If anybody's passing out game balls, I deserve one for that phone call with Tony.
And don't, no, no, don't misunderstand.
Tony's a great guy.
This guy, he's a sharp football fan.
There aren't too many people that know or who have figured out right now that if there is no football next year, it's going to be because the players strike.
And that's going to, if that's, I don't think there's going to be a work stoppage anyway.
This debacle in Minnesota is one of the reasons why.
I mean, look at the mess one snowfall caused.
Some guy in the Wall Street Journal has a great point about this.
Of all the things that have happened.
Snow in Minneapolis prevents a game from being played in the NFL.
Of all the, who would have ever, ever thought that?
Back in the old ball yard in Minneapolis, Bloomington Stadium, metropolitan state, they played outdoors.
I mean, it was the biggest advantage the Vikings ever had.
They built this dome in 82.
They played inside ever since.
So here, snow in Minneapolis kills the football game.
Oh, we can't play over at the college stadium.
The wind chills too.
Oh, we can't.
Why does no, the Giants didn't bring their cold weather gear.
Well, you got 36 hours to fly it in there.
Well, no, a windchill right across the state in Illinois.
They're playing in a blizzard.
We can't play outdoors in Minnesota.
No, no, no way.
So we got to go to Detroit to play the game.
There isn't going to be a work stoppage.
Anyway, it just, all this is posture.
There's too much money out there in a very, very rotten economy that's not going to improve that much by the time next season comes along.
What this is all about is playing 18 games in a regular season.
And once they figure out a way to satisfy the players with more roster spots, figure out a way to make the players think they're getting more money for playing two additional games that count.
I mean, they already play 20 games a season with the starters playing two preseason games anyway.
Who's going to count those now?
So it's going to get done.
These people are not that stupid.
They're not.
Well, now wait a minute.
I say that, but the liberals all over this country are willing to kill a golden goose that's America.
So I don't know.
I just, I look at it and it just can't be.
All this posturing right now is exactly what you would expect.
The first real deadline's not until March.
And the second real deadline is not until you get to August.
And everybody knows things like this don't get done until the real deadlines get close.
That's when both sides will show ultimately what they're willing to lose and give up.
And not before then.
It could even be done before that, I think, before next August.
But if it does happen, and if the players decertify, which they have, I mean, they voted to decertify the union.
Every team's voted to do this.
Well, then they have to strike if there's no playing.
Owners can't lock out a union that doesn't exist.
And that's, skews me where everybody is set.
But I just, I really have to agree with this Wall Street Journal reporter.
It is laughable that snow cancels a game in Minnesota.
Stop and think of that.
Minnesota prides itself, Minneapolis, on having its winter carnival.
They live outside during the winter.
They have to.
It's their life.
Anyway, Landmark Legal Foundation has released a statement on the federal judge, Henry Hudson, today, ruling Obamacare is unconstitutional.
The statement says, Judge Hudson ruled against the Obama regime on three essential points involving Obamacare.
Number one, individuals who do not actively participate in commerce, that is, who do not voluntarily buy health insurance, cannot be said to be participating in commerce under the U.S. Constitution-Commerce Clause.
And there is no Supreme Court precedent providing otherwise.
Number two, the necessary and proper clause of the Constitution cannot be used as a backdoor means to enforce a statute that is not otherwise constitutional under Congress's enumerated powers.
And number three, the judge said there is a difference between a tax and a penalty.
There is much Supreme Court precedent in this regard, and the penalty provision in Obamacare is not a tax, as the regime argues, but a penalty, and therefore is unconstitutional for it's applied to individuals, for it is applied to individuals who choose not to purchase health care.
Judge Hudson's ruling against the Obama administration and four, the Commonwealth of Virginia gives hope that the rule of law and the Constitution itself still have meaning.
Landmark Legal Foundations filed several amicus briefs in this case at the request of the Commonwealth and will continue to provide support in the likely event the Commonwealth is required to defend this decision in the Fourth Circuit and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court.
Landmark would also like to congratulate Virginia Attorney General Ken Kuzzinelli and the excellent lawyers in his office for their superb legal skills.
