All Episodes
Previous Next
May 9, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:46
May 9, 2016, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And North Carolina governor is turning right around and suing the DOJ on this bathroom law that they passed.
The DOJ, the Obama Justice Department gave Colorado three days essentially to throw that bill out.
What people don't know is that it's not just North Carolina they gave three days.
They gave everybody three days.
And the DOJ gets their way, every business, 15 employees or more, is going to have to have unisex bathrooms, and anybody can go into whatever bathroom they want, depending on how they identify or want to present that day.
The solution here might be that the uh you know North Carolina governor could say that we don't identify as North Carolina anymore, and therefore your lawsuit against us is irrelevant.
We're not North Carolina.
We don't we don't identify that way as long as your lawsuit.
I mean, it's absurd here.
What do you mean the way I want to present one day?
Or the uh uh.
So North Carolina, I just turn it right around.
You know what?
We do not identify as North Carolina for the length of your suit.
You can't do that exactly.
Hi, folks, how are you?
Great to have you back.
Great to be back after a weekend away, 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program.
Well, we got breaking news.
Trump says he can win the White House without unifying the Republican Party.
Trump says that he might get rid of Paul Ryan running the convention.
Paul Ryan says, hey, I will step down if Trump asks me to step down.
I will not be the convention chairman.
If Trump wants me to go, I'll go.
And I I guarantee you there's gonna be a lot of uh Trumpists are gonna be, yeah, right on, you you you do that, you skedaddle.
Um we we just have unending Trump and Republican Party news today.
They give me a sample here, just to run through some of the headlines.
One of the big themes in the drive-by media over the weekend is that Trump, and we're gonna sort through all this today, by the way, as the program unfolds before your very eyes and ears, but the drive-bys are uh trying to say that Trump may be moderating his positions, specifically on taxing the rich and raising the minimum wage.
But the AP has taken it even a step further than the rest of their brethren in the drive-by media.
They have an article that has the headline Trump as nominee improves odds for parts of Obama's legacy.
And the AP story claims that Trump is probably gonna preserve Obamacare and the Iran deal, as well as Obama's outreach to Cuba and even Obama's push for transgenders.
That's an AP story.
Now there's no doubt what they're doing.
They're trying to drive a wedge between Trump and his supporters.
I don't know how much of that that uh you want to believe.
But uh if if all of that's true, why is the GOP establishment up in arms?
I mean, if that's if all of that is true, if everything the AP is reporting about what Trump's agenda is, well, it's right in line with the GOP establishment, or pretty close to what they would do.
Uh, anyway.
Anyway, it's getting hot and heavy, and it's it's becoming apparent to me, and I didn't think it would take long, but it's becoming apparent to me that the drive-by media is gonna shift course here, and they are going to try to take Trump out.
Um I think I think they've probably been humiliated and embarrassed over how they seem to be lapdogs for Trump during the campaign.
And it there's also the possibility that they did this on purpose, uh, like they did with McCain to set everybody up every the end of the day, they're gonna be pushing the Clinton agenda and the Clinton campaign, the Clinton candidacy, which is the odds are.
But don't forget, this is the bunch.
This is the this is the group that the White House, this Ben Rhodes guy admits that there's nobody in the White House press corps that knows anything.
They're 27 years old, they don't know anything about foreign policy.
The individuals, the media people, the journalists, they don't know anything.
You can lie to them left and right and they'll just believe it because they're they're ideologically predisposed to believe and support Democrats.
So this guy Ben Rhodes said, you know, we've lied through our teeth.
He didn't use those words.
We said, we basically just made stuff up about the Iran deal.
We knew they'd believe it and carry the water, and they did.
He said, most of these White House press corps people are 27 years old, average age, and their sum total of their political experience is covering campaigns and uh and candidates, which makes sense.
I mean, if you're going to have a White House press corps, state control media, and you're going to have it cover the White House, why not have people in there who are used to covering campaigns?
And remember, the way the leftist media covers campaigns, they don't expose the left.
They simply the template is the Daily Soap opera.
Will our people win?
Will our guy prevail?
In the old uh theory I gave you, the McGuffin in any story is what the hero wants.
And the hero in the drive-by's are covering is always the Democrat.
Doesn't matter.
Hillary Obama.
