All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 20, 2017 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:49
February 20, 2017, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 247 podcast.
Oh man, I'm telling you, it's a 260-yard three wood on a par five, right, right.
I mean, just off the green.
I mean two inches off there, right there on the front.
260 yard three wood.
Man, you should have seen it.
It would just bam, and it was hit from the rough.
I had a good line of the rough, and I just, oh.
And it was on the 17th.
Oh, it was near the end of the round.
It just was could not have been better.
Anyway, greetings, my friends.
I'm just clearing the air here for somebody inside the studio confines, Rushland Ball back at it.
Revd and ready, telephone number 800-282-2882.
And if you want to send an email, Ilrushbow at EIBNet.us.
I'll tell you what I'm going to do today.
And I appeared on Fox News Sunday yesterday with Chris Wallace.
It was a 12 to 13 minute segment.
And I have always suggested to the Fox people, you know what you really ought to do is you know, have my segment and have it go as it goes.
And then near the end of the program on your round table, bring me back to the round table to analyze what I said.
How is that?
That has never been done.
And of course, they've never taken me up on it.
So you know what I thought I'd do?
I thought I'd do it today, right here on this program.
Play the sound bites that we've chosen from my interview with Chris Wallace, and then analyze them.
And uh talk about what was good, what was uh only so so, what could have been better, uh whether or not I disagree with what I said today.
Anything can happen.
So we're gonna do that.
Um media today, a major theme of the program as I started separating things and organizing everything that I had put together.
There is a sizable media stack here that we're going to spend some time on, as well as other substantive news.
I just want to give you an example of how the media work.
And I'm this does not I'm long past being mad about this because it's just the way they operate.
And nothing is going to change them.
So the way we deal with this is to point out the purposeful mistakes they make.
Well, if they're purposeful, they're not mistakes.
The purposeful things they do that occur in editing and in writing.
Now, for example, yesterday, under intense grilling from Chris Wallace on Fox News.
I made a point.
You've heard me make it here, but I'm telling you, I don't see the point made on TV.
So I hope you don't mind that I was a bit redundant.
But I think it's it's absurd and preposterous to assert and to believe that the Russians affected voting.
That the Russians hacked the election, and that meant that they changed the results.
That did not happen, and nobody has alleged it, but they want you to think that's what they mean when they say the Russians hacked the election.
The hacking, if there was any, was of computer networks, the RNC and the DNC, and the RNC, the penetration didn't work.
Republicans have a lot of successful condoms on their networks, and the Russians were not able to penetrate.
But the Democrats, their security had holes in it, and the whoever it was, if it was the Russians, was able to hack.
We got Podesta's emails, and the media is doing their best.
And I, by the way, made it a point of defining the media yesterday on this program.
It's not just everybody, it's the old monopolists.
When I think of drive-by means ABC, C B S N B C C N. The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, maybe throw USA Today in there.
That's the media.
It's not meant to include everybody, certainly not every blog, not every website, but those are the elements that I mean when I describe media.
And they clearly, in their reporting, want viewers and readers to believe that the Russians determined the results of the election.
That is their mission.
And I point that I made yesterday was it's preposterous to serve that to assert this.
It's ridiculous and absurd to think that the Russians could do it.
And by the way, folks, nobody has alleged it.
And furthermore, as I also said yesterday, the New York Times has run two stories on this whole whole thing, one last October, one last week.
And they're essentially propaganda pieces.
They're not news pieces.
And in both of these pieces, both these stories, if you read deeply enough, the New York Times clearly states that none of their unnamed sources has any evidence.
The Russians did anything.
All of this is supposition and conclusion of the nameless analysts, most of them in a deep state, working for Obama and Clinton, their holdovers in there, and those are the people talking to journalists.
And that's why I say the journalists are joined with the deep state Obama operatives in trying to destroy the Trump presidency.
I don't think there's any doubt that they're trying to do this.
They will deny it left and right, but there's no doubt they're trying to do it.
And I'll tell you what, they destroyed Nixon, and ever since that they've been trying to destroy every other Republican president.
If not get them out of office, ruin their presidency.
Take a look at every one of them.
George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Rinaldus Magnus.
Now they're trying it on Trump.
They never make one move of this kind toward any Democrat president.
They spike news that could harm Democrat presidents.
There's no question about this.
The idea, however, that the Russians affected voting.