Landmark legal president Mark R. F. Lee Levin declared it is a great day for the rule of law and the citizenry, including those in Rio Linda.
Judge Hudson's ruling is ironclad.
General Kuzzinelli deserves an enormous amount of credit for taking on this matter.
We look forward to continuing to work with him.
So three essential reasons to herald the judge's findings, and they are solid and they are constitutional in scope, not political, as the Democrat judges have found in saying the deal is constitution.
Yeah, I've got a Fourth Circuit.
This case, Florida has its own.
There are other courts which will probably under the auspices of a different circuit, but this will go to the Fourth Circuit, and they'll all end up probably as one.
Well, I don't know about that, but they'll all end up at the Supreme Court at some point.
When is the key?
When is the key?
Now, as far as the Republicans are concerned, politically, they have got to start immediately on the effort to repeal this.
They must start knowing full well that Obama is at first going to veto and probably the votes will not be there to override.
But I don't buy this argument that down the road, look at if Democrats can be this panicked over taxes for reelection, who's to say we can't get them on board for a repeal of this because nobody wants this.
The polling data on this far, far more damaging than the polling data on this tax business.
Actually, it's about equal, two-thirds.
Two-thirds of the people don't want the tax cuts to expire, and two-thirds don't like health care.
So they've got to act fast.
They got to get going before 2012 on this.
Also, they got to get going before some of the freebies by law are implemented, because the Obama strategy on this is very simple.
Remember, Obama said when he heard Republicans are going to try to repeal, he said, go on, go for it.
What he's counting on is enough of the freebies, The perception of free health care or free this or existing coverage, pre-existing coverage, as much of that gets implemented as possible.
Then if the Republicans come along and want to repeal it, the Democrats can say they want to take away your health care.
Just like they've always said the Republicans want to take away your Social Security.
So there's no time to lose in starting to fight for the repeal of this.
And I know I'm probably whistling Dixie here because whatever they're going to do on this tax bill they're going to do.
I've even got people emailing, you better talk to Larry Cudlow.
Larry Cudlow says it's 90% tax cuts and 10% spending.
There aren't any tax cuts.
By the way, Brian, I need to ask you your professional observance here.
Because I'm getting emails.
I don't know if it's one person complaining 10 times or five people complaining twice, but they say they can hear me pounding my desk when I speak.
Like, can you hear this right now when I'm pounding?
Can you hear that?
Can you hear it when I'm speaking or only when I'm not?
You can hear just a little whim when I'm speaking or when I'm not speaking.
When I'm not speaking, you can hear it.
When I'm speaking, can you hear this at all?
Okay, is it enough to make you turn off the radio?
Is it irritating to you?
I know I've always done this for 23 years, but these people are claiming it's driving them nuts and they're going insane.
Very soft.
I know it's not, it's not that.
But it's a, you know, sometimes I sit here, I have my nervous energy.
It's, folks, I don't know.
It's just, it's difficult to explain to you the feeling, the energy, emotion of being right and pounding that home to everybody.
You know, it just, it's, I know it's something that not everybody can identify with.
I'm going to go out and see if I can buy a miniature coffin.
And I'm going to send that to Tony to bury his team this season, the New York Jets.
Tony in Tampa.
I'm just having fun with it, snerdly.
Snurdy says, that's cold.
Well, his coach is burying game balls.
Rex Ryan burying game balls.
He buried the game ball after the Patriots game.
And somebody in a New York tabloid said today they're going to run out of real estate to bury balls at the Jets headquarters if this keeps up.
Here's Richard in Arlington, Texas.
Richard, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Thank you.
Thank you, Rush.
Have you been to you for a couple decades?
Thank you very much, sir.
Appreciate that.
This tax proposal that's being considered, they were talking about a 2% pass on Social Security.
That's going to really have a negative effect on people who are, say, about 60 and above, who are approaching the time when they're going to be looking at the Social Security benefits.
Are you assuming that the 2% payroll tax cut for one year will result in less benefits to recipients?
Yes, it will, because when you go in to sign up for your benefit, they will look at your payments.
