All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 31, 2017 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:41
January 31, 2017, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And greetings to you, music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists, and the totally confused.
All across the fruited plane, we're here to unpack it all, to unwind it all, to make the complex understandable.
There's no real complexity out there unless you believe what the drive-by media is telling you, which is what the Democrat Party wants them to tell you.
But we are here each and every day to sort it out, and happily so.
Here is the telephone number if you want to appear on the program.
It's 800 282-2882.
And if you want to send an email, L Rushbo at EIB net.us.
Donald Trump was totally correct and well within his rights.
And in fact, was obligated to fire Sally Yates, the acting attorney general at the Department of Justice.
She should not have been there in the first place.
And it's not the fault of the Senate for not confirming sessions already.
And it's not the fault of anybody but Donald Trump.
Donald Trump is singularly responsible for this woman being there.
She should have been let go on day one with every Obama appointee.
When are we going to learn?
They do not believe in the kind of civility that we believe in.
George Bush holding over a bunch of Clinton people to try to smooth the waters after the Florida recount.
No go, it didn't matter.
The left is simply a bunch of mean-spirited extremist bullies who are not interested in cooperating, working together, being civil, or any of that.
Sally Yates and every other Obama appointee should have been gone within 30 minutes of Trump taking the oath of office.
That is his fault for not doing so.
I don't know why he didn't do so, but I have a theory.
I know that Donald Trump knows he faces opposition, but I have helped How many times have I repeated over the course of this entire campaign as I've tried to make people understand Donald Trump?
The first thing I've told everybody, he's not ideological.
When he sees Chuck Schumer, he doesn't see a liberal extremist in what that means.
He just sees another New York guy who disagrees with him about things.
But who maybe they can find some common ground somewhere for some reason over some method.
But he doesn't see Schumer for what he really is.
He doesn't see any of because he's not ideological.
And he's gonna have to get up to speed on it.
It's not enough to know that he faces opposition.
I'm sure he knows that.
I'm sure his eyes are being opened each and every day.
I'm sure he's seeing a side of these people that he used to think was his friends.
But until he is get is able to get up to speed and understand that he is fighting liberalism, socialism, extremism, bordering on near communism, he's not gonna understand what he's up against.
Now don't misunderstand.
I'm not calling him a wallflower, and I'm not saying that he's weak.
He knows he faces opposition.
But it is crucial to understand the kind of opposition it is.
The only way Sally Yates can be explained is through liberalism.
She said not a word when Obama was engaging in all of his illegal executive orders.
She didn't pipe up, she didn't have any moral code that made her stand up and oppose Obama and his violation of the sacred statutes.
She was purely political in what she did in claiming that the DOJ was not going to defend the Trump administration policy, something that people may not know.
As our education system begins to fail people decades ago.
In the separation of powers, the executive branch has one boss, and it's the president, and everybody in the executive branch works for him.
Sally Yates does not have a boss.
Her immediate boss would be the attorney general, but she was acting attorney general because they're not confirming sessions yet because the Democrats are dragging their feet on purpose because they are liberals.
They're lying about every aspect of their opposition to every Trump nominee.
If you want to put them on the spot, if you want to call them out on this, you've got to be able to call them out as liberals, not just a bunch of people delaying because they're playing politics.
They're not playing politics.
They're playing liberal obstruction, which is designed to transform this country away from the way it was founded.
It is serious.
And until these people in the administration understand it, these kinds of things are going to continue to happen.
Now you might be saying, well, I mean, he's got all these advisors, don't they understand?
I don't know, folks.
Look, I I want to withdraw a little bit about what I said about the Republicans yesterday in service of this same point that I am making.
I said yesterday that the big choke point that Trump faces as he goes forward and attempts to implement his agenda is the Republicans.
And I said the Republicans are going to be the problem because they are afraid of all these protests, and they are afraid of the media, and they don't want to be tagged the way Trump is being tagged, and they will do anything they can to avoid debt.
They're famous, as you know, for saying we want to work with the Democrats and across the aisle, I can shake hands, we can cooperate, show government works, and all that kind of stuff.
There's another factor to this that I have mentioned on prior cage, but I forgot to throw it in there yesterday.
And that is never forget the money in this.
Republican donors are the same as Democrat donors, and many of these high-powered big-time donors don't like Trump either.
