All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 10, 2017 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:31
February 10, 2017, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, you know what?
Darn it.
I didn't know this was a joint press conference with the Prime Minister of Japan, Shinzo Abisan.
I have no idea.
So I don't know when we're going to jip this.
I don't want to get the joint stuff.
With the Japanese guy speaking, I'm going to translate it to President Respond.
I want to wait till I get to the reporter questions.
Because you know as well as I do, the reporters are not going to ask the Japanese prime minister a single question.
The American reporters are not going to do that.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's open line Friday.
You know what the first question is going to be?
Mr. President, Mr. President, are you considering resigning?
Mr. President, Mr. President, is it really worth it?
Mr. President, Mr. President, you think you'll be impeached because what you did with your daughter and Nordstrom, Mr. President?
How are you doing, folks?
It's great to have you here.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone number, if you want to be with us, 800-282-2882, and the email address, lrushbo at EIBnet.us.
So let me amend what I said before I knew that it was a joint press conference with the prime minister from Japan.
We are going to jip it, but I will be the judge as to when we jip it, because I probably am not going to spend much time with the joint aspect of this.
But when they go to questions, when the two prime ministers, well, the prime minister and the president have made, have concluded their statements, then we'll jip the questions.
I don't know why I didn't know.
I just thought this standard press conference.
I forgot the Japanese prime minister was in town.
My bad.
Now, let's wait.
The last caller that we had wanted to know what happens the next time regarding if there's another executive order and if there is a rewrite, what happens next?
What will the left do?
And what if we don't submit a new one and just ride this out?
Folks, that could be months.
When you start talking about the Supreme Court, it could be months.
I'm looking for a soundbite here with Dershowitz.
And I hope I'm not confusing it with something I had yesterday.
Yeah, let's go to 13, 14, and 15.
Let's start here with Jeffrey Toobin.
Wait, do I want to say what?
Hang on just a second.
See this Jeffrey Lord bit let me yeah give me number nine we're gonna do number nine and then we're gonna do nope eight and nine then we'll jump to 13.
Jeffrey Lord was on CNN, Anderson Cooper, last night, and talking about the Supreme Court, well, the Ninth Circuit ruling.
And don't worry, I know they've started, we'll jip this thing, we won't miss anything, the press conference.
Here's Jeffrey Lord making an argument about how Trump could proceed here after the Ninth Circuit continued to stay on his executive order.
Newt Gingrich, when he was running for president in 2011, talking about the Hamden versus Rumsfeld case involving Guantanamo and the rise of prisoners.
And Speaker Gingrich said, I would instruct the national security officials in the Gingrich administration to ignore the recent decisions of the Supreme Court on national security matters, and I would interpose the presidency in saying...
as the commander-in-chief, we will not enforce this.
This is called departmentalism.
And this goes back to Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in 1819, each department of the national government is truly independent of the others and has an equal right to decide for itself the meaning of the Constitution and the cases submitted to its action.
Okay, were you following that?
Now, this is an admitted Trump supporter, Jeffrey Lord, writes the American Spectator, and he's citing actual and true American history.
He's reciting what Jefferson wrote, and he is quoting Newt Gingrich.
Now, he's talking to Jeffrey Toobin.
He's a legal analyst to see that as far as these people are concerned, there is no co-equal branch business.
The judiciary runs this country.
Yes, there's separation of powers.
But whenever a court speaks, whether they are condemning the constitutionality of a law from Congress or whether they are condemning a presidential action, the Supreme Court is it.
The Supreme Court is the last word.
And here comes Jeffrey Lord.
No, no, no.
Thomas Jefferson's up to each branch to decide how in the world they are going to define the Constitution separation of powers.
And he quoted Gingrich as saying, look, matters of national security, a court can go to hell.
I'm going to ignore what the court gets wrong because they don't have all the information I have, and I'm going to implement what I think best.
Well, now you can imagine the reaction this got on CNN.
God's sake, Jeff.
Well, that's ridiculous.
Well, the idea that the president of the United States can ignore judgments of the court.
You know, Andrew Jackson did it regarding the Cherokee Indians.
Abraham Lincoln did it during the Civil War, which is a little different from what's going on now.
