All Episodes
Previous Next
May 10, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:30
May 10, 2010, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program documented to be almost always right 99.6 percent of the time.
That's the latest opinion audit from the Sullivan Group in Sacramento, actually Roseville, California.
800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address El Rushbo at eibnet.com.
All right, Ed Meese today writing, being quoted actually in the Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell blog post.
Though Ms. Kagan, who, by the way, the regime's media keeps pointing out that she's never been married and doesn't have children.
So, the only way that's relevant to me is a tell-me that this woman can identify with average Americans.
Now, how can she do that having lived in the upper west side of Manhattan, Hyde Park in Chicago, Harvard Yard, and the Beltway?
Well, I guess it is average liberals.
Okay, you're right.
Anyway, Meese writes, though Ms. Kagan has not written extensively on the role of a judge, the little she has written is troubling.
In a law review article, she expressed agreement with the idea that the court primarily exists to look out for the despised and the disadvantaged.
Well, naturally, you know, my friends, I'm a very curious individual, unlike those in the state-controlled media.
And I said, who are these people?
Who are the despised and the disadvantaged?
Because former Attorney General Meese does not describe it.
What he does say is this.
The problem with this view, which sounds remarkably similar to President Obama's frequent appeals to judges ruling on grounds other than law, is that it allows judges to favor whichever particular client they view as despised and disadvantaged.
The judiciary is not to favor any one particular group, but to secure justice equally for all through impartial application of the Constitution and laws.
So, I went digging.
I wanted to find out just who the despised and disadvantaged are.
And I found out that the nominee, Elena Kagan, idolized Thurgood Marshall.
And it was with Thurgood Marshall that this phrase originated.
She had a, her law review article that Meese refers to, I found it.
It's a long thing.
Folks, I deserve combat pay today for having dug deep into this to find out just what the hell this is all about, the despised and disadvantaged.
So if you read her law-reviewed article, I found the section here in which she refers to despised and disadvantaged.
She was quoting Thurgood Marshall and saying that if he had had his way, the court would only have existed to help the despised and the disadvantaged.
And then she goes on to quote him as saying, the court should have no jurisdiction when one fat cat sues another fat cat.
For in Justice Marshall's view, constitutional interpretation demanded above all else one thing from the courts.
It demanded, constitutional interpretation demanded that the courts show a special solicitude for the despised and disadvantaged.
It was the role of the courts in interpreting the Constitution to protect the people who went unprotected by every other organ of government, to safeguard the interests of people who had no other champion.
The court existed primarily to fulfill this mission.
And then she writes parenthetically, indeed, I think if Justice Marshall had had his way, cases like Kedramas would have been the only cases the Supreme Court heard.
He once came back from a conference and told us, sadly, the other justices had rejected his proposal for a new Supreme Court rule.
What was the rule, Judge?
We asked.
And Justice Marshall said, my rule was when one corporate fat cat sues another corporate fat cat, this court shall have no jurisdiction.
Justice, so despised and that still didn't satisfy me.
Who are they?
I mean, when you say the people who went unprotected by every other organ of government, well, I don't know which organ of government protects me.
I'm probably a target of government.
Which, am I disadvantaged?
I know I'm despised.
But did she mean me?
I mean, I know I can listen to Obama.
I know I am despised.
The Democratic National Committee, we got a caller.
Don't let this caller get away, Snurdley.
We got a caller who just got a DNC letter in which they impugned my honor and integrity, calling me a hater.
So I know I am despised.
But I doubt that Thurgood Marshall was referring to people like me when he said the role of justices was to interpret the Constitution for the despised and disadvantaged.
So I wanted to go even further.
So here at the last paragraph, we find out even more about Thurgood Marshall, who Elena Kagan idolized.
During the year that marked the bicentennial of the Constitution, Justice Marshall gave a characteristically candid speech.
He declared, this is a law review article that she wrote, he declared that the Constitution, as originally drafted and conceived, was defective.
Only over the course of 200 years had the nation attained the system of constitutional government and its respect for individual freedoms and human rights that we hold as fundamental today.
The Constitution today, the justice continued, contains a great deal to be proud of.
But the credit does not belong to the framers.