And so the Republican Party also has a decision to make.
Members of the House and Senate, leadership and rank and file, to whom are they going to show fealty?
Trump or their donors.
I mean, I I don't, I don't uh not changing my mind about that, but there's other motivations for why they would also oppose Trump, and that is their money masters.
The donors.
As you know, why would the Republican Party be for comprehensive immigration reform?
Because they're donors are.
Why would the Democrat Party and Republican Party be inseparable on so many issues that in the old days Republicans would be in stark contrast opposition to them, money donors, money donors, money makers.
And it's a factor that I failed to mention yesterday.
But until Trump or somebody, I I I know Rhine's Prebus is up there as the chief of staff, and there's a bannon in there.
New York Times has a an editorial today that Bannon's actually the president and Trump doesn't know what's going on at Bannon's calling the shots and Trump's just combing his hair.
Well, they're paranoid about it, and they they categorize Bannon as this alt-right uh populist extremist and so forth.
As I said, you know, I never heard of Bannon, and I don't mean this to be an insult.
Please don't misunderstand this.
My problem, actually.
I'd never heard of Bannon until the campaign had already gotten underway.
But I'm a loner and I'm a recluse, and I don't hang around network with people, so it's explained in that way.
The point is, I don't know how many of these people understand who they're really up against.
It's not just that they have opposition.
It's the kind of opposition, and you all know this because you've been students and listeners here for years, until you understand the kind of opposition left-wing liberal opposition is you're not going to be successful in dealing with it.
And you can be successful in dealing with it.
We could nuke it.
But it's it's and they should never have been there.
She was a she was violating the law by refusing to defend it.
She works for Donald Trump.
She doesn't work for her own moral code.
She doesn't work for her own interpretation of the law.
She works for the president of the United States.
She's no heroine.
That the left wants to appropriate her and use her as a hero is instructive as it is.
More detail on this as the Program unfolds.
NBC Nightly News yesterday, Lester Holt actually went out to the Statue of Liberty.
Somebody had to show him the directions, and he got out there.
And he started practically crying over the Trump travel ban and the Trump immigration reform plans and this whole executive border, and talking about how this is not what the Statue of Liberty.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Statue of Liberty has nothing to do with immigration.
The Statue of Liberty was not created with immigration in mind.
That poem by Emma Lazarus that was added later that does make it look like it's a message to immigrants was added as a fundraiser to help build the pedestal for the damn thing.
It has nothing to do with immigration, in truth.
In reality.
But the way things have been taught, everybody thinks that the Statue of Liberty was built to welcome all of the people of the world or the United States.
And it wasn't.
It's called the Statue of Liberty, not the Statue of Immigration.
And yet the Democrats are out, there's Madeline Albright crying tears and saying the Statue of Liberty is crying tears.
Statue of Liberty, not crying tears.
The Statue of Liberty is a statue that has nothing to do with immigration.
Also, another meme that's out there today is that this was a reenact poor Sally Yates was a reenactment of the Saturday night massacre.
When Richard Nixon got rid of the attorney general.
That's not what happened.
Richard Nixon did not fire the attorney general, and nobody else did either.
The attorney general quit.
Richard Nixon wanted the independent prosecutor fired.
His name was Archibald Cox.
Archibald Cox was investigating Watergate and wanted Nixon's tapes.
And Nixon said, You're not supposed to be investigating me.
Investigate the other people.
And Cox said, No, you're party investigation.
So Nixon said, Well, you're gone.
But Nixon couldn't fire him, so he called the AG.
The AG refused to fire him and resigned.
Then they called the assistant AG, Ruckel's House, and they said, You fire Cox.
Ruckles House resigned and refused to.
So they called a solicitor general, a man by the name of Robert Bork.
Robert Bork agreed to execute the president's order and fired Archibald Cox, the independent counsel.
And then, of course, when Bork was nominated to sit on the Supreme Court, that little act, unknown to many, was held against him in his own confirmation hearings.
There was no Saturday night massacre in the firing of Paula Yates.
Or Sally Yates.
Paula Yates was the bab that had the fair with what is her name?
What's his name?
Petraeus.
Is that right?
Paulie?
Was that that's you know, is that Paula Yates?
Yeah, this is Sally Yates.
I don't think they're related.
Sally, it's a well-known Obama supporter.
She shouldn't have been there, folks.
