All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 29, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:38
November 29, 2016, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back, folks.
It's it's just a delight to have you here with us, Rushlin Baugh, the EIB network, the most listened to radio talk show in the country.
The telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882 and the email address, Lrushbo at EIBNet.com.
So I got an interesting email.
I'm glad I got this email it's an email complaining.
Dear Rush, I can't believe that you are spending so much time on net neutrality.
What are you talking about?
We want to know what Trump's gonna do with Secretary of State and his flag burning comedy, and you're talking about TV.
And I'm glad I got this note.
You know why?
Ladies and gentlemen, now those of you who are regular listeners know this already, but we have a we have a tune-in factor here that is uh almost like it was when we began back in 1988, 89 and 90.
And that means there are a lot of people here listening without context.
This may be their first day, second day, third day, and they come here having heard all kinds of drivel about this program, so they're trying to figure it all out.
Let me tell you something straight up.
I never talk about things that don't matter.
I never talk about things that are unimportant.
I always talk about things that interest me.
And while net neutrality may not be front and center today, it's going to be once Trump's inaugurated and his FCC starts fixing the things Obama broke.
Not just the FCC, but all throughout this administration.
This is why I say if you listen to this program, you're going to be on the cutting edge, meaning you're going to hear about things here long before you hear of them in the mainstream.
And what's going to happen is sometime down the road, this net neutrality thing is going to blow up.
And you're, yeah, yeah, I know about Rush talked about that a couple months ago, is going to be your reaction to it.
Now I don't want to spend a whole lot more time on this right now, but it is key because what we do here is expose the left.
We deconstruct them and expose them.
They are ruining this country.
And they're doing it under the guise of transforming it and modernizing it and ridding it of the baggage of the founding, and it's horrible what they have been doing, and they have been doing it at every level of government and society and culture.
So this guy called and he wants to know why the techie's so upset about this, and he used Netflix in his example of various things that you can stream.
And he wanted to know why the left is so upset at ATT and the way they're offering their cable package.
By the way, ATT is taking a huge risk here.
Nobody really knows yet just how extensive so-called cord cutting is.
Well, the best indication we've got that it's real is the subscribers ESPN is losing.
They are losing some, they're over 600,000 subscribers down now.
Cable companies have to pay ESPN almost six dollars per subscriber.
That's three times what they have to pay for HBO or anything else.
And ESPN is losing gazillions of dollars with these cancellations.
Now, are they losing these people because people are tired of cable TV?
Are they losing because they're tired of ESPN becoming political sports?
We don't know yet.
We think we know, but we don't know.
Net neutrality is a big deal to the left because it puts the government in charge of the internet.
It puts the government in charge of content.
It lets the government choose what you can watch and what you can't watch and what you pay for it.
And that's bogus.
They want to take, in the name of competition, they want to take competition away from the net.
They're leftists.
They lie to you about what they want to do.
And some of the, like these little tech bloggers, may even be dupes.
They may not even know what they're doing.
They just think they do.
So when they talk about net neutrality promoting competition, who knows?
They may actually think that it does, but it doesn't.
If ATT wants to invest in some offering to consumers and offer a deal to Their existing subscribers, why shouldn't they be able to?
If you can't afford it, you can't afford it.
You know, I I don't know about you, folks.
When I was growing up, I never expected to be able to afford everything I wanted.
There's certain things I couldn't afford.
I didn't run around blasting those companies or those things.
I just decided I was going to have to, if I really wanted it, find a way to pay for it.
But that doesn't seem to be the attitude today.
The attitude today is if you want it, you should have it.
And if you can't afford it, it's not your fault.
It's the provider's fault because they're corporations and they rip you off and they kill you.
It's strict liberalism, which this program has taken on as a challenge to educate everybody about.
This ATT deal to me is highly intriguing.
I want to see if it works.
I want to see if they're able to make it work.
Online streaming, no interruptions, can they handle the load?
Are people that pay for it going to get what they want?
What are going to be the market concerns and reactions if they succeed?
You know, but Netflix.
The reason techies left Netflix is because it's cheap.
It's like nine bucks a month for everything in the next Netflix library.
But people who watch, for example, series television, network series TV, if they only watch it on Netflix, they watch it a year or two late.
You want to watch, say, I don't know, law and order SUV on Netflix, you'll watch this season in a year or two.