Nobody in the mainstream media is even asserting that.
They wouldn't dare.
So I, on Fox News Sunday, authoritatively confront them on this.
And I point out that it's absurd and preposterous to think so.
So here we go to the politico.
And the political little brief, sorry on this.
And the headline of the political piece is Limbaugh dismisses Russian influence on Trump's election as preposterous.
Well, yeah, I guess you could say demissed it, dismissed it.
It's kind of like saying claimed or concludes, but Limbaugh dismisses.
As a limbaugh's out on an island all by himself that's that's shrinking because of climate change.
And Limbaugh's dismissing this.
Now here's what they write.
Rush Limbaugh says he doesn't buy the notion that Russia influenced the election of President Trump.
Not what I said.
Not what I said.
Next paragraph, they quote me.
The conservative radio talk show host said on Fox News.
That's not what I said.
What I said was the Russians had no effect on the outcome.
The Russians had nothing to do with votes.
They don't even mention this in the story.
So the politico is positioning me as a contrarian.
They're positioning me as saying the Russians didn't do anything.
When I have acknowledged that the Russians hacked, the ChICOMs hack.
We hack.
Everybody hacks everybody.
It's part of espionage.
I've never denied that.
What I am authoritatively stating is that the Russians had nothing to do with who won this election.
Nothing whatsoever.
We've even got polling data of voters who said that what was revealed and released in the Podesta emails was interesting, but it wasn't a large factor in determining who people voted for.
It made for interesting news.
By the way, nobody's ever denied any of the contents of the Podesta emails, not a shred of it, not a word of it's been denied.
But it's a big leap to say Limbaugh dismisses Russian influence and not reference what I'm actually talking about, but this is how they do it.
So people didn't see the interview.
Limbaugh dismisses Russian influence on Trump's election is preposterous.
What I said was, what I dismissed was that Russia determined the winner.
Russia did not determine the winner of the election.
And I'll tell you this is important because that is the one thing driving everything else the media is doing.
That one assumption, unstated, the media's never stated it.
They leave it for you to conclude.
Russia hacked the election.
Russia influenced the election.
They don't say the outcome.
That's why I'm up challenging them on it, because they're leaving it to conclude.
They're repeating over and over, Russians hacked, Russians influenced.
The Russians did not determine who won the election, but that is what is driving every bit of this.
Because when you say that the outcome of the election, or when you imply the outcome of the election was determined by the Russians, then you're halfway home to declaring the Trump presidency illegitimate.
The result of fraud, the result of cheating.
And that then justifies everything else you do to take Trump out.
If Trump benefited because the Russians helped him win, if Trump benefited because the Russians made sure Hillary lost, then that alone in the media world justifies everything else they do to destroy Trump.
Because they think they're preserving democracy.
No.
Because all this is a joke.
They know this isn't true.
This is the this is the insulting part of this.
They know they're making it up.
They know they're extrapolating.
They know exactly what they're doing.
They are misleading.
They are using misdirection.
They're using assumption, they're using nameless sources that supposedly are authoritative in their own right because they come from intelligence community sources and so forth and so on.
But you see, if Trump is not a legitimate winner, well, then his presidency is not legitimate, and therefore his agenda is not legitimate, and therefore his agenda ought not sail through.
And therefore, none of what he wants to do should happen because he wasn't really elected.
And that's the foundation for everything else they're doing.
It is the justification for everything else they're doing.
The attacks on Trump, the attacks on Trump's supporters, the attacks on Trump's cabinet, the attacks here, the delay of Trump's everything.
Everything that's being done to stymie and stop Trump is taking place top of the foundation that it's all necessary because Trump shouldn't have even been elected.
And that's the great unspoken thing that is providing the fuel for every other assertion of scandal or incompetence or what have you.
And that's why I tried to make a big deal out of it yesterday.
And the fact that the media here, at least the politico, did not even quote me accurately, I think makes my point.
And the fact I haven't seen anybody else in the media when they've reported on this quote me accurately either.
And by the way, I'm not complaining.
This is all part of the class on how to understand and analyze the media.
And it is a classic teachable moment.
Because if you take away the idea, if you take away the belief, if you take away the assumption, take away the conclusion, if you eliminate the fact that Trump's election was illegitimate, that Trump's victory shouldn't have happened.
It was fraudulent.
