All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 16, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:50
November 16, 2010, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
The House Ethics Panel has found Charles Wrangell guilty of at least 11 of 13 counts, ethics violations.
Charles Wrangell, a genuine real embarrassment to Democrats everywhere, because he got caught.
It's an absolute, it's an embarrassing day.
You're not supposed to get caught doing this kind of stuff, and Wrangell did.
He's just very careless.
Hi, folks.
How are you, Rush Limbaugh and the EIB network?
Nice to have you here.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882.
The email address lrushbaugh at eibnet.com from CNNmoney.com.
A number of Americans fighting off hunger stayed level last year.
Have you seen that out there?
Have you seen people fighting off hunger?
I see it all the time.
I drive around, and I do drive.
I do drive myself, and sometimes I look out the window and a lot of people waving at me as I go by.
And have you seen people fighting off hunger?
I mean, you can actually see it.
You go inside Publix or any groceries.
You can see them walk down the aisles.
They're reaching for something and they don't.
It's an amazing thing to watch.
People fighting off hunger.
U.S. hunger remains at its highest levels in 15 years.
I think one of the reasons, look at Richard Blumenthal.
A guy's got to be hungry.
He never eats.
If Blumenthal would just swallow, maybe our hunger deficit would drop somewhat.
I interrupted myself in the first sentence of this.
The number of Americans fighting off hunger stayed level last year, though food insecurity, not to be confused with food justice, food insecurity rates remain the highest they have been since the federal government began keeping track of food insecurity 15 years ago.
This is from the Department of Agriculture.
About 14.7% of U.S. households were food insecure in 2009.
What this was, it's not the food that's insecure.
It's the people in the houses that are insecure about food.
This means that food insecurity means that people had difficulty feeding one or more of their members.
What?
14.7% of U.S. households food insecure, meaning they had difficulty feeding one or more of their members.
At some point, whose member?
Whose member eats?
I mean, the way this is written, my friends, it's stunning here.
Let me try this again.
About 14.7%, and I'm just reading this for the first time, so bear with me.
14.7% of U.S. households were food insecure in 2009, meaning they had difficulty feeding one or more of their members at some point last year due to a lack of financial resources.
According to the report, that equates to 17.4 million households total who are food insecure, roughly 45 million people.
Households headed by single parents were more likely to struggle with food insecurity than those with two parents.
I wonder why that is.
Hunger-related issues were more prevalent among African-American and Hispanic households than white.
Well, of course, food's racist.
We know that.
Most of those classified as food insecure reported getting benefits, there it is again, from the federal government's three main anti-hunger initiatives, which apparently are utter failures.
If we have three main anti-hunger initiatives to deal with food insecurity, and there's still 45 million households or people not feeding their members because of food insecurity, you'd have to say that the three government programs are failures, much like the Obama administration.
You realize, folks, if Obama had just listened to me, he would not be a failure if he had just listened to me.
If he had just taken me up, on my op-ed and the Wall Street Journal on my way to stimulate the economy, if he had just listened to me, none of what we're going through now would we be going through.
Do you notice Obama came home?
I was stunned.
He actually came home from Asia and he's going again, going back over to Europe.
He's just passing through America, probably needed some clean underwear.
One of the reasons why he came home, heading back over to Europe now to deal with whatever economic strife he's causing there.
There's in bad shape.
I mean, folks, Europe is, I'm not finished with the food insecurity story either.
Europe is scrambling now to deal with Greece.
Ireland, Portugal, it's worse than they told him about Greece.
The deficit, the debt situation here is worse than they told us.
Ireland's on the brink.
Portugal and Spain are nearing economic collapse.
They have all spent themselves into bankruptcy.
They have all followed liberalism off the economic cliff.
China, the CHICOMs are fighting inflation.
The CHICOMs may impose price controls.
The world economy is weakening.
Nobody knows where this is headed.
There were warning signs everywhere, but our president, the lame duck Democrats, are not taking steps to deal with this looming economic storm.
Now, the markets, the CHICOM markets have tanked three days in a row.
And by the way, food insecurity in China, you don't even want to go there.
I mean, it's a major problem in China.
They don't get, it's not reported, but I mean, lots of food insecurity in Haiti.
I mean, folks, if you want to talk about food insecurity plus cholera, major first cholera outbreak in 40 years, and what's different?