Well, according to all my liberal friends, we're in the idea that a president, I mean, you know, much credit to Donald Trump, frankly, for saying see you in court rather than saying I'm ignoring that court.
Muke Gingrich's lunacy is not something that anybody looks up.
Wait a minute.
Kudos to Donald Trump.
Much credit to Donald Trump for saying see you in court.
You know, it's fascinating.
Andrew Jackson, by the way, Lincoln did more than what Jeffrey Lord is attributing to him.
Abraham Lincoln actually put a sitting member of Congress in jail.
He sent the military around to rouse the guy up, put him in jail.
Roger Tammy was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and he gave a ruling that Lincoln didn't like on habeas corpus.
And he almost put Tammy in jail.
The fact it was a civil war.
You know, folks, I got to tell you something.
I don't think we're that far from a civil war in this country right now.
I'm not talking about armed conflict North versus South, but we're clearly, we have a divide in this country that is in no way going to be bridged.
It isn't going to be bridged by compromise.
It's not going to be bridged by walking across the aisle and getting along with people.
And it's not going to be bridged by persuading people to agree with us and vice versa.
The only way this is ever going to end is when one side gets defeated, politically defeated, and becomes a demonstrable minority.
That's the only way any of this is going to end.
The left does not want this to end.
This is normalcy for the left.
You must understand this.
This is what they want life in America to be day in and day out.
Remember, they are victims.
They are not happy.
As victims, it is impossible to be happy.
It's impossible to be content.
They think there are no reasons to be happy.
Even when Obama was winning and he was in the lighter, they were still livid and angry every day over what?
The fact that there was opposition to Obama.
They weren't even happy when he won.
They would not have been happy had Hillary won because there would have been opposition and they can't stand opposition.
They don't think opposition is warranted or justified.
So there is no common ground between the divide, the divisions in this country.
In that sense, there already is a civil war.
I'm not talking about armed conflict.
I'm talking about a battle.
How does it end?
Are you going to persuade the libs in your neighborhood?
You think they're going to persuade you?
It isn't going to happen, not en masse.
I mean, you might randomly influence somebody at the Chamber of Commerce at the Rotary Club or wherever, but in mass, it isn't going to happen.
And they sure as hell, folks, are not going to persuade me.
There is no way under the sun that I ever, being of conscious, sound mind and body, ever agree with liberalism about much anything.
Isn't going to happen.
And I'm not alone in that.
So, what is the solution to this?
We just go on like this?
Because that's what's going to happen.
The left, this is what energizes them.
This is what gives them their meaning in life.
This is what gives them a reason to get up every day.
As long as somebody else is paying them, as long as somebody's providing them food stamps, as long as somebody's giving them health care, as long as they do not have to work in order to live, this is how they want to conduct their day.
Causing trouble, raising hell, opposing everything they resent that is characterized or classified as normal.
They are enraged and angry throughout the day and night, and they have been my entire life.
It's intensified with every year of my life.
This is what life in America is going to be.
Until one side loses and concedes and surrenders.
Now, you tell me which side's it going to be.
And you look at the onslaught and you look at every direction they are coming at us from.
Every issue that they supposedly have is nothing more than a trick and a disguised effort to advance their agenda.
I don't care if it's judicial activism, it's climate change, civil rights, equal rights, pro-life abortion, pro-choice, what have you, funding plan.
It's all about advancing their agenda and eliminating us.
It's not really about climate change.
They succeed in making their brain-dead rank and file think that the world will not be habitable in 30 years, but it's a crock.
You tell me where the agreement's going to be.
You tell me where the compromise is going to be.
They're not going to stop until they destroy the Catholic Church.
They're not going to stop until the Catholic Church becomes pro-choice.
You think that's ever going to happen?
You think the Catholic Church will ever sanction gay marriage with openly gay priests and lesbian nuns?
You think they'll openly sanction?
Because they're not going to stop until they get that, one way or the other.
Do you think that'll ever happen?
We have the most socialist pope that we've had in our lifetimes right now.
The Catholic Church is closer to this precipice, my observation, than it's been in a long time.
But to say that the very things that define Catholicism and Christianity, they're all under assault.
Every damned institution in the world, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, the Cub Scouts, the candy stripers for friend, nothing's safe.
How does this get resolved?
So here you have Jeffrey Lord pointing out, well, you know, the president can just ignore it.