If you take that away, then the basis on which the media does nothing but attack and try to destroy Trump is taken away.
This, that the Russians influenced the election, meaning the Russians determined that Hillary lost, That justifies whatever they need to do to get rid of Trump.
And sure shoot, and here comes old Carl Bernstein, the father of the reporter who called Mulani a Trump a hooker, now saying that this guy's worse than Nixon.
Trump's worse than Nixon.
So you see, they've got Watergate is it for these.
Watergate's why half the journalism business went into the business.
Well, you mean as a journalist I can destroy Republican presidents.
Where do I go sign up?
And that became in the modern era one of the things that good journalism becomes known for.
Taking Republican presidents out.
And it has been attempted now ever since 1988 when this program came along and the monopoly media had their monopoly blown up.
They have been on a mission to prove that they still have the juice that they had when they were a monopoly.
They're on a mission to prove they can still bend and shape public opinion and make it as easily as they did when they were a monopoly.
And that has led and created to this partisanship and this partisan divide that exists out there with the media now an active political player.
Which takes me to the second point.
And I want to thank F. Chuck Todd of NBC for opening my eyes to this.
For the longest time, I have I've been genuinely curious why it is that media people think they cannot be criticized.
And they really do.
They really think they can go out and research people and they can dig up dirt from anybody they want's past and they can broadcast it all over.
And if somebody's life, somebody's married, somebody's relationship, somebody's kids get destroyed or ruined, fine and dandy.
They can do all of that they want, but you turn it around and you start investigating your favorite journalist, and to find out how many illegitimate kids he or she might have had in college, or how many DUIs they had, you know, or how many communist sympathizer meetings they went to, then all hell breaks loose, and they start squealing like stuck pigs, and you can't do that, we're journalists.
I said, where does this come from?
It's more than just hubris, and I finally found out.
You know what it is, Mr. Snertley?
These clowns actually believe that since they are recognized in the First Amendment that they have constitutional immunity.
You can't criticize criticizing them is attacking the First Amendment.
They really believe this.
Criticizing them is akin to attacking the Constitution, and that's on American.
And that's why you hear these journalists un-American to criticize, un-American for Trump to be destabilized, it's an American for Trump to be going out there and trying to do damage to the media.
We've got First Amendment protection.
Well, so does the president.
And the president has to be mentioned in the Constitution before the media.
The president's mentioned in Article II.
The media doesn't make it till the First Amendment.
But yet the media thinks there's nothing bad about running around and trying to attack political figures and destroying them.
No, no.
I'm not a they this is what it is, folks.
They really, they are so far gone, they really think that they are the last line of defense between freedom and democracy and tyranny, and attacking them and challenging their reputation is no more and no less than attacking the Constitution and trying to destroy America and democracy.
That's what they think.
That explains why you can't go after them.
Anyhow, let's take another brief break here.
We'll get started.
Uh some of the audio sounds.
I'm going to review some of the other things that we have coming up here before we get to the audio.
And of course, your phone calls.
So sit tight back here before you know it.
Look, the only thing the First Amendment does for the press is the same thing against everybody else.
They can say what they want to say.
That's essentially what the First Amendment says for the press, like it says it for you and me.
It singles them out and references them in terms of their importance, a free and uh unintimidated, undocumented, whatever unattached media.
And nobody objects to that.
Uh, but it does not grant them immunity from criticism.
It does not grant them freedom to be disagreed with.
Does not grant them freedom from opposition.
They seem to think that it does.
And I think it all falls under the notion of how really poorly constitutional education American history education has been for decades in this country, not to mention the kind of poison that's injected into the young skulls full of mush populating journalism schools all over the United States.
But it's a it really, folks, it's the one thing that, as far as the media's concerned, justifies what they're doing.
Now, as I say, you won't even get them to admit what they're doing.
You won't even get them to admit they're trying to destroy Trump.
They'll come up with some of no, no, no, no, no.
It is the job of the media to hold powerful people accountable.
Yeah, right.
What why doesn't that apply to powerful Democrats?
And don't tell me that it does, because everybody knows you give them a pass each and every time something comes up with them, you cover for them.
It's a joke.
Give me another example.
The media talking about Trump's rally on Saturday.
Now there were 9,000 people in the hangar up there at Melbourne.
There were thousands of people that couldn't get in.
There was a line a mile long starting at dawn on Saturday up in Melbourne.