The UN finally went in there.
The UN caused a cholera outbreak in Haiti.
Food insecurity, no food justice anywhere, China or Haiti.
Now the CHICOMs are, their markets have tanked three days in a row.
We're now below $11,000 on the Dow Jones Industrial Average as we speak tonight at this moment.
The CHICOMs are tightening over there, which means that they are fighting inflation.
That has caused or started the global effects, ripples from what the Chinese are doing being seen now.
The CHICOMs even said that they are looking at buying less USA treasuries.
And so now Europe is in the midst of coming apart over Greece and Ireland, Portugal.
Austria refused to send the bailout payment to Greece today.
They said, no way, you're on your own.
Austria, it's got its own problems anyway.
So far, QE2 has been a negative, has had the absolute reverse effect.
The dollar is way up.
The market is way down.
Interest rates on bonds are climbing.
The yields are climbing.
The exact opposite of what they all thought was going to happen is happening.
It's an absolute mess.
And Obama is going to stop in and visit America for a couple days between his vacation homes in Asia and in Europe.
Now, we ought to be taking steps to strengthen our economy.
And if Obama had listened to me Or any other economic conservative.
But of course, nobody or economic conservative had the guts to disagree with Obama at the outset, except for yours truly, all.
Speaking of that, Lisa Murkowski.
Let's get it.
Lisa Murkowski said that Sarah Palin does not have the intellectual curiosity to be president.
And last night on the CBS Evening News with the perky Katie Couric, Couric says, audio sound by number six, Mike.
The question from Couric, the message you're hearing loud and clear from voters is compromise.
Is that right?
I will tell you, I am not one of those who wants Obama to fail.
If he does well, that means the country's doing well.
We don't have time as a nation to spend all of what we do blocking.
We have got to figure out how we get to a point where we can be sitting around the table and talking about these difficult problems and advancing some solutions.
There you have it.
Lisa Murkowski ran as a write-in candidate in Alaska with an absolute insane comment.
Insane is not even the word.
This is just, and I would trade Lisa Murkowski to the Democrats for Heath Schuler.
You know, in a moment, in a moment, and we'd be gaining a couple of IQ points.
It's hard to believe, but we would be gaining a couple IQ points in that trade.
I'd give a Democrats Lisa Murkowski today for Heath Schuler, and I don't even want to draft choice in the next draft.
Straight up deal.
What a ludicrous thing to say.
I will tell you, I'm not one of those who wants Obama to fail.
If he does well, it means the country's doing well.
Lisa, he is doing well.
He is succeeding at what he wanted to do.
He got his Obamacare.
He got, this is silly to keep reliving.
We are surrounded by, I don't know what this is, a lack of knowledge?
Is this ignorance?
Is it pipe dream Miss America type hopefulness?
What is this?
It certainly isn't intellectual curiosity.
This isn't even intellectual.
Lisa Murkowski, we got to figure out.
We can't spend their time as a nation blocking.
We damn well better, or there won't be a nation.
What the hell was this election, Ms. Murkowski, if it wasn't blocking?
Holy smokes.
Now, back to the report on U.S. hunger.
Thought I lost my place, but I didn't.
The dirty little secret is the supplemental nutritional assistance program, the national screw-will lunch program, and the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children, better known as WIC, are all failing.
Those three federal anti-hunger initiatives have not cured food insecurity.
In a press release, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that 18.7% more people had participated in these programs in 2009.
Over 2008, rates also rose for the free lunch program, up 5.4%, and the WIC program up 5.8%.
And still, food insecurity, which again is defined as households having difficulty feeding one or more of their members.
At some point, I'll ask, have you ever been hungry?
Well, I know, but everybody gets hungry, right?
That's why people eat.
How do you even calculate hunger?
U.S. hunger.
I mean, hunger, at some points, 100%.
Virtually everybody on a diet is hungry, which is the point.
Everybody on a diet goes to bed hungry, gets up hungry, and spends a whole day hungry, and is ticked off about it.
You talk about food insecurity.
Person on a diet goes to the drugstore, grocery store, and sees 99% of what he or she can't have.
You want to talk depression?
I mean, look at it.
Now, we can't have it both ways.
We are either morbidly obese, fat slobs needing the attention of the first lady, Michelle Mybel Obama, or we are a hungry nation with food insecurity.