She should not have been there.
No Obama appointee should be anywhere in our bureaucracy, right?
They all should have been summarily dispatched, and this is why.
Finally, Tom Brady owes no one an explanation on who he supports politically.
Yesterday we had the USA Today story from a female columnist claiming Brady owes everybody an explanation now after Trump's executive order and so-called travel ban.
She went on to say that Brady owes everybody and should, and that's the only question Brady should be answering this week.
Now, a journalism professor at Moore Head or Moore House, I forget which one college, has come out and said that Tom Brady is more un-American than Colin Capernick.
That Brady with a Make America Great hat in his locker and openly supporting Trump is far more dangerous than Colin Capernick burning the flag, supporting burning the flag, or taking a knee during the national anthem prior to NFL games.
And that Brady needs to be called out summarily over this.
Now this More house, more a journalism professor.
There was also a uh there was a story out of the Great Northwest that I didn't print it out.
Did some oh, it was the Black Lives Matter protest where some some deranged lunatic woman started saying it's time to start killing people.
You heard about that.
Black Lives Matter Pro, I think it was Seattle or Portland or somewhere out there.
And some woman started shouting, it's time to start killing people.
She's a teacher.
So we got this this journalism professor at Morehouse, did you say, or more head?
Probably wishes he had more head.
Is it Morehouse University?
I meant bigger head.
You know, he's a smarter guy, wanted a bigger brain.
Don't confuse the meaning here.
At any rate, this guy's teaching your kids.
This guy's teaching so-called journalists.
No wonder the industry's become corrupt.
Because literally insane lunatics have been certified as professors and teachers and graduate assistants and who knows whatever.
It's time to start killing people at a Black Lives Matter protest.
The woman happens to be a teacher, I heard.
Let me take a brief time out.
There's a whole lot more.
We've got Trump's Supreme Court nomination named, and every network's doing a countdown.
Seven minutes, sorry, seven hours forty-one minutes, twenty-five seconds and counting.
It doesn't matter who it is.
Well, actually, it does.
You know, this is actually it does matter now.
Because the Democrats have signaled that they're going to go nuclear on this.
I'm going to explain what this means.
I've found in talking with people that they don't know what the nuclear option means or is.
They think they do, but they don't.
Just like people think the Statue of Liberty is about immigration.
It isn't.
It never was about immigration.
The left, that's another thing the left appropriated.
Statue of Liberty is about liberty and freedom.
And it's a thanks to the United States for ensuring it around the world.
It has nothing to do with immigration.
But the left is appropriated it.
Using that poem written by Emma Lazarus, which was a fundraising letter to pay for the pedestal for the darn thing.
Anyway.
So we just have much to sort out here, but the nuclear option being triggered means it doesn't matter who Trump nominates.
The theory was that Trump could nominate initially somebody less than a full-fledged hardliner.
Somebody that might be somewhat acceptable to moderates.
Somebody about whom it could be said is not guaranteed to be doctrinaire conservative.
In order to get the guy confirmed.
Well, if the Democrats are going to go nuclear from the get-go, then you may as well nominate the full-fledged thousand percent conservative.
Bring it on, take off the gloves, let's get the fists ready to go, and get this administration up to speed on just what liberalism is, who liberals are, and how to oppose them.
Back after.
It happens every time I reveal what to me is common information.
Check the email.
And there were a bunch of people that were shocked to learn the Statue of Liberty wasn't about immigration.
This do it it shows you how successful left-wing created narratives have been.
Let me tell you the truth about this, as abbreviated as I can with the lack of time I've got.
The Statue of Liberty represents libertas.
Roman goddess of libert.
She bears a torch liberty, bears a torch and a tabula ansada.
That's a tabula that uh evokes the law, upon which is inscribed the date of the American Declaration of Independence.
That's what words are on the Statue of Liberty.
Words that commemorate July 4th, 1776.
A broken chain lies at the feet of the Statue of Liberty.
Statue of Liberty had absolutely nothing to do with immigration.
So why do people think that it does?
Well, there was a socialist poet.
Are poets anything other than socialists and communists.
Her name was Emma Lazarus.
And her poem was called The New Colossus.
And it included the lines Give me your tired, give me your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
That was not part of the creation of the Statue of Liberty.
It was not delivered with the Statue of Liberty.