People wanted to get in.
And I had spies up there, and my spies counted 500 to 700 protesters.
Even though they all knew Trump was going to be there.
The difference is that the protesters knew there were going to be minimum 10,000 Trump people there.
So the usual mob didn't show up.
And one of the themes running through the drive-by media is that the Trump administration is so off-kilter.
The Trump administration is such chaos that Donald Trump had to go out to an airplane hangar and do a campaign-style rally as a form of reset.
Sorry, I have a totally different take on it.
And I share this with you.
I've talked to nobody at Team Trump.
I've talked to nobody about this.
I'm just using my common sense and intelligence guided by experience.
There's two things here.
First thing is all Donald Trump has his voters.
That's it.
He doesn't have any other support base out there like Obama had the entire media and all these massive huge donors and special interests.
Trump doesn't have any of that.
Trump's voters have seen a month of media that has had as its purpose to destroy the notion of a successful Trump presidency.
Trump has to go over the heads of the meets.
Why did the press conference?
77-minute press conference, hailed as effective by me, and then he goes out and does the rally.
And there's two things for the rally.
One thing is to just go out, tell his people everything's cool, we're moving forward on things that you voted for.
We're running smoothly here at the White House.
Another thing that nobody's mentioned, he wanted to create, well, I don't know that they wanted, but I'm just telling you, they created pictures that counter all of the video of these supposed mobs of protesters that hate Trump.
I mean, let's face it.
The first month of Trump's presidency, every day, all we've seen is thousands of people supposedly organizing organically in towns and cities all across America, outraged, ticked off, mad that Trump is president because the Russians hacked the election and Trump's not legitimate.
Trump shouldn't be there.
Thousands, thousands, thousands, you've seen the pictures.
Well, Trump's rally creates competing pictures, which demonstrate that he still has the massive support, love, and popularity he had during the campaign.
Another thing about the meeting is so obtuse in a sense.
They've been trying to dislodge Trump, to destroy Trump, get him off kilter ever since he got into the race.
At what point are they going to decide that this may not work?
The Access Hollywood video didn't work.
All of the October surprise type things didn't work.
Standard ordinary everyday politician destruction 101 stuff didn't work.
It didn't work to the point that he got elected president over somebody who is considered to be a landslide shoe-in.
So if what they were doing prior to the election didn't work, what makes them think it's going to work now?
But I'm going to tell you something, folks.
This is a new era, and you're looking at the way it's going to be every day for four years.
Don't care.
This is going to be the way Donald Trump is covered.
Now, Trump's like every other human being, wants to be loved, wants to be liked, wants to be supported, and he really does want to unify the country.
And this coverage is designed to make it look like that's not happening, won't happen, and even if it does happen, it's designed to make it look like it hasn't happened.
And that's why I suggested that, you know, make tracks, get this domestic agenda going, and get, you know, he's going to have some confrontations up on Capitol Hill.
We have to be honest that Capitol Hill is filled with Republicans and Democrats, but more importantly, they are establishment types.
They're so-called best and brightest.
They don't want Trump to have any kind of successor any more than he's had.
Trump's success has already turned their world upside down.
You know, all during the eight years of Obama and even years prior to that.
If you go to Washington and New York and the New York LA, San Francisco, the coastal elites, they were doing fine.
Their incomes are constantly up, their 401ks are doing well, they never worry about losing their jobs.
The rest of the country, they didn't care what the circumstances were in the rest of the country.
They were doing fine.
Trump has come along and thrown that upside down.
In fact, Glenn Reynolds has a really good piece on this in USA Today that I just scanned a couple paragraphs of, and I think this is what he's talking about.
I'll look at it in greater detail further as the program unfolds.
But it's a it it results in the fact that the instability that we're going to see here and that we are seeing is establishment versus outsider.
And it was never going to be pretty, because the establishment was never going to just stand aside and let you and me and any of the others, including Trump, people supportive, just come in and take over all of these institutions.
And that's why you're seeing the pushback from nameless sources in the deep state, in the bureaucracy.
Obama and Clinton career appointees, and maybe even some Republican career appointees held, doing everything they can to hold on to what they control.
And no matter that Trump won an election, doesn't matter.
As far as they're concerned, he's not the president, and he what he says isn't going to go.
And if we have to sabotage him, because we got friends in the media that'll help us, and this is what we're up against, and it's going to look like this.