Which is it?
To say that there is hunger in America insults the starving people in this world.
And there are people starving.
And here we go, bellyaching and whining and moaning about food insecurity.
I'm beginning to think food insecurity is what causes obesity.
There can be no other explanation.
If you're food insecure, what do you do?
You eat.
If you eat too much to deal with your food insecurity, then you get fat.
Obese.
Sorry, whatever.
Food insecurity is probably the leading cause of morbid obesity.
Another thing, this study says that single-parent homes are more hungry than two-parent homes.
Okay, so is that the real cause of this?
Sure, a damn good one to look into, but they never addressed that problem.
Why are there so many one-parent households?
Well, it's just the way it is, Mr. Limbaugh.
It's just the way it is.
They have to learn to accept society as an end caused by years and years and years of Reagan economics, Mr. Limbaugh.
Okay, that's the way you look at it.
So it seemed to me the solution is not to help people have two-parent homes.
It's to give the single ones more of our money.
Is that the solution here?
More food programs, which thus encourages single-parent homes.
If you are a single-parent home, you get more food goodies from the government than a two-parent home.
So here, the feds, the ruling elites, the food ruling elites, to boot, never address the real reason why these things happen because it points to their failures.
Why do we have single parenthood?
It's, well, one, it's called abortion.
It's called welfare programs.
It's called federal government's taking over the role of being father and husband.
All right.
I got to take a brief time out here, my friends.
We'll be back before you know it.
Again, the telephone number is 800-282-2882.
Don't go away.
I think it was a week ago today I spent a lot of time opening the program talking about the fissures that were beginning to open up in the Democrat Party, in the White House, up on Capitol Hill, the realization that Obama's not the answer, that Obama's actually a one-man wrecking crew, that there were people plotting, trying to figure out how to get him out of the way, make him a one-termer.
And none of this, as you recall, I knew.
It was a political story with unnamed sources.
And they were saying quite a lot.
And it was almost as though it was part of a plan.
And then these similar things started appearing elsewhere.
And then later in the week, more and more people started citing unnamed Democrat sources, giving credence to my instinctive theory, as expressed a week ago today.
Something is going on.
You look at in the political Pelosi scrambles, a thwart rebellion.
She's thinking about axing George Miller, Laura Rosa Delauro, and other Pelosi cronies.
No, she's not, there's a push on to get rid of them since they can't stop her from retaking the throne.
A bunch of Democrats do not want Pelosi being the leader of the Democrats in the House.
And realizing they don't have the votes to knock her from the top, perch, the moderate Blue Dog Democrats have set their sights a little lower, targeting George Miller, Rosa Delauro, and Louise Slaughter, all of whom hold influential jobs because Pelosi has installed them.
And then there's this.
The Congressional Black Caucus has decided to withhold its approval for the House Democrat leadership team, denying Pelosi full support of the 42-member organization as she campaigns to remain leader.
After a nearly two-hour-long meeting last night, Chairwoman Barbara Lee of California said the group only will endorse caucus member James Clyburn of South Carolina for the leadership position.
The caucus first wants to know what his role will be in the Democrat leadership before backing the full slate.
Barbara Lee said, we fully support our current whip, Mr. Clyburn, for the number three position.
We're currently reserving judgment on the entire package till we see what the actual portfolio entails.
Can I translate this for you?
They want to make sure that Clyburn's not a token position.
Remember, it's a created position.
Stenny Hoyer got the job Clyburn wants.
Stenny Hoyer got number two.
Stenny Hoyer got the car.
Stenny Coyer got the driver.
Stenny Hoyer got the perks.
And to avoid all kinds of, you don't even want to go there kind of problems, a new leadership position was created for Clyburn.
And he gets a car and he gets a driver and the perks.
But now the Congressional Black Caucus is withholding support for all this because they want to make sure that this is actually a substantive leadership position that Clyburn has been given and not something that's just token.
We want to make sure, this is Representative Yvette Clark of New York of the Congressional Black Caucus.
We want to make sure that there is a substantive weight given to that position.
She stressed that she did not want it to be a marginal or ceremonial type of position.
Right now, it's just the beginning of the discussion.
So Pelosi thought she had fought off the little chihuahuas here nipping at her heels by creating this position for Clyburn and the Congressional Black Caucus.
Wait a minute.