So what the hero wants becomes the focal point of the story, i.e.
coverage, not what the hero is proposing.
And the illustration, all during Obamacare, you never once saw the drive-bys expose it.
They never talked about what was in it.
That was left to us to do.
That was left to alternative media.
That was left to outside the beltway media, but the inside the Butway Media, the White House press corps, and the drive-by media never once reported on the substance, the contents of Obamacare.
The coverage was always will Obama win.
Will Obama get what he wants?
And of course, with every story where there's a hero, there's a villain.
And the Republican Party or the Republican candidate is always the villain.
Will the villain deny our hero what he wants?
And that's it.
That is the sum total of coverage.
Well, I always call it the daily soap opera that suffices as the daily news agenda in the uh in the drive-by media.
So we have we have the AP now trying to drive a huge wedge between Trump and his supporters by essentially saying Trump's selling out on everything.
Except trade.
He hadn't sold out on trade yet, but the intimation is that that's coming.
And he hasn't, he hasn't sold out on immigration in the wall yet, but that's coming.
He's not going to change.
He wants to raise tax on the rich.
He wants to raise the minimum wage.
Trump is offering alternative answers to these things, depending on the hour and the day.
And then we have the Paul Ryan Contrithome.
Oh, yeah, the Facebook, but yeah, yeah, yeah.
See, this doesn't surprise me.
I these is I have to I have to guard against doing this Facebook story and reacting to it like, yeah, really, this is a price.
I don't mean to be smug about this.
What we've learned is that a bunch of former curators at Facebook, they've got their news feed.
What's it called?
The Facebook news feed.
Of all the three of you, you're not Facebookers in there.
Well, they need to rename the name fake book.
It's not fake, it's fake book, because what these former news curators, and believe me, gobs of people get their news every day from Facebook.
You know, Facebook readers read the news, find out what they like, put it in their feeds, pass it on, it gets spread throughout the fake book membership.
What we found is it's curated.
The news feeds curated by fake book employees.
And a bunch of former fake book employees said we routinely suppressed conservative news.
You know who exposed this?
The Gawker bunch.
Gizmod, the tech site of Gauker.
Gawker, that's the outfit that lost the suit to the Hulkster.
Hulk Hogan.
Of all people, Gizmodo, where you don't find too much conservatism, but I don't think you find any.
Conservative, if they found one in Gizmodo, I shudder to think what would happen to the guy or the girl.
I mean, it'd probably feel like you're watching some scene on Game of Thrones to see what they would do to the person.
Anyway, I don't mean to distract myself.
Facebook workers routinely suppress news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social networks influential trending news section, according to a former journalist who worked on the fake book project.
This individual says that workers at fake book prevented about CPAC, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other Lois Lerner's name apparently never made fake book.
For example, the people that read fake book had no idea who she is.
The people that read fake book never really were brought up to speed on the IRS scandal against the Tea Party.
Several former fake book news curators, as they were known internally, told Gizmodo they were instructed to artificially inject selected stories into the fake book trending news module, even if they weren't popular enough to warrant inclusion, or in some cases they weren't trending at all.
In other words, if it was dull, if it was dead news, if it wasn't trending, if it wasn't spreading through the user base, the curators would put it in there anyway to advance the leftist agenda and harm the conservative agenda.
This does not, does this come to surprise anybody?
No, I know it makes you mad, but does it come as a surprise?
When's the last conservative you heard of being invited to a commencement speech at a major university?
When's the last conservative you remember being allowed to speak on campus at all that they didn't attempt to hoot and holler and boo them off the stage?
Speaking of which, there have been we're in the midst of a spate of stories written by leftists who are starting to wring their hands over the suppression of conservatism on campus.
Nicholas Christoph in the New York Times yesterday has a piece, which I will share with you as the program unfolds.
You might recall a couple of weeks ago there was a piece that that uh it was fairly popular within the drive-by's.
The website Vox, and it was a story by one of the writers at Vox Media about how there's way too much smugness in liberalism.
There's too much arrogance, there's too much superiority, and they just disregard anything that they don't agree with and so forth.
And it's not a one-off.
I'm starting to see this in more and more places with Nick Christoph in the New York Times being the most recent.
And I've I've been thinking, what could be causing this?
Because by the way, in every one of these instances, like Vox and Nicholas Christoph, they don't blame themselves.