It came later.
The poem written by Emma Lazarus was written to help raise money for the statue's pedestal.
We had to build the pedestal, which is also a room underneath the statue.
A bronze tablet bearing the Emma Lazarus poem was only put inside the pedestal in 1903.
And yet, as Lester Holt out there on NBC holding out the Statue of Liberty as a beacon to immigrants, and as though that's what it was intended to be, fighting against Trump's executive order of the weekend, but it had nothing to do with immigration.
Zilch.
Greetings and welcome back at a rushbone cutting edge, executing a scientist duties flawlessly, zero mistakes.
I don't want to make too big a deal about this, but you know, I'm I'm a stickler for reality and detail, and I hate liberal rewrites and things because it's wise.
And it's designed to create emotions in people that cause actions which are not helpful to the country.
And that's essentially what liberalism has done is feed off of and promote emotions over thought and fact.
Lester Holt last night, NBC Nightly News.
Behind me the Statue of Liberty, which for nearly a hundred and thirty years has symbolized the welcome arms of a country of immigrants, is how he opened the program.
The NBC Nightly News.
However, he said, but tonight she also stands as a symbolic flesh point in a country in the midst of soul searching over the limits of its generosity in an age of international terrorism.
It's total BS.
Folks, the Statue of Liberty, further details given to America by the French.
You know, I w even now when I tell people that I run into people that didn't know that.
It was donated by the French as a tribute to liberty and freedom and independence in 1886.
It was originally intended to be delivered to celebrate the centennial of the declaration, the American Revolution.
It was supposed to arrive in 1776 or 1876, but it didn't make it.
It was ten years late.
Or eight years late, depending on how you look at it.
It was not until 1903 that they decided they needed to build the pedestal.
They needed money for it.
And they commissioned that poet, Emma Lazarus, to write what she wrote.
And that line, of course, is give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, and that's all it's taken.
That was not part of the gift.
The statue was not intended to recognize immigration.
It was intended to recognize liberty and freedom.
And you think if they're intertwined, don't be misled.
Here, Madeline Albright, the former Secretary of State during the Clinton years, who stood by Bill Clinton during all of his womanizing, during all of his misogyny, during all of his reprobate behavior.
Here's Madeline Albright standing by the guy.
She was on CNN this morning, Chris Cuomo, who probably doesn't know anything.
I just told you about the Statue of Liberty, said, You've got the Statue of Liberty on your lapel this morning.
What is the concern about the ban that you have, Madame Albright?
Every part of it, Chris, because what it is, it in many ways it's anti-American and what this country stands for.
It is we are a country that has been uh created and uh populated by people from other countries.
And so uh the Statue of Liberty's message is in fact one of open arms and welcoming people, and um I uh do think that there are tears in the eyes of the statue at the moment.
No, The statue doesn't cry.
The statue is a statue, bronze, doesn't cry.
There aren't any tears coming from the eyes of the Statue of Liberty because there aren't any eyes.
And the Statue of Liberty is not welcoming immigrants.
It's what what it represents is the beacon of liberty and freedom.
It doesn't say if you're from a war-torn area, come on in.
We have laws that deal with that.
The Statue of Liberty does not grant anybody entry into the United States of America.
The Statue of Liberty does not say you want in.
This is the way.
Come right over here to Ellis Island and we'll send you through there.
It's not what it means.
Now I imagine some of you are saying, Rosh, did you get a little overboard?
No, folks.
May sound like I'm a little overboard, but I'm a stickler for truth and fact here.
And this is all being used to work all what is already deranged lunacy on the left.
It's fanning the flames of this stuff by furthering the misinformation and the lies that people are getting to keep that emotional flame supposedly burning in the minds and hearts of these leftists, who in truth are miserably unhappy.
Let me grab Jessica in Naperville, Illinois.
Great to have you, Jessica.
Welcome to the EIB network hive.
Hi, thank you so much for talking with me.
Yes, ma'am.
First, I just want to say thank you so much.
I I'm in Illinois and I'm a I'm a Republican millennial, so I feel pretty isolated these days, surrounded by all the liberals.
So it's been really great to listen to your show to relief.
Um anyway, my question is I know that the liberals in the Senate are saying that they're going to put up a huge resistance to the cabinet picks and especially the Supreme Court pick.