Jeffrey, don't be silly, you idiot, you stupid, dumb idiot.
That's arrogant, condescending attitude they bring to this stuff.
When in fact, American history is replete.
How come the judiciary gets to ignore it?
How come the judiciary gets to tell the president to go to hell?
But when the president tells the judiciary to go to hell, somehow we're all going to hell.
The judiciary can do whatever they want.
As far as Jeffrey Toobin's concerned, as far as every liberal is concerned, any liberal court to tell anybody whatever is perfectly fine and you can't argue with it and you can't oppose it and let a president say, I don't believe him.
I'm not going to obey the hell with, and you would think it'd be the end of civilization.
So how does this resolve itself?
My good friends, here's more Jeffrey Toobin, and he's still talking to Jeff Lord about.
Just play the bite.
I don't know what I know it works out.
It's a complete repudiation of the Trump administration's position on this case.
And it is also now four judges who have reviewed this.
Two George W. Bush appointees, two Democratic appointees, and all four have ruled against it.
The Trump administration now has two options.
One is go to what's called an on-bank, more judges on the Ninth Circuit, 11 judges to hear the case, or go directly to the Supreme Court to challenge this stay.
That's not going to happen until Gorsuch is confirmed.
And that's not going to be the smooth sailing everybody's telling you it is.
He may end up being confirmed, but it's not going to be the smooth.
They're just telling them, oh, yeah, this guy's so brilliant.
Oh, he is.
There's no way we can't stand in the way of this guy.
You wait.
Can't stand in the way of this guy.
They stand in the way of everything.
Now, here's Dershowitz.
Dershowitz, law professor emeritus, well-known left-wing legal scholar from Hartford, also on Anderson Cooper last night.
Question, Professor Dershowitz.
You said there's actually a third option the president has here.
The third option is for the president to realize he's not going to win on this stay issue.
He may win three months from now, four months from now, but he has said on camera that this decision poses a grave threat to the national security of the United States.
So his option is very simple: withdraw the current order that is subject to the stay, write a new order with the help of his new attorney general, national security people, that will survive constitutional attack.
Ah, very interesting.
Is that possible?
Is there a way to survive?
Because it's not constitutional attack.
It is liberal attack.
This is what's happening.
Oh, I know it looks like it's a constitutional attack because of the way the judges talk and the way the judges write.
And I know, but Rush, how could it be liberalism when two of these judges are George W. Bush?
It's establishment versus outsider, liberal versus conservative, you name it.
Trump is the object of scorn, and it doesn't, he could write the perfect executive order.
You think these guys have already ignored the law once.
They've ignored that statute, which is as crystal clear as two plus two equals four.
They've ignored that to stay, this executive order.
You think they won't just find another reason and be able to couch it in some legal mumbo-jumbo to suggest that it's unconstitutional?
Of course they will.
One more Dershowitz, and we have to go to the timeout.
He continued and concluded, actually, with this.
There's another way that he can do it, too.
He can leave this order in effect, leave it subject to a stay, and then issue a new order which supplements the order.
That way he protects his ego.
He doesn't have to say I was wrong.
He just says, look, there's a stay in effect.
I'm now going to issue a new order, and that new order applies only to ABC.
Now, there are areas here that gave it trouble.
I mean, issuing this blanket ban on entry to people that had already passed muster and were green card holders.
And I knew when that was, I mean, he's well within his rights to do it, but that was going to present problems from the get-go.
And they did this with no advance warning so as to prevent what's happening now.
What's happening now is that we're being flooded by refugees from these seven countries, and even Basher al-Assad, the evil foreign from Syria, is saying, I know some terrorists from here are getting into the United States now.
There have to be.
The law of averages.
Some of the people you're letting in are terrorists.
I have no doubt.
No doubt whatsoever.
But that's okay, folks.
That's okay, because we have to stop Trump and the Republicans.
That's.
All right, so reporters just asked Trump, given what you've learned in the last two weeks about how bad terrorism is, do you think you can protect the homeland?
Do you think you can protect the homeland?
And, Mr. Japanese Prime Minister, do you think it's a mistake for the U.S. to pull out of the TPPP?
Here's what's happening.
And do good for our country.
It's always going to be that way, at least during my administration.
I can tell you that.