Payments have been made on your behalf, and it's like an annuity.
Is that right?
The more you pay in, the more you get out.
I did not think that they would be that petty.
Oh, yeah, it's in the rules.
It used to be.
Well, the more you paid in, the more you get, and it was the most that you paid over an eight-quarter deal over the highest couple of years.
You know, if you're if you're under under these last couple, if you're right, five years.
If you're right, this is a great point, though.
This is going to save the federal government billions.
Think myself.
Well, I mean, because they get to do a double whammy here.
They get to reduce people's taxes, and then when those people retire, oh, guess what?
Remember that tax cut you got 20 years ago?
Well, your benefits are going to be reduced by 20 years.
You have to be here for a couple of decades.
Yeah.
So you get $400 a year break this year, and it's going to cost you $10,000 over your retired years.
Yeah, that's right.
If you're depending on them, that's absolutely true.
We're going to look into it.
We've got to find this out.
I'm going to find this out because this is fascinating.
It's interesting to me.
If this 2% cut for one year will actually result in a reduced benefit payment for everybody who gets the cut.
For everybody who gets the cut, who goes in to put in for Social Security in the next five years.
People who are 61 to 65, that kind of thing.
And so it's those folks like myself who've been paying into Social Security for 45 years thinking that, hey, I'm going to get a check.
And they used to send us a statement that said, you know, you're going to get $3,000 a month because you've been paying in a lot.
And then they sent a note saying, well, we're going to pay you a couple thousand dollars a year because we're only going to use the last couple of years.
Right.
What's your favorite football team, Richard?
The Cowboys?
He used to be.
I'm looking for one.
Maybe that Tony guy could suggest something.
You know what I think?
Maybe you could have him as a guest host, and then he could look behind the curtain and see what the powers of the liberty are.
No, that wouldn't tell him.
Maybe he'd speak a little lower.
No, he might be a good host, but that wouldn't tell him what I couldn't tell him.
He wouldn't learn that simply by being here.
He might learn other things, but he wouldn't learn that.
Anyway, Richard, thanks for the call.
I appreciate it.
This is Keith in North Palm Beach, Florida.
Great to have you here, sir.
Hey, good afternoon, Rush.
While I was on hold, I heard you talking about a giants.
I'm a Giants fan.
I have to agree with you.
The Meadowlands has no roof, so I don't know what their problem is.
But I wanted to make a comment about no labels.
I'm a conservative libertarian, and at first I was pretty skeptical about this site, but having now been a member of it for a month, it actually goes back before the election, a few months.
There's a lot of Republican conservators on there.
They're just tired of the hyper-polarization, the name call, and all that.
They just want stuff to get done.
So I wanted to make sure.
I don't know if you're aware of that.
Oh, Republicans tired of polarization?
Yeah.
Yeah, I'm everyday people, you know.
Yeah, well, I'm aware of that.
It's not as many as you would think, but I'm aware of it.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, because I go on there every day, and I talk to a lot of people.
It covers a lot.
I mean, you've got Republicans on there, Democrats, conservatives, liberals, whatever you want to call them.
And that's really the point of this organization is to get rid of labels so that we can get stuff done and work together instead of this cost and cost and gridlock.
I mean, what do you think about this tax cut compromise?
Wait, now, are you asking me?
Yeah, with them saying, oh, the Republicans are holding us hostage and all that.
I mean, what do you think of that?
You think that's effective?
Is that going to help anybody?
I'm not sure what you're asking me.
Are you asking me if the Republicans, if saying the Republicans are holding us hostages is helpful?
Or if you are saying that you think the Republicans are holding us hostage and that's which.
No, I'm not saying anybody.
I'm not saying anything.
I'm not saying Republicans all mentioned.
I'm talking about the other side making that statement.
I think President Obama himself said that, right, at his press conference, he did.
And so, I mean, do you really think that helps this debate at all?
No, but it's typical.
I laugh it off.
It's something to make a joke of to me.
I don't.
I'm sorry, go ahead.
But no, the reason I'm confused, you started out talking.
