry weapons in Virginia.
	McAuliffe has unilaterally stripped the reciprocity, meaning that anybody who has a permit in another state cannot legally carry in the state of Virginia.
	Story quotes a Republican state senator from Virginia named Bill Carrico.
	I absolutely think it's absurd.
	I think it's a threat to the people of Virginia that have concealed carry handgun permits, reciprocity from other states.
	This is all political, and I hope people see that.
	A number of states say That they grant reciprocity to individuals from states that also give them reciprocity.
	So some states have a law that says if our people are allowed to carry in your state, your people are allowed to carry in our state.
	So this now affects people of Virginia because they're not going to be able to carry their guns when they go and visit other states because of that quirk in the law.
	You have on the left and in the Democratic Party an obsession with guns.
	Every headline that you read about gang violence or drug violence doesn't use the term gang, doesn't use the term drug.
	It uses the term gun as if it's the gun that somehow is causing the problem.
	I happen to be a passionate defender of concealed carry with caveats.
	I don't believe that anybody ought to carry a gun if they don't know how to use a gun.
	I also believe that somebody who makes the choice to carry a gun should be held responsible legally and morally for doing the right thing with that gun.
	But I do think a citizenry of law-abiding, honest, decent citizens carrying guns is safer than one that isn't.
	Guys like McAuliffe, who realize they can't do anything about the fact that their state allows concealed carry, every state in the nation now, all of them, there are some restrictions in some of these states, but every state in the nation has a law allowing some form of concealed carry.
	McCauliff can't do anything about that in Virginia.
	So he goes after the reciprocity to just try to foul things up and to play to his crowd without doing anything to address any type of violence problem that exists in his state.
	The people who commit crimes with grut with guns virtually never have permits to carry guns.
	Because if you're going to violate the law regarding violence, you're certainly going to be willing to violate the law that says you can carry the gun in the first place.
	I want to take some calls here in the remaining time I have on the Rush program.
	It's 1-800-282-2882 to uh Jacksonville, Florida, and Tom.
	Tom, you're on EIB with Mark Belling.
	Hello, Mark.
	Hope you're doing well.
	I'm great.
	Thanks.
	I was listening earlier when a gentleman called about, concerned about the small proportion of people in a sample size.
	And how that uh reflected on the accuracy of the polls.
	But uh the two important things that go into the ability of a poll are sample size and randomness.
	And if the poll is done properly with uh getting a good random sample, then one thousand is fine, whether you're talking about a population size of Rhode Island or a population size of California, one thousand people from a properly constructed sampling would give you a plus or minus three percent margin of error.
	Here's here's the problem with, and you just mentioned the key part, the properly constructed poll.
	The hard thing to do when you're measuring public opinion the year before anybody votes is you have no idea whether or not the people you're going to you're talking to, remember this is a national poll, whether or not they're they'll ever become a voter.
	I think California's primary is in June.
	I mean, the race could be decided by then.
	That person might never be a voter.
	So you're doing a national poll and trying to extrapolate this into a series of local contests that occur at different times during the calendar.
	That's what I think makes this tricky.
	For example, right now Ted Cruz is winning in Iowa, but he's not winning in the national polling.
	Let's imagine Cruz wins Iowa and Kasich or Christie pulls an upset in New Hampshire.
	It would mean that the first two states went to a candidate other than, say, Trump who's leading in the polls.
	There will be an impact on the polls from that.
	Once people start to vote, these polls are going to jump around.
	I do agree with you that if you do a poll well, you ought to be able to do it with a smaller sample size like that.
	But we also know that with regard to the Republican race for president right now, these polls are all over the map.
	The one consistent is they've all shown Trump in the lead.
	But look, Carson had his lead for the longest time.
	I just think public opinion is really, really volatile.
	And I think almost nobody, some people have, but almost nobody.
	I think less than 15% have absolutely for certain made up their mind who they're going to vote for for president.
	And the reason that more Have it is they don't have to yet.
	I mean, even Iowa, which has a caucus and not a primary, that's still five weeks away.
	New Hampshire's six weeks away.
	I live in Wisconsin.
	Ours isn't until April.
	There's no real need for somebody to make a firm decision.
	People are answering with to these pollsters what they like now or who they feel like now.
	When it comes time to voting, the field is thinned.
	The campaigning goes on in their own states.
	Their opinion may be the same as it is right now, or it might be quite different.
	I talk about, thank you for the call.
	I talk about the experience of Scott Walker, my governor from Wisconsin.
	He gave this speech in Iowa a year ago.
	He skyrockets to the top of every poll.
	If he wasn't first, he was second.
	He goes out on the campaign, he made a bunch of mistakes.
	He went from first or second to below 1% in two or three months, which is probably as it should be.
	The year before that you're you're polling people on who they support in an election in which they won't actually vote until a year later.
	And you're polling them about people that in most cases they don't know all that much about.
	If you follow the news closely, you know about Ted Cruz's career.
	I find myself talking about presidential politics, and I wanted to make us a safe zone from that, but the polling got us onto it.
	You know, some people have an impression on Cruz from what he's done in Texas, but not a lot of people know his life story.
	Not a lot of people have seen how he conducts himself.
	Not a lot of people have seen him debating.
	People remember him from the filibuster, a couple of other things, and those are people who are really aware.
	The average voter's not that familiar.
	What we've done is we've elevated this year year prior with all the debates that we're holding and all the constant polls that we're taking into a primary in and of itself.
	The reality is that we're going to have actual elections.
	They're going to start very soon, and they may produce results that are radically different from these polls.