Here comes the Japanese Prime Minister.
We are fully aware of President Trump's decision on economic issues.
We will be discussing at the working lunch to follow as for Japan and the United States trade and investment, as well as economic relations.
How can we develop and grow our relationships?
As I have already mentioned, Deputy Prime Minister Asso and Vice President Pence will create a new dialogue.
Agree with that 100%.
I'm quite optimistic that the good machine from the government is a good question.
No question about it.
Free and fair.
No, you've got to go all the way out.
You can't go partial to the way out.
You're going to go all the way.
...regime in the iteration, and that was the purpose of TPP.
And that importance has not changed.
I myself believe that.
Right.
There you have it.
We're all in.
We're not part the way in, part the way out.
Screw it.
TPP here.
I have a question.
Mr. Trump, are you preparing to resign exchange for Japan?
In the prior remarks, so there had been discrepancy in your positions.
If not, why not?
What were the discussions?
And were you able to narrow down the gap?
He will make the United States a great country.
Okay.
Look, I knew this is going to happen.
Let's bump out of this.
This is my bad.
I did not know this is a joint presser or I would not have committed to joining this in progress.
And I think the whole thing is going to be like this because you just can't ignore the Japanese prime minister there when you're trying to destroy President Trump.
I mean, you've got to include the Japanese prime minister in your destroy Trump questions.
And that's going to lead to the translations and the two voices at once, which make it very difficult to follow.
So we come back.
I'll take a break here.
We'll get started with more of your calls on Open Line Friday.
And anything that happens here at this presser, we'll be ready to jip it.
Sweat nothing, folks.
Where are you, El Rush?
I'm a little hoarse today, folks, but through the magic of audio processing equipment, you probably can't even tell.
Now, here's the thing.
If you want another reason to really be ticked off about what's happened here with the presidential executive order, understand this.
The executive order, and even the AP, even the AP has to admit this.
The executive order substantively has not been killed.
Even the AP says the three-judge panel denied the motion for stay and set a briefing schedule for fuller arguments on the merits of the appeal, barring an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court.
The government's opening brief is due March 23rd with the states filing due March 24.
This will be before Judge Robart.
In other words, this executive order has never been argued.
The substance of this has not been argued, much less decided.
It has simply been stayed because the left has some hack judges who are using obstructionism here, and they're hiding behind so-called legal principle to do it.
That's the thing that enrages me.
Judge Robart did not even review the substance.
I have people sending me the statute that this whole executive order was based on.
They've just encountered it.
They've just read the statute.
I've read it to you the past two days.
And when you read the statute, how in the name of Sam Hill can any judge stop this?
And that's the point.
Robart didn't even get into this.
Robart went to the, well, you know what?
I haven't seen any terrorists come in from these seven countries.
This sounds like a potential religious ban to me.
I ain't going to stay.
They went and found a judge who would do hackery.
So the substance of the executive order has not even been argued.
And yet look what people think.
People think that the substance is what has been stayed and overturned.
People think that Trump wrote something that's so outrageous that these mild-mannered, brilliant judges, in order to save democracy, had to make immediate moves to rein in our out-of-control tyrant president.
That's what they want people to think.
That's what ticks me off about this.
None of this is honest.
All of this is usual trickery and lies and distortions and misdirection coming from people on the left.
So the Trump executive order hasn't even really been argued because the Ninth Circuit could not rule.
This is why, you know what?
I mentioned this yesterday.
If there were some serious judging going on here, this executive order would have been sent right back to Robart with the Ninth Circus saying, we can't judge this.
There's nothing to judge.
There's no ruling here.
We have to send it back.
Robart, you've got to conduct hearings on this.
There's nothing for us to review.
We are an appellate court.
There's no finding here.
We can't appeal anything here, which is the damn truth.
Robart has not yet conducted one substantive hearing on this.
He just stayed because a couple of hack Democrat governors wanted him to.
And he's a hack Democrat, so he was going along with them.
Plain and simple.
I'll read that executive order.
Not the executive.
I'm going to read the statute to you again.
Let me get back to the phones.
I don't want people getting backed up here for too much time.
We'll start in this half hour with Mike in Salisbury, Maryland.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
How are you doing?
Listen, I have a question for you.