There are a lot of Republicans who think that there's too much partisanship and they just want to get things done.
So you agree with the no labels bunch?
That's where I'm stuck.
I'm still back there.
Do you agree or disagree with no labels?
I agree with the premise of it, you know, that we need to put the name calling aside.
Yeah, but it's not.
I'm a Tea Party actor.
It isn't possible.
See, no labels is not possible.
And the fact that it was founded by three really want to work, who are out of work, Democrat political consultants.
No, I understand that.
But what I'm saying is the people who actually go on the site, not the organizers, not the leaders of the no labels, but the people like me who go on this site, it's a Facebook application.
So we can contact each other all throughout the country and we can form our own groups.
You know what I'm saying?
It's not like it's not a party.
It's not a, we can do whatever we want.
We can do what we want to do in our district, in our each individual congressional district.
You see what I'm saying?
Yeah.
Look, I think I do.
Here's what I know.
What I know is that conservatism is named two to one when people say, what's your ideological preference?
40% conservative, 20% liberal.
So naturally, the no labels crowd wants to come over and try to race that.
Whenever Democrats come up with a new strategy, it's always to accommodate when they just got creamed.
They just got creamed.
It's Democrats forming no labels.
So of course they want to come up with something that's going to deneuter or neuter conservatives and Republicans.
They want to get rid of labels because the brand names do not help them.
Democrat and liberal are albatrosses.
And they're doing it under the guise that there's all these people in the middle who don't like being labeled and so forth.
It's a scam.
It's a total scam.
And it exists because of two reasons.
The founders want to make some money and they want to also, the Democrats are going along with it because their labels are not helpful.
Democrat and liberal are losers right now.
Pure and simple.
That's the only reason this is happening.
And everybody else that goes for it is getting sucked in because they buy into the substance of, yes, we all would rather get things done.
And we can't get things done because we are all held hostage to the far left and to the far right.
And we are all in the middle.
And we think the solutions to problems come with each issue, not with an ideological litmus test.
So we want to be free to have our opinion on every issue counts, okay?
Fine.
So you no labels people, I have a tryout for you.
An audition, a test.
Show me, show us, all of you no labels people, how to handle the abortion divide.
Tell me how to get rid of pro-choice and pro-life.
Where are you no labels people on the abortion?
If you can show me where you guys at no labels can implement your belief And solve that issue, I would be most interested.
I don't think they can.
I think that's the test for this no labels bunch.
But again, it's a false premise.
It's not about no labels.
It's about everything else.
Hey, we're back.
Rush Limboy here on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
By the folks, I got a splendid fundraiser, promotion package from Hillsdale College.
And it found something to be very interesting.
And there's a blurb here that you people will find fascinating.
I did.
In 1932, Hillsdale College trustees cut faculty salaries 20% to provide more funds for student scholarships during the Great Depression.
Did you hear that?
1932, Hillsdale College trustees cut faculty shares 20% to provide more money for student scholarships during the Great Depression.
You know, when teachers didn't talk about the children, but actually cared for them?
Would you ever think of this happening?
All these teachers and all these administrators run around, and what's their answer?
Raise tuition.
In an economy like this, Hillsdale College, in the middle of the Depression, cut teacher salaries to enable more education for the kids.
Hillsdale, you know them.
We love them here.
They have their publication in Primus.
Monthly Digest captures the brilliant words spoken by bright, interesting, conservative who has spoken recently.
Mike Pence from Indiana is the latest.
It's a great gift.
It doesn't cost you anything.
It's free to everybody.
You go online, rushforhillsdale.com, sign up, and you'll be able to print a gift certificate that describes what your friends will be receiving.
Imprimus, I mean, it's a great, great gift.
It doesn't cost anybody anything.
It's inspirational.
It's motivational.
It's informative.
And it is from Hillsdale College.
Rush4Hillsdale.com.
Alan in Atlanta.
It's great to have you, sir, on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
How are you doing?
Very well, sir.
Thank you.
Good.