	My name is Mark Belling, and I'm your guest host on EIB.
	I'm like a dog that's always sniffing around trying to figure out what things things are.
	I'm looking here in the studio.
	There's an umbrella stuck in the handle of the broadcast console.
	Whose umbrella is this?
	None of you know.
	There's an umbrella here.
	It's just sitting here.
	There's an umbrella.
	There one it's been suggested that it's something that an Englishman would do.
	Are you saying that this might be Mark Stein's umbrella and he left it here?
	He did once go home to New Hampshire or Vermont or Connecticut or wherever, whatever wilderness he's in with the bathroom key.
	So he left his umbrella here.
	Hey, I've I've left my laptop here, that's true.
	And the staff account, I almost want to kind of a finder's keeper sort of thing.
	Also, I'm sitting on the table here and printing this giant letters, Mark Belling on Monday, you are back on Tuesday.
	Well, did one of you write this out for Stein, or is he referring to himself in the third person by writing you are back on.
	Anyway, that is my kind of nice way of mentioning that the great Mark Stein, who is really good at doing this, is going to be uh filling in for Rush.
	Come on.
	This has to be his umbrella.
	It's it's a really good.
	It's a really good way to find out is if I swipe the thing, or just leave with the bathroom key so that he can't use that.
	Yes, I have left things here.
	I almost always leave things here.
	Let me uh get back to the news.
	This is one of those stories.
	Remember when before we went to war with Iraq, back in the 80s, Iran and Iraq had their war, and you kind of rooted for both sides because you were rooting for neither.
	Well, here's a story like this.
	Al Sharpton wants Rahmanuel to resign as mayor of Chicago.
	This is what this is one of those where you just, okay.
	It's what you wanted Bernie Sanders and Hillary to do if Bernie wasn't such a wussy.
	If Bernie actually was trying to run for president, those debates would be pretty good instead, he doesn't even try to compete.
	Al Sharpton going after Rahmanuel.
	There are no good guys here.
	Have at it.
	I think Emmanuel needs to fire back.
	How dare Al Sharpton stick his beak in from New York and butt into what's going on in Chicago?
	The guy who lied about the whole Toronto Brawley thing, now he wants to come in and create trouble in Chicago.
	And I think Al Sharpton ought to fire back that Rahm Emanuel ran for mayor of Chicago and said he was a sizable African American population, and is now presiding over a police department that's just gunning people down recklessly, and he ought to go after they ought to fight this out.
	In seriousness or at least semi seriousness, there's a story here.
	Almost every one of these cities where you have these controversies over police shootings.
	And I think in most instances, these police shootings were either.
	I don't want to generalize, so I'm not going to make that comment.
	But in almost every one of these cities where there are these controversies over police shootings and the larger question of the governance of the police department, almost all of them, in fact, all of them, they're all blue cities.
	They're all cities that are run by liberals.
	This is a mess entirely within liberalism.
	Caught in the middle, I contend, are police officers who I fear are going to end up being so unwilling to pull their trigger that they're not going to be able to protect their communities, and some of them may be killed in the process.
	But the problem itself, everywhere that you look is a liberal involved in this.
	Look at the city of Baltimore.
	It's been run by liberals forever.
	Chicago.
	It's had a Democratic mayor as long as it's had mayors, for heaven's sakes.
	So now Sharpton is going after Emmanuel trying to blame Emmanuel for what's going on with the Chicago police department.
	Rahmanuel was former chief of staff for Bill Clinton.
	You all know who Al Sharpton is.
	Know this story.
	El Jazeera is reporting that Peyton Manning and a number of other prominent athletes took steroids like human growth hormone.
	Peyton Manning angrily denied.
	Al Jazeera is now reporting this?
	Normally they're shilling for terrorists.
	When did El Jazeera start covering sports?
	Peyton Manning, of course, is denying this.
	He ought to just say, Al Jazeera?
	I know I have to answer to El Jazeira if you saw the story.
	They put some guy on who they claimed was a former doctor of pharmacy at some clinic in Indiana.
	It turns out that the guy was just an intern.
	He's not a doctor of anything.
	He's recanted all of the allegations.
	I don't know if I'm one of these guys who thinks that almost every one of these athletes is on something.
	I'm a cynic.
	I don't know if Peyton Manning was on any of this stuff.
	I don't know if any of the other people were named.
	What I do know is this.
	I am not going to trust my reporting on sports in America to El Jazeera, a news organization that has proven its willingness to bias on the most compelling and important issues that we have.
	Peyton Manning has to answer.
	El Jazeera.
	We used to make fun of the New York Times and the other media implying that they are Al Jazeera.
	Now El just raining on their own territory.
	My name is Mark Belling, and I'm sitting in for Rush Land.
	Al Jazeera.
	Who would you believe?
	El Jazeera or MSNBC.
	Like if Al Jazeero reported tomorrow that Cincinnati beat Denver in the Monday Night Football Game tonight, and El Jazeiro reported Denver beat Cincinnati.
	In other words, if MSNBC said one thing and El Jazeiro said the other as to who won the game, wouldn't you just kind of have to lean to it?
	Must have been a tie.
	Anyway, if you uh missed any of Russia's programs last week, they're all on Russia 24-7 for those of you who'd like to sign up for that.
	If you'd like your fix on Rush while he's on vacation this week, as I said, Mark Stein's going to be in tomorrow.
	It was a lot of fun doing the program today.
	And even though Christmas is over, if you've been grant listening to the entire program, you will understand this message.

▲