We're not going to just sign on to this unless this gig has some substance to it.
And then back to the White House, Richard Wolf, Insider, NBC, has a new book, Revival, The Struggle for Survival, inside the Obama White House.
And he's starting to dish on how much the Clintons hate the Obamas and vice versa and have from the get-go, which I knew way back even during the primaries.
It's one of the reasons for Operation Chaos.
Those soundbites are coming up.
Sit-Tight will be back again before you know it.
What is the Congressional Black Caucus supposed to do here?
On the one hand, they're worried that Pelosi's created a token position for James Clyburn.
On the other hand, the Ethics Committee has just found Wrangell, who's a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, guilty on 11 of 13 counts.
And they said it was slam dunk.
I mean, before the decision was announced, practically as this program began, it was hopeless, whether he gets a lawyer or not.
So what a day for the Congressional Black Caucus.
Is Clyburn getting a token position?
And Wrangell's guilty on 11 of 13.
Now they're deciding the sentence that Wrangell is going to get.
I'll tell you, folks, it's all this talk about the infighting in the Republican Party.
I don't see it.
I see the Tea Party winning the day on earmarks.
I mean, the elite GOP, the establishment caved pretty quickly on the whole earmarks thing.
And that's clearly a Tea Party victory.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are falling apart and the president can't even stay in town.
And I have a question about the scanners here at the airports.
The full body, the nude scanners.
You know, you know that the first leak has occurred.
Somebody or a series of people's naked scans have been leaked.
And they're out there.
So far, faces have been covered.
We don't know who, but you knew this was going to happen.
You knew, I mean, you knew it was going to happen.
And it's going to be very interesting.
So I have a question.
And I'm serious about this.
Somebody's going to have to tell me.
I don't know what just popped into my head here.
Can these scans you can tell who's had a C-section, for example.
You'll be able to tell who's had a C-section.
Will these scans be able to tell whether or not a woman's had an abortion?
And if so, will these naked body scans be able to tell how many?
I've seen the scans of males.
I mean, we're going to get the truth about that.
Well, yeah, breast implants too.
I mean, are we going to get, because there are obviously going to be surgical procedure indications here.
If a woman has breast implants, will this be known?
How large?
Will we be able to tell if a woman has had an abortion or few?
Can you naked scans, these pictures of people naked that are leaking, will they be, can you buy them on the black market?
Will you be able to buy them on the breast?
Are they going to be for sale?
There's a lot of, you know, all the unintended consequences here that will, I mean, you're going to be able to tell whether somebody needs to be circumcised or not.
All kinds of things will be available.
But if you can, if, what, what's, what's a question?
Oh, yeah, circum, absolutely.
You're going to be able, yeah, the, well, yeah, size of breasts, size of everything.
Yes.
I mean, I'm looking now.
You can see this.
It's plain as day on these naked scans.
So this is why, remember, there already has been one, a fist fight occurred because one agent during the testing of this, who was remarkably not well in doubt, his picture leaked out and everybody started laughing at him within the agent community.
And he started beating people up over it.
This was what, I have to research this three weeks ago or a month ago, something like that.
And Janet Napolitano said, well, we'll listen to questions about this, but she's not going to change her opinion of this.
She's not going to change the policy on any of this.
If this thing reveals how many women have had abortions, you realize how fast this thing is going to be shut down.
At any rate, here's Richard Wolfe.
Back to the serious part of the program.
Last night on MSNBC, Richard Wolfe, who's in the tank for Obama.
NBC has all kinds of access, has written now his second book about Obama.
This latest book is Revival, The Struggle for Survival in Thigh the Obama White House.
Question, the reason that you did this was to discover what, if anything, had changed the entire Obama team inside the West Wing during this first 20-plus month.
What was the answer?
And was it a surprise?
I tell the story about how John Podesta, the former Clinton chief of staff who is running the transition, gets into a heated exchange with the campaign people before election day saying, you know, this promise you made about not having lobbyists in the administration?
Well, we've got to get around that.
Now, the campaign people said this wasn't a minor thing.
You know, this is what the candidate, the president-elect, really believes in.
And of course, they watered it down one way or another.
Podesta says, well, he was really just hedging where the president wanted to hedge.
But that debate about whether you should stick to the revivalist spirit of the campaign or govern and mold yourself to Washington, that has been the fault line running through this White House for the last two years.