No, no, no.
This suppression of conservatism on campus and elsewhere in the media.
No, no, they're not responsible for it.
No, no.
They haven't stigmatized conservatives.
No, no.
They're just commenting now on how unfortunate it is.
But what's driving this?
Because I refuse to believe they actually care about fairness and conservatism being fairly treated and represented in the media.
You know what I think it is?
Which I will also explain in greater detail as the program unfolds.
I think it's the Bernie Sanders campaign.
I think what's happened is that the mainstream left is scared to death of all these millennial leftist kids off the reservation for Bernie and what is being learned about them, what they don't know, what they believe.
Now you might find it strange for me to say that mainstream leftists can think other leftists are too far to the left.
That's not exactly what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is they are they're they're they're little they're concerned that they think they're the smartest people in the world, don't forget.
And they're looking at the Bernie supporters as don't illogical.
It makes no sense.
Bernie's an oddball, he's a cook, he's not going anywhere.
And they look at the average Bernie Sanders supporter or your Black Lives Matter person, and they think they're dealing with dumbed down idiots, which are tough to control, because the dumbed down idiots think they are hyper supereducated.
Anyway, uh it's for later in the program, but it's something that's that's starting to increase here in its frequency.
Left-wing media types all of a sudden feeling sorry.
Well, that may Not be totally correct, but concerned over how conservatives have been treated for years on campus primarily, but also within the general day-to-day population.
And now this at fake book.
Now we have all these people coming out that used to work there saying, yeah, we suppressed conservatism.
Yeah, well, that's nothing new.
Conservatism's been suppressed throughout the drive-by media or misrepresented or lied about or stigmatized.
It's just now that people are coming out and admitting it.
So what do you think is going on, folks?
What's driving?
I know some of you, the Trump campaign rush, Trump's doing it.
That's why they're scared of Trump, maybe.
We'll see what you uh think about it.
So Paul Ryan and Trump, big contradict.
A theory that I espoused on Friday made the drive-by media on the weekend and some of the Sunday shows where others were asked to respond to it.
So we'll take a break, we'll come back and get started with that aspect of all this.
The Cruz campaign is out now saying, too, that they think they might have been able to stop Trump if Rubio had become Cruz's running mate.
Now, that would have required Rubio getting out before the Florida primary, which was March 15th, and Rubio wasn't going to do that.
We have no indication that Rubio was ever interested in such a thing.
Uh it raises some other questions as well.
So, as you can see, folks, our plate today is full.
A veritable smorgasbord, a buffet of things to choose from.
And you can't go wrong because whatever I choose is going to be right up your alley for the rest of the program.
We'll be right back and continue after this.
Donald Trump saying that he had nothing to do with Sarah Palin endorsing Paul Ryan's primary opponent.
The Mama Bear, the Mama Grizzly is out there saying that she's going to join any effort to canter Paul Ryan.
He does have a primary opponent for his seat in the House of Representatives.
Trump saying, I have nothing to do with that.
Nothing to do with Sarah Palin endorsing Ryan's primary opponent.
Also, Paul Ryan has written an op-ed blasting Obama's Iran deal, saying Obama misled the country.
That may that may be the most strident criticism of Obama we've heard from an elected Republican, and I don't know how long.
You believe that.
Well, the Speaker of the House actually said that Obama misled the country.
Holy smokes.
If this keeps up, he may actually say Obama lied to the country.
It's the same thing.
Look at here's what we had.
Don't forget, we had Jonathan Gruber who lied to everybody about Obamacare and was bragging about how he got away with it.
Remember that?
Gruber was running around proudly at cocktail parties where people had open mics, bragging about how they were able to lie to people and convince them that all kinds of things about Obamacare were not true or were true that were not.
And now we got Ben Rhodes admitting that, hey, we told all kinds of falsehoods about the Iran nuclear deal.
Big one being, we said that we were dealing with moderates.
We weren't dealing with the extreme Ayatollahs in Iran.
No, no, no.
We had found some moderates in Iran who uh were reasonable and responsible, and we were able to deal with it turns out that wasn't true at all.
They were dealing with the Ayatollahs and the extremist hardliners, the anti-American death to America faction in Iran all along.
And did you hear what the haughty John Kerry said in a commencement speech?