And I just wondered what they're hoping to accomplish with this, and like how long can this really go on, you know.
Well, let me ex though that that last question is a good question.
Um your other question, what do they hope to accomplish?
I think you I mean you know the answer to that.
What how would you if if if if roles are reversed here and I was asking you, Jessica, millennial babe in Naperville, Illinois, what they're hoping to accomplish.
What do you think?
Well, you know, it's kind of hard.
It's kind of hard.
I I just feel like I feel like it's more bothersome.
I don't see how they can like actually keep him from picking someone.
So I uh you know, I guess I'm not I'm not gonna be able to do that.
Well, look, it just works both ways.
And let me explain it to you, Jessica.
That you might remember the name uh Merrick Garland.
Let's start there.
Just to tick them off.
When Justice Scalia passed away, created an opening in the U.S. Supreme Court, and Obama, this happened in Obama's final year as president.
And so Obama wanted to pick, he wanted to pick the replacement.
This is crucial.
If he could get a liberal on the court, that would tilt the court already for a generation.
Give the liberals a five-four advantage.
However, there was a rule of longstanding, not a rule, it was an understanding of longstanding that had been in place for for for many, many years, and that is that presidents do not actually get to foreclose a Supreme Court pick in the final year of their administration.
The reason that rule exists is because the Democrats insisted on it during a prior Republican presidency.
And it was Joe Biden who came up with this rule.
It didn't exist anywhere.
Biden just created it on a whole cloth and said that it made common sense and moral sense and legal sense that any nominee in the last year of a president's uh because he's leaving, and they're we're in the middle of a campaign to replace him, and so that ought to be something the new president does.
The Democrats started this whole business of the sitting president in his final year should not have his pick confirmed.
So the Republicans let Merrick Garland sit there, no hearings, uh, and the Democrats fumed.
Because that pick meant everything.
And Obama supposedly chose Merrick Garland because he was a moderate, that he could possibly get some Republican votes, and he could actually get confirmed, rather than pick somebody who was a hardcore extremist, lunatic leftist judge.
But the Republicans held firm, and they did not move the nomination forward, Jessica.
They were able to forestall it by refusing to have frequent sessions, by just refusing.
I mean, the Senate was run by McConnell, and he just refused to bring it to the floor, and there was nothing the Democrats could do.
So now it's payback time in one sense.
That's one thing going on here.
But even without that, this would be happening.
The Democrats would be obstructing because all these cabinet picks, because it's crucial.
They hate Trump, they hate the fact that they lost, and the reason that they are delaying, and the reason they are trying to stop all this is just to make trouble for Trump and to create circumstances like happened with Sally Yates.
They do not want Trump to have his people in place.
Now it can't go on forever, but it's all part of the gamesmanship.
One upsmanship, the play for power.
This is the establishment, Democrats running it, basically telling Trump, screw you, we don't care that you were elected.
You don't get to we're not going to hurry along for you.
People said, well, Obama got seven of his nominees in the first day after his inauguration.
Democrats said, You're not Obama.
You don't get that.
You don't get that kind of respect.
We don't think you should have been elected.
We think the Russians stole the election.
I think the Russians hacked us.
We think you shouldn't have been elected.
Everybody knows Hillary Clinton should have been elected.
So that's their mindset.
Then you get to the practical realities, Jessica.
A lot of people want to blame the Republicans here, because the Republicans have the majority in the Senate.
And people think that the Republicans ought to be able to determine the agenda in the Senate.
And when it's time to bring somebody to the vote to the floor for a vote, that the Republicans decree it, and it happens, except Jessica, the thing that you have to know, that anybody has to know in understanding the Senate is that 60 votes are needed for most things.
The vast majority of things.
Sixty votes are needed, not a simple majority.
The Republicans have a simple majority.
They've got 52, 53 depending.
But they've got at least a 52-seat versus 48 for the Democrats.
Bernie Sanders in there is an independent, but he but he he caucuses with the Democrats.
And even in those instances, Jessica, where 60 votes are not needed, the minority has, because of Senate rules.
The minority has lots of rights to force hearings.
And the way they're bottling up the hearings, like they just announced today, that they're going to delay Minuchin, who's treasury, and Tom Price, Health and Human Services, because they claim that both men have lied to them in their confirmation hearings.
And therefore further investigation is needed.
Further examination is needed.