All right.
So now here's Wolf is basically an Obama apologist attempting to spin and blame some of the, like this lobbying business on the Clintons.
So if Richard Wolfe is saying it's Podesta, that you've got to have lobbyists in it, this is the administration through Richard Wolf saying it's the Clintons that came in here and corrupted me.
That's what this means.
Because Wolf is not going to go in there and take the side of the Clintons.
I guarantee you, Wolf has access granted by the Obamas and Rahm Emanuel.
So this book, I'll tell you, folks, there's more going on inside this White House.
There is tumult.
There is friction.
You've got apparently a president who is detached.
One report heard Sean Hannity yesterday say that this I have trouble believing.
Hannity said that they hate taking bad economic news to Obama because he just freaks out.
He can't handle it.
And I've always thought that's what he wants is bad economic news.
Maybe what that means is they're failing to spin the bad economic news as something good for the country.
But if you're crying out loud, if you are Barack Obama and you are expecting your policies to create an economic boom, holy cow, my friends, we're in worse trouble than we thought.
You'd almost prefer this to be intentional than to have somebody so ignorant and out of and a whole team that would be that way.
So I was a little suspect of that.
Obama gets upset at bad economic news, doesn't want to hear it.
He seems to smile every time he talks about it.
The guy seems happy about presiding over a country in decline.
Every time he talks about this when the world stage or the domestic stage, he seems totally content.
He says he's accomplished 70% of what he wanted to get done.
Maybe he gets mad when unemployment goes down.
Maybe they come in and say, hey, guess what?
Unexpected 50,000 new jobs created.
And then he gets mad at that.
I know it sounds preposterous, but clearly this is an administration and a party in utter disarray.
And we asked ourselves throughout the first two years of this regime, why are they so unhappy?
They're getting everything they want.
They're getting health care.
Obama said, if I can't get cap and trade legislatively, then I'll just, you know, I'll bring it about on my own with the oil drilling moratoriums and what have you.
They got his stimulus bill.
He's getting tax increases.
The reason they're unhappy is because it's not bringing about the panacea that the rank and file of the left think will result from all this.
It's not bringing about utopia.
They're looking at practically 70% of what they want done being done, and they're miserable.
And as I pointed out yesterday, there are more and more people on the left now saying the problem is they didn't go far left enough, which is hilarious.
Next question to Richard Wolf: Well, if it's Obama loyalists, revivalists, Valerie Jarrett, that crowd, the veterans with Obama from the beginning versus the old hand Clintonistas, if the president had repeatedly rejected this Clinton model for his presidency, this is the lobbying thing, why were there any survivalists?
Why were they seemingly in charge?
Why were any Clinton person to have any power in there at all?
That framework from the primaries really does set up what happens after.
Remember, in the final stretch in Iowa, he goes up and gives a speech, crystallizing the debate between the two, where he says, you cannot at once say you're the master of the broken system in Washington and offer yourself up as the person to change it.
My argument is, based on my research, my sources, he's got a foot in both camps.
He wanted to try and do both, and it was just as untenable for him in year one and year two as it was for Clinton in the primaries.
So it was the effort of the Clintonistas in the White House to make Obama do things like Clinton did that somehow hurt Obama.
This is what they're trying to say now.
Believe me, this is a total dump on the Clintons.
Total, total dump.
That's what Wolf is being used for here.
And now we're hearing the Clintons don't like Obama.
That stands to reason, doesn't it?
This was Hillary's, folks.
This White House was hers.
This was ordained.
It was axiomatic.
It was automatic until the articulate black guy showed up and then everything fell apart.
And then the press abandoned Hillary and picked up.
You know, human nature is what it is.
These people are good at putting up unified fronts during campaigns.
And I have always suspected that there are daggers out in both directions.
And we know, we know full well what Clintons both want to be in the back of the White House someday.
Now we're getting all these stories about, and Doug Schoen, nothing has Doug Schoen.
I don't know Doug Schoen.
I'm sure he's a fine man, and I'm sure that he's entirely legit and credible with his polling work.
But he was part of the team that came out USA Pat Cadel or Sunday in the Washington Post suggesting Obama be a one-termer.
Now, Shoan worked for the Clintons.
He was a very high-ranking Clintonista pollster.
And now Shoan is all over Fox News, and he is not particularly high on the Democrat Party as it stands today.