You know, for every time the drive-bys do a story that's designed to drive a wedge between Trump and his supporters.
Something comes along to undermine them.
And this one is the haughty John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, by the way, Secretary of State, who actually said in a college commencement address, that we are all aiming for a borderless world, a world without borders.
And this will not come as a shock to anybody.
This is exactly what everybody is afraid that globalists want.
This is exactly what people think is all tied up in these never-ending trade deals and the never-ending illegal immigration, the numbers of which just continue to expand.
A world without borders.
John Kerry is out there saying so.
And so when that happens, all Trump's got to do is point to what powerful Democrats and powerful members of the establishment, powerful members of the ruling class are saying.
And it just cements his support, even greater.
Greetings, welcome back, El Rushbow on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
Great to have you here.
Here's the quote from the haughty John Kerry, who once served in Vietnam.
Quote, the future demands from us something more than a nostalgia for some rose-tinted version of the past that did not really exist in any case.
You are about to graduate into a complex and borderless world.
So I guess we imagine we had borders back in the rose-tinted days.
I guess we imagined a simpler and more functional and happier place that had borders.
It wasn't true then, and it's not true now, and it's going to be even less true in the future.
But I'll tell you, Kerry needs to tell that to his European buddies who are busy putting their borders back up as fast as they can.
Fast as the EU will let them.
Two prominent House allies of Paul Ryan broke with the speaker Friday over his decision to withhold support from the Trumpster, comments that point to a growing split among congressional Republicans over how to deal with Trump.
Representatives Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia, Dennis Ross of Florida.
By the way, they're both house whips, told the politico in interviews on Friday they disagreed with Ryan's decision to break with Trump in a bombshell interview a day earlier.
Let's go to the audio sound bites.
On Fox and Friends Weekend Saturday, they played a clip from this program from me to set up their discussion on this.
This is the clip that they aired.
If Trump, in order to get Ryan's support, moves toward the Republican agenda, it's not good for Trump.
That would be an error.
It would be maybe even an unforced error.
Trump is where he is precisely because he's not perceived as being part of that.
If there's compromise here, it better be not Trump moving to Ryan.
I know that's blasphemy to some, but I'm sorry it is what it is.
Clayton Morris at the Fox News Channel reacted, and we have Tucker Carlson, affectionately known here as Chatsworth Osborne Jr., also weighing in.
It's the truth.
I totally agree with him.
Millions of actual Republican voters just voted for Donald Trump.
Who's to say what it is to be a Republican?
Republican voters are just weighed in on that question.
Look, Donald Trump needs help.
He's never run for office before.
People like Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney could be helping him.
What about the millions of people who voted for him?
I feel like the Republican leadership is saying to them we don't want you in our party.
We consider you morally suspect and socially beyond the pale.
We don't want you in our club.
I think it's a bad message to send to voters.
That's pretty much what I think.
I mean, I think that's what all this establishment stuff is all about.
You know, it's a the important thing to remember about the establishment, too, folks.
This is a key element of it, by the way.
And that is that rising in it, progressing in it, climbing the ladder in the establishment is not much to do with merit.
And this is one of the things people have figured out about it.
It's more due to connections and networking, which inexorably leads to privilege based on who you know, based on your family ties based on now, this is not unique to the establishment.
These kinds of things exist in every structure of human beings, be it in a city, be it in a school, be it in a college, a high school, or whatever, there's always the big click, and there's always the uh the unsullied and the outcasts and what have you.
There's always the ruling class in any organization whatsoever.
But here, at the highest levels of our country, where we're supposed to have the absolute best and the smartest, uh, according to textbook, we're supposed to be the best and the brightest running things.
And they are supposed to be interested in genuine national interest, not self-interest.
But it's it the perception is that it is devolved to self-interest.
And I'll tell you what, when you can get yourself in a situation where you can climb a ladder of success without having your merit judged, that's that's the creme de la creme.
When you can advance by how good a brown noser you are, or who you know and how you know, and what kind of things that uh you can make happen, whatever your connections are.
This is what they're all afraid of losing.
This is what they want no part of.
So when when Chatsworth here says that, you know, Ryan and these guys, they ought to be helping Trump.
They ought to be doing everything they can to help Trump win.
Yeah, common sense would say the Republican Party has a nominee.