It belongs to those who refused to acquiesce in outdated notions of liberty, justice, and equality, and who strived to better them.
The credit, in other words, belongs to people like Justice Marshall.
As the many thousands who waited on the Supreme Court steps will know, our modern Constitution is his.
So, this is who Elena Kagan idolizes.
Justice Marshall, who said the Constitution, as originally drafted and conceived, was defective, and only over the course of 200 years would people like him on the Supreme Court have it become worth anything.
It belongs to people like him, and now Elena Kagan, who refused to acquiesce in outdated notions of liberty, justice, and equality.
So the despised and disadvantaged, and well, there's one reference in her writings, too.
I should mention this.
No, no, no, not her.
Cass Sunstein, who is, I don't know if you know these names or not.
We've talked about him a couple times, but he's another Obama acolyte.
He's another just Way the hell and gone over the side leftist.
But when he wrote about despised and disadvantaged, he was referring specifically to homosexuals and how the court was not being fair in interpreting the Constitution in cases involving homosexuals.
So that's what I originally thought despised and disadvantaged meant homosexuals, but it doesn't specifically or only.
It has to do with whatever Thurgood Marshall thought they were.
And despised and disadvantaged are people who were not represented by any branch of government.
They're totally ignored.
They're lost.
They're weights.
They're simply ignored and lost in the system.
That's when I began asking myself, well, I know I'm despised by the regime.
And in my way of thinking, I'm disadvantaged because I'm a target of the regime.
But I know full well that neither Thurgood Marshall nor Elena Kagan has me in mind when they talk about despised and disadvantaged.
They're looking at me and people like me as the oppressors.
That's right.
The architects of the despised and the disadvantaged.
I'm one of the reasons that there are despised and disadvantaged people.
But it's not all sweetness and light out there.
Roland Martin, CNN political analyst, you may not have heard of him because nobody watches CNN.
Even their co-founder recently said it's becoming a joke, CNN.
If a white Republican president of the United States appointed a white male as his next Supreme Court justice, and upon the inspection of his record, it was discovered that of the 29 full-time tenured or tenured track faculty that he hired as dean of Harvard Law, nearly all of them were white men.
This would dominate the headlines.
It would be reasonable to conclude that the special interest groups that vigorously fight for diversity would be up in arms, declaring that this person's records showed them unwilling to diversify academia and unqualified to consider diverse views as one of nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court.
But what if the choice were made by a black Democrat president and it was a woman, a white woman, a white Democrat woman?
Some of you may not like the fact that I'm focusing on the race of the individual, but when diversity is raised, the person's skin color, gender, and background are considered germane to the discussion.
And if there is silence from black and female organizations, their race and gender matter as well.
We may very well witness this now that President Obama has selected Elena Kagan to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.
Guy Uriel Charles, founding director of the Duke Law Center on Law, Race, and Politics, Has heavily scrutinized Kagan's hiring record as head of Harvard law in a scathing blog post.
He has said that of the 29 positions Kagan had a chance to fill, 29 or 28 were white and one was Asian American.
And of the group, only six were women, five white, and one Asian American.
Now, these numbers on the surface are appalling and would be ripped to shreds by those who value diversity.
But my guts tells me that even though Kagan has been tapped by Obama, the normally vocal and persistent voices in this area will be tight-lipped and quiet, unwilling to oppose or heavily criticize the nomination of a woman to the court, especially one made by an African-American Democrat president.
So he's very, very, very, very, very upset.
And he goes on to say in this piece that feminist and civil rights groups should demand answers about Kagan's diversity record.
So they're not all ecstatically happy out there on the left with this nomination.
But again, I think, folks, that this is all part of the strategery.
Because on MSNBC today, they say, it could move court to the right.
And of course, where does MSNB get its news?
The White House calls them.
The White House texts them.
And Politico, the same thing.
So this is all part of a strategy to distract people.
Then I have this story from the New York Times by Cheryl Gay Stolberg, Catherine Q. See, and Lisa Fodore, or Fodorero.
She was a creature of Manhattan's liberal intellectual Upper West Side, a smart, witty girl who was bold enough at 13 to challenge her family's rabbi over her bat mitzvah, cocky.
Enough at 17 to pose for her Has School yearbook in a judge's robe with a gabble and a quotation from Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court now bet.