What would happen if Trump just ignored the Ninth Circuit Court and implemented his executive order?
Because we have the majority.
We have the Congress, we have the Senate and House of Representatives.
What would happen, hypothetically speaking, if he just ignored what they said and he went ahead with it?
Well, what would happen is politics.
And the politics would be the media would have on-air conniptions.
The media would go literally insane and nuts, and they would go 24-7 wall to wall with guest after guest after guest.
Well, they're doing that now.
Portraying Donald Trump as tyrannical, deserving of being impeached.
This must not stand.
He needs to be out of office by the end of the week.
I mean, it would be unprecedented.
You haven't seen anything.
You think what's going on now is bad if Trump would basically say you and move on with this.
Now, technically, though, your question is, what can they do to stop him?
Yeah, I mean, if he did it, what could they do to him legally?
I mean, if they're fighting dirty, why can't we?
They just continue to sue him.
And then you still throw open.
Okay, where do you sue him?
They're going to find a place that's, you know, it's called judge shopping.
I don't pretend to have the answers to something like that.
There's precedent for it.
Presidents have ignored judges in the past and all hell broke loose.
Some presidents got away with it and some didn't.
Yeah.
It just, too many variables.
I also, you know, to do something like that, you would have to have your party on your side, too.
And if you're going to, if you're going to openly tell Judge Robart, hey, so-called judge, take a look at this.
And you go on TV and you rip up his ruling and then you reinstate the ban.
Well, here come the protests.
And if all it takes, you know, John McCain going on TV, I strongly disapprove.
I think our president's out of control.
I think he's horrible.
I think it's a mistake.
This is why he should never have been elected.
He'd have stuff like that happening.
Anyway, I appreciate the call.
I understand the sentiment, too.
Look, there's a part of me that would love to see it.
Don't misunderstand.
But there are better ways.
There are better ways.
Look, see, here's what can't be denied.
At the ballot box, these people are continuing to lose.
This is what they've got left, the judiciary and the bureaucracy.
And folks, I'm telling you something.
I just want to reiterate.
When we had oral arguments before the Ninth Circus, whoever we didn't have sessions as Attorney General, so we don't know how the judge or how the lawyer to argue for the president was picked.
But he was not informed.
He was not effective.
Ditto for whoever argued before the so-called judge, Robart.
Because here's Robart.
I don't see any evidence here that we have any terrorists from those seven countries.
There's only 80 examples.
So you have to ask yourself: all right, is there plenty of Obama holdovers here?
I mean, there's a story today.
Trump's president, right?
There's a story today.
The State Department is what it says.
The State Department is ushering in hundreds of refugees.
The State Department's opening the border and opening doors and ushering in in this period of this, well, it's Trump's State Department.
How the hell can that happen?
So there's still plenty of potential for sabotage because the left has had people embedded in deep, dark crevices and crannies of the bureaucracy that they're not elected, so you can't un-elect them or get rid of them.
And they are there to do exactly what these judges are doing.
Now, here is the federal statute.
Just going to read it one more time.
I know you've heard this, but I'm going to read it one more time because this is why I'm so livid.
It is Title VIII, U.S. Code, Inadmissible Aliens.
This is the law of the land since the 1950s, and it was written by Congress and signed by the Prexi.
Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by the president.
Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he, capital H,
capital A, E, he may by proclamation, meaning just by saying so, and for such period as he, meaning he alone shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants,
or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
The translation for this is, the president of the United States, according to statutory United States law, has sole and total power over who and who doesn't get into this country for as long as he may deem necessary when such entry would be judged to be by him detrimental to the interests of the United States.
I don't care what you think of Trump.
The rule of law is the glue that holds this country together.
And there is simply no way that a competent judge who respects the law could stay the presidential executive order based on external political concerns because the law covers everything, even if the president said during the campaign that he was going to ban Muslims.
You realize that's the basis for Robart and the Ninth Circuit, one of the many bases for telling Trump he can't do this?
Something he said on the campaign trail.
When common sense says if it was a Muslim ban, why is he leaving 85% of the Muslim population free and open to come into the country?
This could not be more clear.
You know, normally legalese, you got to go out and hire somebody to pay $1,000 an hour to translate this stuff.
But this is just crystal clear.
There's no ambiguity.
There's no confusion.