All they have to do is allege that these guys lied that brings the process to a screeching halt while that is looked into with further interviews of the nominee, the nominee providing even more data.
There's not much Mitch McConnell could do to get these nominees appointed more quickly.
I'm not making excuses.
But I I'm not gonna excuse me.
I'm not gonna blame McConnell for that which he doesn't have that much control over.
It just because the Republicans run the Senate does not mean that they get to dictate what happens there, and the need for 60 votes.
That's where the nuclear option comes in.
And the Democrats nuking it.
Sixty votes is called a filibuster.
And closure is when you have a vote to see if you have sixty votes.
And if you get sixty votes on any proposition, be it a confirmation or piece of legislation, then you've reached cloture, and then you have the second vote to make it official.
And right now there aren't 60 votes for some of these nominees.
Republicans, even if they stand unified, they need some Democrats to cross the aisle and vote.
And that that then befalls to Chuck Hugh Schumer to see just how unified he can keep his caucus.
Now, it gets a little bit more complicated because of the next elections in 2018, the 2018 midterms.
There are a lot of Democrat senators up for re-election, and a lot of them are from states that Donald Trump won.
They're called red states.
And those senators want to be re-elected, and the people in those states elected Trump because they want Trump to govern.
They want Trump to get his nominees.
So Schumer is eventually, most of these people are going to get confirmed.
But Schumer has to pay fealty to his base.
He has to obstruct.
He has to try to stop in order to keep fundraising coming in.
And again, if if he could deny all these people, he would.
But the practical and political realities make that unlikely.
But this one is not per se the Republican leadership's fault.
Or at least it's not their fault alone.
Senate rules, the need for 60 votes, any number of things.
I'm glad you called Jessica a little long.
I have to take quick timeout back in just a sec.
When we get a good question on the phones, I will broom the show prep and I will go to the phone.
So we got a good one here.
And we have another, this is uh I don't know, millennial.
Yeah.
I think this would qualify as a millennial.
Millennials are born in 1984 forward.
So and this is this is Nicole in Jacksonville, Florida, since he's 19.
How are you doing, Nicole?
What's happening?
Yes, I'm doing fine.
It's an honor to talk to you, Mr. Limbaugh.
I've been trying to get you to you for two weeks now.
But I've been listening to you since I was 14 years old.
And um I'm a Democratic, but I voted for Trump.
But um I just wanted to get your insight on the travel ban, because what Trump is doing right now, he's just stopping so it crime from coming into the country and people trying to do harm to the country, and people just need to get him the chance and just tackle it.
Yeah, this is you know, it's a it's a great question because of the answer.
And the answer to the question is, you know, why aren't the Democrats giving Trump a chance?
Why are they reacting this way?
Honestly, I I I don't mean to sound trite, and I'm gonna I'm gonna back this up with explanation, Nicole.
You you you will not understand this intellectually unless you understand liberalism.
You won't understand this behavior.
Uh you might not like it, you might think the Democrats are crazy, you you you might think that's a bit over the top, but you won't really understand it until you understand liberalism and what its purpose is.
And in this case, this is not a travel ban, folks.
All this is is a temporary attempt to further vet certain refugees from six countries and Syria, where the vast majority of terrorist activity has come from.
It is an effort to keep America safe.
It is also Trump fulfilling a campaign promise.
His Homeland Security Director, I just got the audio soundbite, not enough time to play it.
John Kelly, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, held a press conference today, and during the QA, he was asked, when did you learn specifically Trump would sign the executive order?
And Kelly says a year and a half ago during the campaign when he told me he was going to do it.
I've known since I first met Trump that he was going to do this.
This is not a travel ban.
Everybody that was detain has been released.
It's exactly what Trump said it was going to be further vetting to keep America safe.
In large part here, he's he's he's fulfilling a campaign promise.
The left simply seizes an opportunity to recast this and re-characterize this as something that it's not to portray Trump as a violator of human rights and civil rights, which is two areas the left thinks that they own.
And it's an opportunity for protest and resistance, which has become their strategy just for the purpose of it.
They don't even need specific reasons.
Supreme Court nomination tonight is going to launch another round of this, another wave of this, and it doesn't matter what Trump does, this until they beat it back, this is going to keep happening.
They don't want Trump to succeed.
They don't want to give him a chance at all.
▲
Export Selection