Okay, at 13, she gives a rabbi the business about a bat mitzvah.
Okay, I mean, if this is what they're going to say, this is what we will believe.
Yep, I mean, I'm sure it's the similar stories that we heard about Obama and all the dragons he slayed as he was growing up all over the world.
Anyway, this story prints out the five pages, and it is identical.
This story makes her out to be identical to Obama.
A consensus builder, brilliant and smart, post-partisan, post-racial.
And it's all based on, we don't know anything about her.
She hasn't written anything.
She's been the dean of Harvard.
Look, it's clear that what's happened here is we nominated somebody from the faculty lounge.
And the only person in the faculty lounge who is less qualified than Kagan for this gig is Obama.
But you have a bunch of theoreticians sitting around talking about a socialist utopia as it should be, using all of their prejudices and all of their bigotry to rip and criticize the people they think holding other people back.
And they sit in their ivory towers, never having done diddly squat, never having produced anything or accomplished anything, thinking they have all the answers.
What happens when they get power?
It's called Greece.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
Adderl Elton John in the bumper music rotation, El Rushbo behind the golden EIB microphone to the telephone, Madison, Ohio.
This is Craig.
Thank you for waving, sir.
You're up next.
Hello, Rush.
Can you help me?
Are they cloning Janet Napolitano or what?
This new nominee, Napolitano, even Sotomayer.
What's going on?
How far is this human gene?
What are we doing here, sir?
I just want to be very clear here about what you're doing.
Are you judging these babes, women, on the basis of their appearance?
Yes.
Okay.
Well, I just wanted to be clear.
So you're saying that there's a pattern, shall we say, between Big Sis, Napolitano, and Elena Kagan.
Yes.
Can't we clone Reagan instead?
Well, you know, I want to have learned my lesson on this.
So I want to try to help you out.
I know what you're getting at here, sir.
But you're not going to win any converts here by saying, look at these two.
Do you see a pattern here?
Way back in the early days of this program, my mother was alive and listening.
And I had a somebody called and wanted to know who I thought the most attractive and unattractive first daughters were.
So I got to thinking about it, and I don't remember who I said for most attractive, but I included Amy Carter in the most unattractive.
Hung up, finished the show, went home.
My mother called me enraged.
You can't do that.
You are not going to last if you are going to comment on people's appearance like that.
You're going to have to learn.
More people look like Amy Carter than don't.
You are not going to get anywhere.
People are not going to laugh at it.
They're just going to think it's very impolite.
And she's besides you forgot Margaret Truman.
And I said, damn, you're right, Mom.
So you got to be very careful, Craig.
My mother was hilarious.
My mother was a card.
I have a friend who went out and bought a 17-inch Mac Pro three weeks ago.
And I get a panicked email last night.
He sent me a picture of a frozen hard drive screen on his computer monitor.
He took it with his iPhone.
It had the dreaded circle with the cross line through it.
The hard drive was totally frightened.
And he didn't do anything.
I mean, nothing spilled into it.
He didn't drop it.
It just didn't boot.
But he was writing to thank me for Carbonite because he had backed it up on Carbonite.
It took him six days.
He went to the Apple store.
He got a full replacement for it today and is in the process of restoring his files.
And he had everything important.
This guy's tech savvy like you wouldn't believe.
Everything important was on this computer.
And had it not been for Carbonite, had it not been for me recommending Carbonite, he'd have lost it all.
But he's in the process of restoring it right now.
Carbonite off-site online backup.
For your Mac or PC, it's just $55 a year.
And you go to Carbonite.com and they'll give you a free 15-day trial.
And this is a genuine 15-day trial.
Most people on the web, if you want to try something for a month, they make you fill out your credit card information, sign up for a year, get the first month free if you decide to buy.
If you don't decide to buy, it's a hell of a hassle to get out of it.
Not true with Carbonite.
You don't give them one credit card number.
You use it for 15 days.
And then, if you like it, you buy it.
If you don't, Sayonara.
But you'll like it because you'll realize what you're doing.
You're going to have a backup of everything important.
$55 a year, 15-day free trial.
And if you use offer code Rush, you get two free months if you decide to buy.
Once again, the use of my name opens all kinds of doors.