They want to beat Democrats, they want to beat Mrs. Clinton, but that's not the first and primary concern here.
The first and primary concern is holding on to that establishment.
Can I give you some numbers?
I was reminded of this by a friend.
Trump is, according to the latest polling data, he's down, and you're in the real clear politics average of polls.
He's down six and a half points to Hillary right now.
When you average them all out.
And because of that, there is panic in the Republican establishment.
And I know you've run into it same as I have.
It seems to be in the establishment side, universal that Trump's going to lose in a landslide, right?
It's going to be so bad that we're going to lose the House.
It's going to be so bad we might lose the Senate.
It's going to be so bad it may be a total wipeout.
Oh my God, oh my God.
It's Panic City.
As we discussed on Friday.
I've never seen it like this.
I have never seen the panic this deep, this acute.
I have never seen the pessimism this pessimistic.
It is noteworthy.
I've never seen it.
I've all is lost.
Everything we've gained.
Now we realize it wasn't much, say some conservatives, everything we've gained is gone.
Trump's the nominee.
I don't have the capacity for that kind of fatalism.
Just in my in my natural existence.
I don't have that the capacity for that amount of negativism.
Some people thrive in it.
Um, it takes all kinds.
Some people it energizes them.
It what it's what motivates them.
I don't have it.
I just don't have the capacity for that kind of negativism because it's it's paralyzing.
But here's the thing.
When Bob Dole secured the Republican nomination in 1996, he was 17.5 points down to Bill Clinton.
And there was no panic in the establishment.
They were happy.
They were ecstatic.
Bob Dole finally was paid back for all of his sacrifices from the battlefield to the Senate to whatever he had helped the Republican establishment do.
It was his turn to get the presidential nomination, and he got it.
He was 17 and a half points down, and there was no panic.
There was no fatalism.
There was no it's over.
There was no, oh my God, that's it for conservatism.
Oh my God, we've got to stop and start.
Oh my God.
No, no, they were happy.
Everybody no, I'm talking about the establishment types.
You and I weren't.
We saw the bloodbath that was to come.
Now, Dole ended up gaining nine points from that 17 and a half now, but he still got beat in a landslide.
Remember, that was the campaign where during one of the debates, those out there asking, where's the outrage?
Where's the outrage over Lewinsky and all the stuff that Clinton had done and gotten away with?
Where's the outrage?
And Clinton replied in a famous debate retort.
He looked at the camera, he bit his lower lip, and he said, No attack ever fed a hungry child.
Yeah!
The audience went nuts and clapped and applauded.
Oh my god, it was orgasm city.
No attack ever fed a hungry child.
And that was it for Dole.
It was over.
It was over before it started.
Now Trump's only six and a half points down, and yet just compare the two.
I offer these polling data stats to illustrate to you that Dole never had a prayer of beating Clinton.
It was never going to be in the cards, and there wasn't any panic.
There wasn't even any sadness at the establishment level.
Now it's the exact opposite.
One more soundbite here on this Ryan business before we have to take a break.
This is Charlie Dent.
He is a member of Congress and Pennsylvania's Republican.
And he was on CNN with uh Michael Smirconish on Saturday.
Smirkanish said, Charlie Rush, doesn't Rush Limbaugh have a point here that by saddling up to the establishment, all of a sudden he alienates Trump here.
If he meaning, if if Trump decides to compromise with Ryan by moving toward Ryan, rather than Ryan moving to Trump.
His question to Charlie Dent is doesn't Rush have a point?
I mean, that by saddling up to the establishment, all of a sudden Trump will alienate the very base that got him this far?
I would perhaps respectfully disagree with Rush Limbaugh on that point.
Look at foreign policy.
You know, Donald Trump has talked about withdrawing from NATO.
I think that would be a huge mistake.
He's also talked about a number of other issues in that regard that are very unsettling to me.
His foreign policy uh statement a week or so ago on America first.
I mean, that has negative connotations back from the 1930s.
Those are the things that maybe Paul Ryan wants to talk about, as well as this economic isolationism, which many of us think is a failed course of action.
You know, this America Firstness.
I knew this is going to happen too.
Uh make America great again, uh, America first.
For those of you that that are not aware.
Loosely speaking here, the phrase American first, America first, dates to World War II.