There are no double or triple meanings here.
It's clear as this is why I'm so ticked off.
There is no basis for any judge to say that Trump's executive order fails to meet the tests applied to it by law or by the Constitution.
They have to make them up.
And when they start making up these things, guess what they make up?
Their own political policy preferences.
Anyway, I got to take a break, folks.
We will continue with more phone calls from you here on Open Line Friday.
Don't go away.
You know, folks, I need a break from this.
So I'd say next hour, I'm going to tell you about I switched shafts in my driver and got 25 additional yards.
And I have, you know, I've been one of these people.
I've had the golf-centric nutcases and play with some of these guys that are just nuts about it.
You know, you need a different shaft in that club.
What do you mean, different shaft?
Yeah, you need an 88 gram instead of 92 gram and you need a stiff versus a regular flex.
I don't swing the club fast enough for an answer.
So I actually tried it.
I actually tried putting different shafts in my driver.
I was stunned at the difference.
At least with the kind of shaft that I was trying.
I'll tell you about it in the next hour.
Get this.
The left is flooding the zone.
Reuters has a story.
There are now cases.
You ready for this?
There are now cases moving through 11 of the 13 U.S. appeals court circuits challenging Trump's executive order.
And that does not include what are a bunch of habeas corpus petitions out there or challenges to detention.
The left is trying to get some people released.
The left is trying, in addition to keeping the border wide open to anybody who wants to come in, the left is issuing habeas corpus challenges to get people who are in detention released.
And these are being filed on behalf of individual people detained at airports after the ban, the majority of which would have been dropped after people were released.
The headline of the story: Trump's travel ban faces multiple legal challenges.
And just to cut to the chase, in 11 of 13, there are only 13 federal appellate circuits.
In 11 of them, the left has mounted legal challenges to Trump's executive order.
So they're not just going to rely on the Ninth Circuit.
They're challenging this in any number of different ways, different from the way Robart dealt with it, for example, the so-called judge in Seattle.
Tony in Knoxville, Tennessee, thank you for waiting, sir.
You're next here on Open Line Friday.
How are you?
Great, Rush.
Mega Dittos from Rocky Top, Tennessee.
Thank you very much, sir.
I tell you, Rush, it is so frustrating.
We are sitting here and we won the election.
We played by the rules.
We did our civic duties.
No, we didn't.
We violated the biggest rule by winning.
Exactly.
So here's my question: We're sitting out here, all of us, we're yelling at the radios and TVs.
What is our short-term and long-term recourse?
I mean, what can we do as the silent majority out there sitting around going, this is ridiculous?
Well, I'm going to tell you, where I'm looking for the story here.
Yes, there's a story by Matthew Boyle today at Breitbart.com.
Headline: The Spirit of America: Conservative Grassroots Leaders Plan Massive Pro-Trump Demonstrations Nationwide.
Conservative grassroots leaders are planning a series of massive pro-Trump rallies nationwide.
Breitbart News has learned on February 27th and March 4th, the rallies dubbed the Spirit of America rallies will spring up nationwide in cities and towns across America.
I would say find the nearest one to you and go.
Yes, you know what?
Absolutely.
I mean, it's unfortunate we have to go to this level of having to get uncomfortable and go out.
Well, just the aggressor sets the rules in any conflict.
And if this is how they are going to try to change and shift public opinion, they've got to be met head on with this.
Amen.
Amen to that.
The problem is, we have jobs.
I will definitely be there.
Well, good for you.
But I'm not, folks, this is not a cliche.
I'm telling you, we have jobs.
They many times are paid to do this.
Do you realize these professional protesters, when you hear that George Soros is funding them, what does that actually mean?
Well, they're being paid.
Some of them qualify for food stamps.
They're all living off the government.
They do not have jobs.
This is de facto their job.
And it's made to look like, just the exact option, made to look like these are people who are so concerned and so devoted that they are sacrificing their own personal lives to join the protest march and to stop this tyrannical president when in fact they're bought and paid to do exactly this paid with food stamps paid their housing is taken care of some of them even have access to health care it is an entire way of life for these people you and i this is not how we make our living but
they do betsy devos tried to go to work today she was met by a violent protest refusing to let her in the door new education secretary They are out of control, folks.
▲
Export Selection