Carbonite, back it up and get it back.
Because that's the real key.
Backing up, that won't, I mean, once you start it, you forget about it.
It happens every time you're connected to the internet.
You never see it happen.
And you probably forget it.
Till you're correct.
What was my answer to the guy?
Is it a pattern?
Well, I'm done answering the question.
I asked him if he saw a pattern between Big Cis.
You can throw Christina Romer in there, too.
I think he said, yeah, he saw a pattern, but I didn't answer the question.
I was asking him if he saw the pattern.
Carbonite.com, offer code Rush.
You thought you could interrupt me.
Get me off, but you couldn't.
I've been tracking the Euro today on the exchange rates because we're bailing them out over there.
$900 and almost a trillion dollars worth of bailouts from us, the IMF, which is us, and the European Central Bank, which is us, with unsecured loans.
Now, this is supposed to renew confidence in the European Union and its currency, the Euro.
Now, folks, don't look now, but the Euro is slipping.
And this, they still haven't found a big, fat-fingered guy who caused all that trouble last week in the stock market, have they?
They haven't produced that fat-fingered guy who entered a B instead of an M on a Procter ⁇ Gamble trade.
It caused us to lose 1,000 points in 20 minutes.
They haven't found that guy, have they?
So there may not be a fat-fingered guy.
It sounds like a bond villain.
There may not be a fat-fingered guy.
One of the things that was going on last week was that the dollar was gaining value against the Euro, and this was causing some panic because people had been shorting the dollar, betting it to lose money.
And the dollar starts gaining ground, gets stronger against the Euro, and there were some people bailing out of dollars.
Remember now, the market, even after all the comebacks, at the end of the day, was still down 364, and it was down 600 for the week.
So this morning, the Euro was at 1.30X.
I forget what the exchange rate was.
Now it's down to 1.2785.
Now, I took a look at the Dow Jones Industrial Average, and it hasn't noticed yet.
The Dow is still plus 300, so it's coming up at 360.
This may be a one-day rally where people, look at it, if the Euro is falling despite this bailout, it's not good, folks.
A friend of mine has an interesting suggestion.
We are leading the world, teaching the world, showing the world how to reduce nuclear weapons.
Why don't we also show the world how to reduce deficits?
Why don't we show the world how to lower taxes?
The dirty little secret is that the IMF and the Fed and even the New York Times want Greece to show us how it's done.
They want Greece to get out of the healthcare industry and privatize it.
They want Greece out of the energy sector and privatize that.
And they want Greece to get out of the transportation business and privatize that.
So ironically, it is Greece.
Now, they haven't done it yet.
I mean, this is just what's being suggested that they do.
How many of you out there in Florida, especially those of you in Florida, you got to hear this?
A couple of weeks ago, Charlie Crist was in big trouble against Marco Rubio, Republican primary.
And all of a sudden, Chris decides to go independent.
And in these three-way polls, he happens to be leading by four or five points over Marco Rubio, with Kendrick Meek trailing the rear in last place as the Democrat.
And people say, how the hell does that happen?
Well, hello, third parties, that's how it happens, for one thing.
But how does a guy losing in the polls 57 to 30 some odd end up winning?
Well, because he holds on to his support.
And Rubio loses some when there's a third option.
So guess what?
The latest news here, this is from David Fredoso at the Washington Examiner.
A group of Florida Democrats have been urging the White House to abandon their own Senate candidate, Representative Kendrick Meek, in all but name, and they appear to have succeeded.
A Wall Street Journal is reporting that Obama is seriously considering offering only half-hearted support to Meek, a black Democrat, the only serious black candidate for the Senate this year.
And Obama is willing to throw him under the bus in exchange for having a relationship with Charlie Crist.
The White House told the Democrats the president's supporting his party's likely nominee, but the Democrats came away from the conversations, thinking the White House might be open to discussing that level of passion that it would put behind Mr. Meek's candidacy, according to people familiar with the conversations.
Christ also appears to be speaking with Senate Majority Leader Dingy Harry, which should be taken as a sign of where he will caucus if he wins his Senate seat.
Now, we know that John Cornyn and the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee basically said, Christ, you're finished.
You leave the Republican.