But some people think it's okay.
I don't need it to be current because I'm only paying nine bucks for it.
Well, this is going to be a direct competitor to Netflix, although it's going to cost more than Netflix does.
But Netflix is streamed just like this will be streamed.
The cord cutting generation hates cable TV because they think they're corporates, corporations, and they rip people off.
And they make you buy a bunch of channels you never watch in order to get the channels that you do watch.
And they've always said, we want to be a la carte, we want to be able to cord cut, we want to be able to watch what we want.
So it's now evolving.
Where if they only want to watch HBO, they can't, but they have to pay for it.
If they only want to watch Cinemax, they can't.
They have to pay for it.
It's turning out that buying all these things a la carte is going to cost them much more than the old-fashioned cable package was, and they're devastated and disappointed, and they can't believe it's working out that way.
So there's a there's to me here, there's there's a lot going on that's fascinating culturally, economically, and technologically in terms of innovation and advancement.
And there's also a lot of factors that that figure into this in terms of the way it's being reported to you.
You probably, if you're on the edge of things, you think net neutrality is a good thing.
Look at the way liberals name things.
Net neutrality, it's neutral.
It's like Switzerland, they don't take sides.
Everybody's fair, and everybody's the same.
It's not what it is.
Net neutrality rules are anti-consumer and anti-competitive.
By definition, liberals don't believe in competition, and you know that.
Competition is the root of all evil, as far as leftists are concerned, because there are winners and there are losers, and the losers are sad and disappointed, and that's unacceptable.
So everything must be the same.
Nobody can have more than anybody else, nobody be able to offer any more to anybody, nobody should have to pay more than anybody else, nobody should make more than anybody else.
Everything is supposed to be the same.
It's the only way it's there, it's the only way feelings don't get hurt.
And so when circumstances like that exist, they call that anti-competitive.
Anti-competitive means they can't afford it.
This is a if you're an ATT customer, it's a great deal.
If you're not, and you want this, and you cancel your Sprint, your Verizon T-Mobile, and you really want this and you cancel your existing.
Well, it's the free market, you should be able to do so if you want to.
This is how prices are kept down.
This is how this is how supply is plentiful and abundant, is with this ongoing competition.
But net neutrality is rooted in a number of leftist assumptions, and that is that all corporation is evil, that all profit is evil, and that all people in corporations are not people, because corporations Aren't people.
It's a gigantic ripoff.
Then you couple their own economic circumstances into this and the way they've been raised to thinking because they want it they should have it.
Then you get this so-called informed media and opinion about all this stuff.
But believe me, everything is fine.
I it I guess it's it rooted in in ways in the way people were raised, and it's generational.
I know it's different today than when I was growing up, and that's fine.
But I have never been somebody, even when I was earning $19,000 a year.
I never ran around whining and moaning what things cost.
What they cost was what they cost.
And if I couldn't afford it, then I had to find a way to afford it or forget about it for now, or what it just is the way it was.
You know, I'm the mayor of Realville.
I'm Mr. Literal.
And I never saw the benefit of complaining and whining and moaning.
I don't complain and whine and moan anyway, and I don't deal well with people that do.
I don't know how to react to complaining.
Other than say, oh, gee, I'm sorry.
I I don't know how to react to whining and moaning.
It kind of bothers me.
Uh and I don't do it myself.
Lord knows I got all kinds of things I could, I could I could spend the rest of this week whining and moaning if you wanted me to about things.
I just don't.
But it seems to me that a lot of people do, and I don't have much patience for it, particularly in in uh in matters like this.
But if you start with the presumptions that liberals do, that corporations are evil, and it it all descends from that, and that government is great, and that government's there to make sure corporations play fair and are not mean and don't rip people off.
There's there's truth in a little bit of truth in everything.
Some corporations are bad, some corporations have done bad things, but as a general rule, it's dangerous to subscribe to things like that.
At any rate, uh ATT's thing starts, they offer, I think it's yeah, it it it debuts tomorrow.
We'll see how it uh how it goes.
But you are gonna be hearing about this.
Because Trump is going to get rid of net neutrality.
His FCC is going to broom it.
And when that happens, you're gonna hear caterwalling like you haven't heard caterwalling, right along the lines I have been describing.
And when it happens, you're gonna be able to say, I know about this.
Rush told me about this all the way back in December.