I mean, he's out there saying the Democrat Party doesn't get it.
Politico has a couple polls out today.
Washington elites see a totally different America and a reason for the midterm election results than anybody else.
And Doug Schoen's on TV today saying a Democrat Party does not get it.
They don't understand it.
What's happened here is a total repudiation of the Democrat Party and President Obama.
You had a former Clinton pollster out saying this on Fox.
So I've always trusted my instincts with this stuff.
And I know that the Democrat Party is a far-left bunch.
And I know that they want to institute, implement, impose as much liberalism on the country as possible.
But they do not want to get shellect like they did on November 2nd.
They don't want to lose over 600 state legislative seats.
They don't want to lose all these governorships.
They didn't want to lose 60-plus seats in the House to get this done.
Some were willing to make that sacrifice, but the Democrat Party at large, which envisions themselves in perpetual power, was not willing to pay this kind of price.
I don't care what anybody tells you.
Now, they know they still have the bureaucracy populated with their people, and they've got the judiciary populated with their people.
And they're confident that that alone will keep this leftist tilt going.
But they themselves want a taste of the power themselves that it's been denied them.
And you contrast where they all thought they were headed two years ago with where they are now.
And there's one guy who's failed to keep up his into the bargain.
And that's the president.
And we will be back.
I'm told that the scanning machines, the full-body nude scan machines, cannot, but I can't confirm this, reveal whether or not a woman's had an abortion.
I don't know how.
What about Botox?
Will a machine reveal whether you've had a Botox treatment now or in the past?
Tom in a major airport, calling from Partson on a major airport.
TSA guy, great to have you on the program, sir.
Hi.
Pleasure's mine, Rush.
Longtime listener, 20 years or so.
I just wanted to, I don't know, maybe answer some questions, get the record straight.
First of all, I think what you've taught us to do, Rush, is think a little below the surface.
And this guy who has gone internet viral, I think he's accomplished what he wanted to do.
The using his cell phone?
Yeah.
The guy in San Diego?
You know, I heard it was like 6.30 in the morning.
So this TSA officer, he probably gets up at 3.30 in the morning, goes to work, trying to be diligent.
He did use the wrong verbiage.
There's no verbiage of groin check.
It's an inner thigh check.
You're supposed to say inner thigh, not groin.
Right.
And, you know, we are, Rush, you know, 99% of us, whatever out there, are trying to do it right.
And, you know, the...
Well, you have your orders, right?
I mean, you're given your orders.
Yeah.
And even with the imaging, I mean, when you're looking at the imaging, you do not see the person that is in the booth being imaged.
And that image should be deleted immediately.
Wait a minute, now.
When you're looking at the image, you do not see.
You're in a remote location clearing that image of any threat.
So the scanners on site are not the ones analyzing the nude image.
Is that what you're saying?
You never see that person.
And that's one of the things, you know, Department of Homeland Security, you know, they try to get it right.
They don't want you, you know, looking at an image, and then here's the lady, and hey, I just checked her out.
Oh, I see.
So you see a pretty woman coming.
You don't target her because it's somebody off-site.
So you're telling me that whoever's looking at the scan that shows nudity does not see the human being not in the same room with the scan's taking place.
Exactly.
And then that image is deleted.
Well, not that.
Because some of them are leaked.
Some of them have gotten out.
They're on the internet.
Okay, like I said, I haven't seen those.
I'm going to look when I get home, but I don't know.
They may be false images.
You know, somebody else generates.
Like I was telling, Bo, these are not, you know, titillating, stimulating sexual photos.
It looks more to me like something out of, you know, Terminator.
You know?
Yeah.
I don't know.
That's just you.
I mean, that's just you.
I mean, there's all kinds of people out there.
Oh, I understand that.
I am constantly stunned when I learn what excites people.
That's one of the things that, frankly, worries me greatly about our society.
I don't talk about it much, but something that bothers me.
Here's what I'm talking about.
Gizmodo, which is part of the Gawker universe, has investigated this.
They have revealed 100 photographs saved by a scanner in Orlando of public officials and private citizens.
100 scans have been kept and they have been released with the identity that the heads covered, but the originals aren't.
So they're not all being deleted is the point.
And the Gawker guys, I mean, stands to reason their name, Gawker, they found 100 of them.
▲
Export Selection