We loved you, Christ.
You were on our team.
You're a great rhino.
We're going to be happy to have you.
But since you're not going to go Republican, you're going to go independent.
We can't support you.
So Chris has got one place left to go.
Rob Emmanuel and Obama and Harry Reid.
Well, three places to go.
And it looks like they're receptive to this.
I know Charlie Christ was running around here the last couple of months trying to convince everybody he was a Reagan conservative.
But now he's forging an alliance with Dingy Harry.
Well, it is.
It's kind of like Carl McCall all over, as if Carl McCall was running for governor of New York, not the U.S. Senate.
And here's that story from the journal.
Senate Majority Leader Dingy Harry placed a phone call late last week to Florida's newly independent Senate candidate, Governor Charlie Crist, and some Christ allies are taking it as a sign of cooperation to come.
So another poor black guy thrown overboard by the Democrat Party, in this case, the hapless Kendrick Meek, who is in third place in a three-way race in the Florida Senate primary concentr in Chatham, New Jersey.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
I'm glad you held on.
Hi.
Thank you very much, Rush.
We received this letter.
It said, registered documents enclosed.
It looked very official.
You open it up.
It's from the Democratic National Committee implying that I'm a part of a select group of leaders chosen to participate in a survey.
Now, this survey is asking all kinds of questions about President Obama's performance since he's in the presidency.
And then the underscored part of this says the Republican Party has been trying to fight back after their defeats in the 2008 elections and is being aided by the misinformation and hatred being spread by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
Our nation cannot afford for the Democratic Party to lose momentum.
When I looked at that, I really saw red.
But, of course, it's been going on.
And we are not Democrats, nor have we been.
But they are implying that we are leaders, you know, of the Democratic Party.
Are they asking you for money in addition to...
Of course.
All right.
That's what we finally get to at the end of all this nonsense.
They're asking for a contribution because they need it.
They need it.
Well, they sent another mailer out last week referring to Republican leader Rush Limbaugh.
And they have used me as a fundraising vehicle for years here.
Now, but it's a genuine survey they're asking about Obama, or you think that's just...
Yes, in the survey questions, they have things like, how do you rate President Obama's performance in addressing the nation's economic situation?
And then they have excellent, good, fair, poor, undecided.
And they have seven questions.
Well, are you going to respond?
No, of course not.
Why not?
Oh, I feel as though I'm being involved with a Democratic Party.
Now, wait a second.
You can just turn this around and have some fun with it.
What's the list?
Wait a second.
Everything's an opportunity if you look at it in the right light.
Well, that's what he was saying.
You think I should answer this then?
Well, yeah, maybe.
Are there checkboxes for the amount of money that you can contribute?
What's the smallest amount?
What's the smallest amount?
$25.
$25.
Do you have $25 laying around?
I guess so.
You know, fun to do.
You take the survey.
Are there places to write in comments in addition to just answering the questions?
No.
They simply ask those.
Of course, there's nothing to prevent you from using an area that's kind of blank by putting in your own comments if you'd like to.
You know, I couldn't do that, I suppose, but I just don't want anything to do with this Democratic National Committee.
And who is Governor Tim Pain, K-A-I-N-E?
He's got an eye problem.
He's the former governor of Virginia.
I see.
Yeah, and he now runs a Democrat National Committee.
I see.
I see.
When he's looking at you, you really can't tell.
Yes.
Typical Democrat.
I know.
We were thinking of having fun with it, too, but I don't know whether I want to be involved with this.
Well, you know, you don't have to send them 25.
They'll take anything.
No, it isn't that.
I just don't want to be involved with the Democratic Party.
I understand.
I understand.
They think you're a Democrat leader.
They got your name and address someplace.
Yeah, but not in politics.
My husband and I don't involve ourselves in politics at all.
That's why I'm surprised to get anything like this.
Really, really strange.
Well, we'll look at it and think about what we'll do.
Are you going to send it back?
Maybe with a check that bounces.
Send a check that'll bounce it.
Or what have you.
But put a little comment like, you know, I really don't appreciate you focusing so much on Rush Limbaugh.
Rush Limbaugh can't raise my taxes like Barack Obama has.
Exactly.
Rush Limbaugh can't send my kids off to war like Barack Obama has.