Actually, November.
Now I want to grab a phone call here at this important subject.
It's Catherine in Austin.
I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello, Ross.
Thank you for taking my call.
I'm a minority and that Trump supporter from day one.
So nothing has changed my mind about him in the past.
But today, I'm worried about this tweet on people who are born in the American flag.
I don't like people who have a flag, but I think they have the right to do it.
It's the First Amendment's right.
So when Trump said that they should be put in jail or have their citizenship taken away, I think that's getting a little too totalitarian to me.
Mm-hmm.
I don't know what you think about that.
Um what you think is going on in his mind when he's tweeting that.
I'll tell you if you want to know.
Yes, of course.
I'd be glad to tell you.
Um but first, let me restate what it is that you are calling about, just so people are brought up to speed, and if you've not heard this, there's been some flag burning going on out there at various places, protests at pipelines and stuff, and Trump has seen it.
And he tweeted the following.
If they do, there must be consequences.
Perhaps loss of citizenship or a year in jail.
Exclamation point.
And so Catherine here, and an and you say you're a Trump supporter?
Yes, of course.
From day one.
Oh, okay, yes, of course.
But are you wavering now?
Is this making you nervous?
Are you thinking you might have made a mistake?
No, but I keep getting all uh kind of um criticism from my Facebook friends about him.
Screw that!
You gotta learn to ignore that.
I knew that was that's why uh patient here.
We would have to keep defending him on.
Look, I have run into this my Own self.
You know, people say bad things about me, Catherine, out there too.
And I've had people tell me, you know, Rush, I I I've been telling people to listen to you and listen to you, and I finally get them to do it, and then you say something so offensive, and they look at me, you listen to this, and I'm tired of defending you, Rush.
Why do you say stupid things like I've I know what this is like.
You have to ignore the Facebook stuff, and you must trust what your instincts are, Mr. Trump.
Let me ask you a question.
Honest answer here.
Do you really think Donald Trump wants to put somebody in jail for burning the flag?
It's in words.
People can post, you know, take a snapshot, post it anywhere.
No, no, no, no.
I don't care what other people do you think do you, Catherine in Austin.
I don't think so.
Okay.
Do you think that Donald Trump thinks that people that burn the flag should have their citizenship stripped from them?
I don't think so.
Okay, then don't be worried about it.
The only reason to worry is if you thought he meant it.
Forget these nerds on Facebook.
You're never gonna persuade them.
They're never gonna like Trump.
They're always gonna raz you about it.
They're losers.
Do not do not allow your happiness to be determined and defined by what these people on Facebook say.
They're trying to make you waver.
They're trying to weaken your support for Trump.
Let me read something to you from a former Supreme Court justice, the late Antonin Scalia.
You want to hear this?
Yes, please.
Scalia on flag burning.
In one of his last public events, Antonin Scalia of the United States Supreme Court explained why he cast the deciding vote in the Johnson case on the principle of a textual reading of the First Amendment.
He said, if it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal wearing scruffy bearded weirdo who burns the American flag.
But I'm not king.
He said this in November of 2015 in Philadelphia.
He said the same thing Trump said.
He said, I think every scruffy bearded, sandal wearing weirdo who burns the flag should be in jail.
But he knew he couldn't do it.
He wasn't king.
He knew it was never going to happen, and Scalia knows that freedom of speech has consequences.
And the consequences of freedom of speech are speech you don't like, that you don't want to hear, that you don't want to listen.
But Scalia was saying, and Trump knows this as well.
The answer to it is not to punish him, to shut him up, to put him in jail.
The answer is more speech.
If there's some clown burning the flag, drape yourself in the cloud in the flag and go run around right in the guy's face and start telling him how much you love America.
Donald Trump's not going to put anybody in jail.
He's not going to strip their citizenship.
This is how Donald Trump tells people what he thinks about it.
I'm not saying I know Trump personally.
I've talked to him about this.
What I'm telling you is I know I know Trump.
I know what Scalia meant when he wrote what he wrote.
He's personally disgusted by it.
Scalia and Trump both.
They love the country.
They do not understand people who don't.
They would love that everybody else love the country, but it's not going to happen.
And since we don't have a tyrant or a dictator, we can't put him in jail.
But Trump is telling you what he thinks of him.
He's not going to do anything of the sort.