And it was uttered by people who had no desire to stop Hitler, no desire to enter the war in the European theater to stop Hitler.
Their phrase was America first.
We don't need to be taking a little concerns of everybody around the world.
Screw it.
And over time, America first has acquired this isolationist.
We don't even care if Hitler takes over the world as long as he didn't threaten us, fine with us.
And so, in an attempt here to denigrate Trump, they're trying to equate make America great again with this America first business, as though it's just unspeakably unacceptable.
Only a Rube and no nothing would talk like that, putting America first and make America great again.
So, you know, they got one more of these, but I have to take a break.
And uh after that, your phone calls show up.
So hang in.
We'll be right back.
Bye.
Bye.
you Thank you.
You know, actually who it was that ran first on the whole on the phrase uh America first was Woodrow Wilson, well-known progressive favorite of the left, way, way back in 1912, internationalist hero.
Woodrow Wilson ran on America first, but the modern incarnation of American first, America first is uh it's used to denigrate Anybody who says it by trying to tie it to people who supposedly had no problem with Hitler.
Running roughshod all over Europe.
It was we don't need to get involved in that.
Leave us alone.
Leave us out of it.
Concern in the world there.
Not our problem.
And of course, Hitler is everybody's problem today.
And anybody who didn't want to stop Hitler is some sort of a reprobate of the first order, which is the attempted application today.
Here's uh here's Chris in Chast in South Carolina as we head to the phones.
Great to have you on the phone with us, sir.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
When I read the John Kerry statement that he was saying, oh, we're looking for a borderless world.
I I wanted to get your take on the motivation.
Is it that in a borderless world everything would be so out of control that the only thing we could do is turn the big government to keep it all in check, or is it based in their warped view of fairness?
Because in a borderless world, it just sounds unsafe and chaotic to me.
And I just wanted to know what from your perspective is appealing about it to liberals.
Well, it's not just my perspective, it happens to be the gospel.
This is the gospel truth.
The reason people like uh the haughty John Kerry served in Vietnam believe in a borderless world, a reason why any progressive or leftist would say they believe in a borderless world.
First, there are many reasons, and you mentioned some of them, but the driving intellectual force behind the belief is that America is the problem in the world, that there is no American exceptionalism, and that America as a superpower unbalances the world in ways that makes people poor and enslaved.
America steals most of the world's resources, these people believe.
America subjugates most of the people in the world to the American way, and of course, we shouldn't have that kind of arrogance, and we shouldn't have that kind of power, because we are flawed from our beginning.
We have no moral authority on anybody.
We have no moral authority, no matter how big we are, as a fact, the fact that we are a superpower status, have superpower status, is in fact the indictment.
And it is what unbalances the world.
Madeline Albright, when the Soviet Union imploded the Communist Soviet Union, the Berlin Wall came down, she went on TV wringing her hands out there, Chris, and she was fretting that this meant a destabilized world.
That we needed at least one other superpower to keep the United States in check.
And she's an American, a former Secretary of State.
So the first thing that would that would explain people like John Kerry and anybody else who believes it, a borderless world, is we got to cut America down to size.
That's the UN reason to exist, to fleece the U.S. and to cut us down to size.
Now, by having no borders, the second thing that is therefore indicated is a world government.
A singular globalist government.
If there are no borders, then you also have no what?
No nations.
You have no countries, you have no nation states, and therefore you have no sovereignty.
And if you have no borders, there's no way that you can say that X piece of real estate is your country.
So the really smart people of the world will assume leadership in the global government, the seat of which will be in Brussels or somewhere over there at The Hague, someplace where all of these faux sophisticates can run around in what they think is utopia, Western Europe.
And they'll be issuing their diktats and their dick their their requirements and laws and pronouncements from there.
And it's you if you if you get rid of the United States, if you succeed in eliminating the U.S. and its borders and what else, you have also just destroyed the loan engine of liberty and freedom in the world.
And that, Chris, is what this is all about.
It's the things you mentioned are what they get to do after they succeed.
Control everybody, put down whatever they want to put down, promote whatever they want to promote.
But before they get there, they have to destroy the United States as a nation state with sovereignty.
First hour in the can on the way over to the Limbaugh Broadcast Museum, the virtual broadcast museum at rushlimbaug.com.
▲
Export Selection