Now, I said for the next four years.
I I think it can quiet it down.
I think if they push through this repeal of Obamacare, I think that'd be so huge.
And I think if they really do something serious on immigration and tightening the borders, you know, that's another thing.
You know what immigration's come to be defined as?
There's another thing I figured out.
When you talk about immigration today, when the left talks about immigration, what they really mean is open borders and anybody that wants to come in gets in.
And if you oppose that, that's where you're a bigot.
That's where you're sexist, that's where you're racist and a phobe of some kind.
And part and parcel this is making people like you and me look like we opposed to immigration totally.
That makes us supremacists.
That makes us bigots.
They want to say we're opposed to all immigrants.
We're not.
Nobody's opposed to immigration.
Nobody denies the role immigration's played in the building of America.
We're talking about legal immigration.
We're being overrun.
We're being overrun by people who are non-citizens.
And we're having that called immigration.
And then if you oppose that, you're a bigot, you're a sex, all these other horrible things.
And nobody's talking about it.
So these are these are the little mind games and word games and tricks that are being played.
And it's all designed to weaken your support for Trump by making it just too hard.
It just too hard and not worth it, because it looks like they're never going to go away.
But You get Obamacare repealed and replaced, and you get rid of the mandate, and you get rid of some of the taxes.
And then you come along with tax reform and shoring up the border.
And success is the sweetest revenge.
And succeeding in this agenda that Trump laid out and talked about every day, multiple times a day, is the best thing he can do to calm down.
In fact, folks, it's already starting to happen in various pockets.
If you look carefully at the news, for example, there's a story here today that I have coming up in the stack, where Washington Democrats want their insane base to stop talking about impeachment.
They want their insane base to calm down.
You're also seeing stories about more and more Democrats realizing that Trump won and he's going to be president for at least four years, and it's going to require getting rid of some of this childish emotion and getting with it.
It's not massive, but there are there are beginning to be some cracks in the resistance.
And it's primarily due to the fact that maintaining that emotional pitch of anger is simply not possible.
It's not humanly possible.
You need to be, you'd have to keep recruiting new people, paying new people to act mad and ticked off.
Because after a while, you know, it just it burns itself out from person to person.
So they have to keep replenishing the supply of bought and paid for protesters to carry the uh and and if it doesn't work, if it doesn't force Trump to change, if it doesn't force Trump out of office, if it doesn't make Trump apologize, if it doesn't change Trump at all, and it didn't change Reagan.
If it doesn't change Trump, it loses some of its zeal as well.
What else did I want to make before the uh before the break?
Oh, I've seen if I've seen this once today, I've seen it ten times, and I saw it last week.
I commented on it then.
Some in the media are saying it's really dangerous for Trump to be getting his news from cable TV.
Do you not find this perplexing?
This is largely today related to Trump's comments on Sweden at his rally in Melbourne on Saturday.
And this is so great.
Trump talks about Sweden.
Can you imagine Sweden?
Look at what's happening in Sweden.
And the media is clueless.
They don't know what, so they think Trump's insane and is simply making up terrorist attacks in Sweden.
And there aren't any of those.
And Trump never said terrorist attacks.
What Trump saw was an interview on Tucker Carlson show on Fox News where a guy has done a documentary and written a book about the rapidly increasing crime rate traceable to all of the migrants and refugees that Sweden has welcomed.
And in fact, it's true.
The migrant crime rate in Sweden is through the roof.
So Trump sees it on TV and he talks about it in his rally.
He saw an incredible show, Tucker Carlson tonight, whatever it is of Fox News.
And the know it all media starts, and my even little tech buddies, the most arrogant condescending group of kids I've ever run across, start laughing and making fun of Trump, and he's lost his mind.
Maybe, have you heard the latest to explain Trump's attitude, by the way, syphilis?
No, no, the new republic Wendy, the new republic has a serious story from some shrink psychiatrist analyzing Trump from the media and concluding that he may have had syphilis as a boy, as a young man.
Because all of Trump's characteristics and his mannerisms, you can peg to people who have had syphilis in their lives.
And they're dead serious about it.
So anyway, the media's up there going nuts about is Trump making it up again.
My God, this guy's dangerous.
He's just making it up.
He's making and then they found out what he was talking about.
And you can see the stories today.