This is where people go off the rails with Trump with this literal business and so forth that's been still.
Look, I'm I'm out of time again.
I'm sorry I got to erupt myself, but we'll be back here in just a second.
Talent on loan from God.
Other things coming up on the big program today.
GOP expected to defund Planned Parenthood next year.
Trump's made another great appointment, by the way.
The health and human services guy is Tom Price.
He's a congressman from Georgia.
He is one of the leading anti Obamacare dudes out there, and he's not all that big a fan of Medicare either.
It's gonna get good.
This is a story from last week, the twenty-fifth, it's four days ago, but I was intrigued by it.
Wall Street hopes Trump hopes Obama's rules disappear under Trump.
I did a triple take at that.
This is from the New York Post.
Wall Street hopes Obama's rules disappear under Trump.
No, what the hell?
These people all supported Obama.
They donated to Obama.
They voted for Obama.
They raised money for Obama.
But they never supported him.
What the hell is this?
This stuff ticks me off when I run into stuff like this.
Back in a second.
So another email.
By the way, the email address is El Rushbow at EIBNet.us.
Mr. Limbo, I'd like your opinion on Mr. Trump's cabinet.
He's appointing people more conservative than anybody expected.
I remember during the campaign, all the conservatives warning us that Trump wasn't conservative, and we should be on the lookout for it.
And I look at the people he's naming or thinking about naming, and they're more conservative than we've ever seen.
So what is the conservative movement thinking about this?
It is an excellent question, and of course I have the answer.
But I want to get another phone call or two before I get to it.
You people you know I just said that I don't whine or moan and complain.
And I don't.
And I don't deal with people who do very well.
I don't know what to say to people whining and moaning and complaining.
Other than, gee, I'm sorry.
I just I literally don't know what to say.
But boy, I uh I could complain to you about a you know, I just don't have nearly enough time here to get everything in.
It's already I'm already frustrated.
I can tell you right now I'm not gonna be able to get it all in by three o'clock today.
And it ticks me off and frustrated.
But I'm not complaining about it.
I'm just telling you.
Now back to the phones.
Michael in New York City, welcome.
Great to have you with us, sir.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
I want to say thank you again for taking my call.
It's been a pleasure.
I've been listening for years, and the one thing I realized over the last year is that I actually started to hear you, and I think that's what the listeners need to do.
They need to start hearing you.
Uh Planned Parenthood was an example of it.
And I think that you'll continue to educate them if they just hear what you're saying, not just listen, but hear it.
Uh it has substance.
I mean, it the information's been great over the years, but uh again, they need to start focusing on the hearing side of it and take it a step a step further than just the words.
Well uh uh this is intriguing.
Have you are you a regular listener?
You've been here for I have been.
I I started about eight or nine years ago.
Um I had uh cut you know for a while had turned off and come back, but for personal reasons, I had nothing to do with the content.
Um but I I will say that for the last definitely for the last three or four years, it's been a constant.
And over the last year, I I see it's kind of like that whole premise of thinking outside the box.
Yeah.
And I think that if the audience were to start doing that, and this is from all sides, both the the Democratic and the uh Republican side of the case.
Let me ask you a question about the Sure.
Are you in uh I know you're not insulting me or critic criticizing?
I know it's the exact opposite, but I let me ask you is is am I if am I making it tough for people to quote hear me?
Is it is it too complicated too in depth is what what is it?
I I don't think that's what it is.
I think um what's happening is that people are still drawn by the the regular mainstream media.
Um I think I think that's a huge part of it.
Uh but I think I'm a racist, sexist, big at home.
No, absolutely not.
See the one thing.
No, but they think that.
They arrive here thinking that, so they listen to the program with that thought or those thoughts, and they're then just not able to really hear what I'm saying.
But there's one difference here.
Uh uh, let's compare you in an essence to Carl Rove.
You do not have an agenda.
Carl Rove has an Agenda.
There's a big difference there.
And if the audience realizes that again, both sides of the aisle, you're not a guy that's out here to benefit in any way because you want power, because you want political prestige.
You're going to make the same kind of money you get because in essence there's kind of an entertainment factor to it.
But it's ma it's massively informative.
And that's all it is.
Guys like Carl Rove, they're pushing an agenda, period.
That's what they want.
That's what they see the country as.
It's their way or the highway.