Rush Limbaugh cannot take away my health care and doctor like Barack Obama has.
I wish you people would focus on the real enemies of this country and look at yourselves.
That would be good.
That would be good.
I'll have to think about it.
Yeah, think about it.
It may not be worth the money to you.
Depends on how you define fun.
Well, that's true.
All right.
Well, I'm glad you called Concetta.
Thank you.
Thanks very much for holding on.
Thank you, Rush.
You bet.
We'll be back right after this, folks.
Don't go away.
Now, this is very interesting.
Something just crossed the desk here about the Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, and it is from legalinsurrection.blogspot.
It's by William Jacobson, the associate clinical professor of law at Cornell.
Supreme irony.
Kagan nomination ends gay marriage hopes.
On one issue of critical importance to the left, the constitutional right to same-sex marriage, Elena Kagan has staked out a very clear and unequivocal position.
There is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
In the course of her nomination, for Solicitor General, Kagan filled out questionnaires on a variety of issues.
While she bobbed and waved on many of them, with standard invocations of the need to follow precedent and enforce presumptively valid statutes, on the issue of same-sex marriage, Kagan was unequivocal.
In response to a question from Senator John Cornyn, page 28 of her Senate Judiciary Questionnaire, Kagan stated flat out that there was no constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry.
Given your rhetoric about the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, you call it a profound wrong, a moral injustice of the first order, let me ask you this basic question.
Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage?
Her answer, there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
What?
Well, maybe yet, but what Mr. Jacobson here is saying is it doesn't mean that she opposes gay marriage, but she clearly believes it's a matter for the political process, not a constitutional right.
She's on record as saying that.
So people who oppose recognizing a constitutional right to gay marriage routinely are called bigots and homophobes in academia and progressive circles.
It'll be interesting to see if these labels will be put on Kagan.
The ironies are palpable.
Again, this is William Jacobson, legalinsurrection.blog spot.
Now, you know, there are these Roland Martin at the CNN unhappy that she chose 28 out of 29 positions filled with white people at Harvard Law School.
And there's another, this Paul something other Paul Compost at some, whatever, she's not even, she's not even Harriet Myers League.
So there is, there are, there are, there's some ripples out there of.
Let's just say that the support is not unanimous.
Justin in Casper, Wyoming, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Hey, Rush.
Yeah, earlier I heard you criticizing the people in Greece for taking the welfare money, contributing to the problem.
I couldn't agree more.
I feel like I could be the welfare recipient official criticizer.
I've got a disability.
I've had it, I guess, since I was 18.
I crushed my back.
I've got rods holding me together, bolts and steel.
And I go to work every day, and I've done it since I was 18.
And now I'm raising a family, got three kids.
But where I live, I feel like sometimes I'm surrounded by people on welfare.
And of all the people there, I think I'm probably the only one with a legitimate disability that could actually be on welfare, but I'm paying their way, you know.
And so if I want to criticize them, I feel like I've got ample reason to criticize them.
Well, I mean, you do have standing.
You do have standing to criticize, just like Mr. Snurdley is our official Obama criticizer when we really need to go to the mattresses here.
And I'll tell you what, Obama's had two years to do something that on my level with my family, I could say I'm better off.
But I feel like my kids are more at risk in a more dangerous world than we were two years ago.
And my employer, they're having problems with insurance now because of the health care bill.
And any help I've got since I was hurt and 18 years old has come from the private sector.
None of it was government.
I know.
Apple develops the iPad, so I learned to write software for the iPad.
Well, that's great.
I wish I'd gotten a hold of you earlier.
You'd be a great inspirational story.
Snurdley thought you weren't that important and put you here at the end of the line.
It's his fault.
Maybe we'll be able to talk to you again, but this is fabulous news.
I got to take a break, though, because we simply have no time.
Back after this.
I know Obama said during the campaign that he didn't believe marriage, same-sex marriage.
It was between a man and a woman.
He said it during the campaign.
I guess she could change her mind.
She's a woman.
But I can't stop thinking about Pearl Kendrick Meek.
Another black guy thrown overboard.
Plus, Obama's really assaulting the Bible because it's obvious the Meek will not inherit the earth.
▲
Export Selection