Well, hey, maybe Trump was right.
Maybe, maybe, maybe Trump is right after all about Sweden.
But, but, but then they throw their caveats in.
But what about this idea that the media saying it's dangerous for Trump to get his news from cable TV?
Why would that be?
Why would CNN, it was Poppy Harlow, I think, who said, oh God, granted, we love people watching our news network.
We love the ratings and so forth, but isn't it a little dangerous for the president to get all of his news and cable?
Why would that be?
Do you not stand behind what you do?
What could possibly be dangerous about getting your news from CNN?
Here we go, folks.
Another unseen profit rate.
Look, we got lots more.
And we're back.
Rush Limbaugh, the cutting edge of societal evolution.
Getting started on the phones with Lee in North Brantford, Connecticut.
Welcome.
Great to have you here.
Hi.
Well, it's a pleasure to be talking to you, Rush.
Thank you, Mr. I just want to my issue is uh Chris Matthews yesterday or uh yeah, Chris Matthews threw you a softball, and I thought you kind of swung on it and missed.
He talked about the uh Trump saying the media was our enemy.
And and my simplified answer to that is you know, you get a working guy, come works all day, comes home, him and the wife sit down to eat, after they sit down and watch television, and and they watch one of the talking heads, whoever it might be.
So they get the IRS and nothing to see here.
They get Ben Ghazi, well, that's a little bit, but that's a ho-home Ben Rhodes, they probably don't know who Ben Rhodes is.
Jonathan Gruber's another one, not a clue who Jonathan Gruber is.
To me, that makes him an enemy.
They're not telling us the truth, they're telling us half truth, and they're ignoring half the facts.
Yeah, but but I I I I sorry I swung and missed at a Chris Matthews softball.
I I I wasn't on the field when he tossed it, so I don't I don't I don't swing and miss when uh when Matthews throws wild pitch or not.
The reason I wanted to take your call is the Trump quote press the enemy of the people.
It's not what he said.
You know, here's the again with with uh I I guess this this comes from my having a very good understanding of Donald Trump.
He was talking about a subset of the media.
If if Trump had been talking about the whole media as the enemy of the state, uh that that's not what the Trump quote said.
He specifically was referring to the outlets putting out misleading themes about election hacking.
You can't take these comments out of context.
You have to look at what he said before he said this.
So when he calls the press the enemy to people, well, what was he talking about before it?
He was talking about those elements of the media that continue to report things that aren't true.
And that is there is no evidence that the Russians hacked the outcome of the election.
There is no evidence because it didn't happen, no evidence that the Russians determined the winner of the election.
You know, did you see I'm watching Melania Trump here?
She opened the rally.
You know, I wouldn't have been surprised if I'd have seen a story later today, Melania Trump accused of plagiarizing the Bible.
Because she opened up with the Lord's Prayer.
I wouldn't have been a bit surprised if somebody in the drive by said accused her of plagiarizing the Bible and trying to pass that off as something as her own.
I know it's not in the Bible.
That's my point.
At any rate, Trump was being very clear about who he was talking about, but you well, he wasn't being very clear, I guess, because so many people misunderstood it.
If you know what he was talking about beforehand, and then you get to this comment uh where Trump refers to the uh to to the to the media as the enemy of the state.
That's why I said yesterday on Fox News, he was talking about the media that the enemy of Trump.
And and Trump was elected on a very specific agenda that he hid from no one.
Trump made his agenda public more than any presidential candidate ever has, truthfully, by the way.
And he elected president on that basis.
Trump was given a mandate.
Trump was elected on the basis of substance.
And so the media that's coming along and trying to undermine this, he was not had he been talking about the whole media, it had had he had been trying to make the point that the whole media is the enemy of the state, then you might be able to claim that he represents a danger in in shutting down the whole.
But he doesn't want to shut down the media.
The truth is he loves it.
The truth is he loves the back and forth.
He's challenged by it, doesn't want to shut him down.
All of this is so much knee-jerk paranoia.
No, I said it is in the Bible.
I was being snarky.
I had a guy authoritatively trying to tell me, well, the Lord's Prayer is not in the Bible.
I said, Yes, it is.
No, it's not.
I said it doesn't change the point.
Anyway, the left is trashing Melania Trump for reciting the Lord's Prayer of the Real.
I'm not kidding about that.
Hang on, folks.
▲
Export Selection