And they will absolutely look to defraud anybody who is not of their same-thought process.
Okay, I get what you mean.
I I know what you mean.
A lot of people would think I have an agenda.
Which I actually do have an agenda, but my agenda is within the framework of the business I'm in, which is broadcasting.
My agenda is and my agenda or definition of success is wholly contained within the bounds of broadcasting, not politics.
And you're comparing me to people like Rove, who have a political agenda that they need to succeed before they can be seen as successful.
Now I get your point, whereas my agenda does not require somebody to win an election in order for me to be successful.
But I've set it up that way.
I I was the first to tell people my success doesn't depend on who wins elections.
Because I can't control that.
But I do have, you know, I have an agenda deconstructing the left, informing people what liberalism is, how to spot it, who liberalism uh liberals are, uh, and all that, but still within the confines of the uh business that I'm in in broadcasting.
Well, look, I I I appreciate that.
I uh I think I know what you mean.
People listen but don't hear, but I think that describes a lot of people, which is why I've had a uh a change in philosophy about this program, and I've had to beg your indulgence with it.
Those of you who listen regularly, it used to be, and this is strictly a performance uh belief.
Once you do something, you've done it, don't do it again.
Don't be repetitive in that sense because it looks like you're out of material or you're uh phoning it in or whatever.
So if uh if I did something that was funny or made a good point, I would never do it again to avoid the criticism of phoning it in.
But I've changed that for a lot of reasons.
I will repeat points that I have made because I now know that sometimes people have to hear things multiple times before they get it.
And not everybody listens all the time.
So there are these constant modifications made within the bounds of the business I'm in to determine how I do this.
And you are very shrewd and clever to uh to make the distinction of listening and hearing.
I do appreciate thanks very much.
Who's next?
Where are we?
Oh, oh, let me answer the question.
Because it's an interesting question, the email question.
All during the campaign, we witnessed the evolution of a group of people that became known as the Never Trumpers.
Now, the Never Trumpers, there were some exceptions, but for the most part, the never Trumpers would be the doctrinaire conservatives of Washington and New York.
What I call the intellectual conservatives.
These are people that are in the media as pundits and commentators.
They are in the media as magazine publishers and editors and writers.
And some of them are just television persons.
Others are columnists in newspapers.
And many of them rely, this is very, very key to understand, many of them rely on the generosity of the public for their enterprises remaining open every day.
They accept donations, they seek funding.
And they do so, this would include some think thanks too, but they do so Under the pretext that they define conservatism.
They alone define it.
They alone protect it.
They alone promote it as it should be.
They alone have the connections into positions of power where conservatism can be properly communicated to people in power.
And as such, it is terribly important that we remain viable, that they remain viable.
And sometimes they can't sell enough subscriptions to stay viable, so they have to have donation help or fundraising or what have you.
And this aspect of conservatism, I like a lot of people in it.
Don't misunderstand me now.
But this aspect of conservatism has been around a long, long time.
And look, people may not like hearing it, but there are some of these institutions that do have to fundraise, and they do have to accept donations in order to stay stay viable, and that's and for their people that work there to get paid.
So that's something that has to be very, very well guarded and protected.
And above all, the reputation must remain intact.
That is that group, that is where real conservatism is located.
That is where the intellectual truths, the sacred screeds, the Red Sea scrolls of conservatism are maintained within that group of people.
And if you're not in that group of people and are conservative, you're okay, but you are an outlier.
So here comes Trump.
And many, not all, but many of the people who have been devoted to that branch of conservatism found Trump very attractive.
And they began to shift to Trump.
Well, the gatekeepers of conservatism said, wait a minute, Trump's not conservative.
You can't that this is dangerous.
We can't have conservatism redefined as what Trump is.
Trump is a populist.
Populism is a conservatism.
This is terrible.
This is terrible.
Their life's work has been devoted to maintaining conservatism, promoting it and implementing it as best they can and keeping it defined in an intellectual ideological purity.
And so here comes a bull in the China shop, Donald Trump, and many people are calling him conservative, and the true arbiters are bothered by that.
They don't think he is.
They don't want conservatism to get redefined, misdefined, even though many of those people, many of these people I'm talking about, have people in them who tell us we got to forget Reagan.
The era of Reagan is over, they warn us.
We must move forward.
The left never says the era of FDR is over, by the way.
So Trump comes along and represents a threat to, in some cases, a lifetime of work of defining conservatism, protecting it, writing about it, talking about it, implementing it, influencing power brokers to be conservative.
Here comes Trump, just stealing some of it.
And he's not even a conservative, they say.
So they had to oppose him.
And they had to oppose him in a rock solid, rock-ribbed way on a number of bases, but um but bases, but one of the bases in which they sought to protect it was they could not allow Trump to in any way redefine conservatism in a way that would expose them as unnecessary going forward.
So the never Trumpers, there are many people in the group, and they have very many different reasons for being opposed to Trump.
But now Trump is coming along and as the emailer asking me about here's Trump nominating all these people that I mean, if you're a doctrinaire Conservative, you're gonna have a tough time opposing any of these people.
I mean, Betsy DeVoss in education is prime.
I mean, there's no way we might not have even gotten that with a Bush.
And there's no way that we would have gotten Tom Price, somebody who is is adamantly anti-Obama and maybe got some problem with Medicare.
We wouldn't have, I mean, these are these are people that are uniformly acceptable, and some of them even happily accepted and inspiring.
There's some problems out there.
Now that the never Trumpers love love Romney.
Think Romney'd be great because he's one of them, they think, in a way.
Not all of them do.
But it's got to be a dilemma.
Wouldn't you think, Mr. Snerdley, it has it has to be a dilemma because this was not supposed to happen.
Trump was not even supposed to know these kind of people.
I mean, Trump was going to know Vinny from the tire shop down there in East Hoboken and put him in charge of the Department of the Interior, and then he's going to turn him loose and Vinnie from Hoboken's be chopping down every tree in every national park.
Oh my God, now we're getting these people being now just doesn't compute.
But it's a problem for Never Trumpers.
They've got to maintain the Never Trump position for a host of reasons.
Primarily among the beliefs is that Trump is a phony and eventually he's going to expose who he really is down the road, and they have to stay home where doctrinaire mainstream conservatism is to be there to pick up the pieces when Trump blows it.
I mean, that's one of the thoughts.
There are many, many, many aspects to this.
I've generalized this as best I can for the constraints of time, again, which I'm out of.
Yeah, this story from the New York Post five days ago.
Uh the wrong piece there.
This is about these Wall Street people that say they hope Trump gets rid of Obama's rules on Wall Street.
Here it is.
Wall Street hopes Obama's rules disappear under Trump.
I said, what the heck is this?
So I read Donald Trump's campaign promise to bring jobs back to America is already boosting expectations, changing the habits of Wall Street.
Bankers and traders are the most optimistic in years that the next go-go era is just around the corner as Trump vows to roll back post-financial crisis regulation.
I know this is this is Dodd Frank that they're all excited about and other anti-corporate regulatory things that Obama did.
Already banks are reacting to Trump's win, Wall Street firms told the Post.
The heavily regulated financial institutions are hitting the brakes as far as hiring compliance professionals.
They're in wait and see mode about which Obama era trading rules will fall by the wayside through.
I read this with my mouth wide open.
Where were these people during the campaign?
They were funding Hillary Clinton.
They were paying Hillary Clinton to come give speeches.
Twenty some odd million dollars over two years.
Goldman Sachs, a number of times paying her 250 to 300,000 deliver speeches.
And that's not what they were paying her for.
Wall Street was funding bankrolling and propping up the Democrat Party.
And now after Trump, and they were opposed to Trump and they were doing everything they could to defeat Trump.
Now, after Trump wins, now we get a story about how excited they are that Trump's gonna roll back some of what Obama did, all of which they publicly supported, I don't know what they privately did.
So I started asking myself, why would these people do everything they could to get Obama elected twice and then run do the same thing for Hillary while all the while opposing them?
Is that true?
So I said, are they just afraid?
Are they just so afraid of power that whoever has it they have to fake it and sidle up to?
Or is it that whoever's in power, they will sidle up to and make them think they're big supporters.
Whatever, none of this is genuine, I can tell you that.
There's so much phoniness out there.
We m it all it's all part of my belief that we didn't even need these last eight years Obama.
We could have beaten Obama in both elections had people not been afraid.
And we still have lots more straight ahead, my friends.
Still barely even scratching the surface here.
So you sit tight and be patient, because we will be back here before you know it.
▲
Export Selection