On this Obama-Clinton situation about the podium, I was telling certainly I had friends tell me that it reminded me of the same thing when Sammy Davis Jr. kissed Nick Cinzan, I don't know how many years ago.
Not racial, but it's still, you know what I'm saying?
As far as him walking away from that podium, leaving another president, it would have been no problem if it said it had been somebody on the staff or somebody, you know, as far as politics is concerned, lower than him.
But once you get somebody the same level as another president, then he, in other words, he gave up his podium for another president.
Well, you know, now that's that's that's the way I looked at it from the standpoint.
You just lowered yourself.
When the president finishes talking, that's the end.
Presidents don't seed the podium unless there's a joint presser with another head of state.
But presidents don't see.
Now, your analogy here is interesting.
I remember I was alive.
This would have been, I think, 72, and it was in Miami at the Republican convention.
Sammy Davis Jr. came out, and I remember he caught a lot of grief, not just from African-Americans back then, from the Hollywood crowd, too.
I mean, that was...
Most males, most males in general didn't like that deal, but...
Yeah, from the black American crowd, he was dropped like a hot potato.
So you think, do you think, you really think that Obama has lost some respect in African-American male crowd here because of that?
I'm 65 years old, and that was my first thought when I seen him walk away from that podium.
And I do believe that.
I've also been watching his polling.
It's going down rapidly.
Did I hear you say at the beginning of your call that it's not because of race, or did you say it is because?
Yes, right.
I mean, it's because, well, I had a friend, I didn't want to bring it up, but since you said like that, I'm going to explain myself.
I had a friend that we normally go into the house, and she's a Democrat, and she always titters about how you like this hope and change, you know, stuff like that.
Well, her comment was that just like Clinton being the first black president, she said, well, yeah, now we got the first light-skinned Uncle Tom.
That was her last word, Uncle Tom.
Well, because of that situation.
I wasn't looking like that, but once she said that, then I started, whoa, whoa, that's when my question is.
Wait now, Alan, just so I understand, who of the two is the light-skinned Uncle Tom?
Obama.
Obama was the light-skinned Uncle Tom.
Yeah, she was comparing to see.
She said, yeah, we had Clinton being called the first black president.
And so Obama was called.
What is the, I can't think her name because I'm nervous, but it's when during the slavery times was when they had a racial child?
There you go.
That's it.
I know you're getting it.
That's it.
That's what she's calling the first mulatto Uncle Tom.
Well, that's by the way, I was 1970 that Sammy Davis Jr. hugged Nixon.
It was 1970.
That was the reason why the black race didn't care for that because that's what they called him.
So he just popularity all the way.
Mulatto Uncle Tom.
Mulatto Uncle Tom.
We'll see if you happen to be right about this.
It manifests itself.
I don't know how we'll know.
Short of an election coming up.
But Alan, that's fascinating.
Well, no, I wasn't.
Snurdle's laughing at himself.
Which one was the light-skinned Uncle Tom?
Well, because Clinton was the first black president.
I just wanted to make sure that I had the picture right.
I was just trying to get the picture right.
As far as what Alan was talking about, it was just an effort to be accurate here and make sure I understood what he was saying.
Remember, I live in Littoralville.
Symbolism doesn't always do it for me.
I need to know the facts about things.
Alan, thanks much.
This morning in Washington, Harriet Tubman Elementary School, the signing, and I watched a little bit of this, the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010.
This is a Michelle My Bell deal, Modus obesity stuff.
Anyway, Obama was there.
And this is a portion of what he said.
I wouldn't be here today, but they played a huge role in making this happen.
Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader in the Senate, Senator Mike McConnell, the ranking Republican who helped facilitate the smooth passage of this bill.
Mike McConnell.
The Senate minority leader, Mike McConnell, couldn't remember that it was Mitch.
It still didn't come to him.
It was Mitch.
It finally came out.
Mike McConnell.
And they said that Bush was the idiot.
You know, I guess, Alan, I know you're still out there.
I guess we can be thankful that Clinton didn't ask Obama to go fetch him some coffee because you know during the campaign, Clinton was caught off mic saying, I don't believe this.
I don't believe two years ago, we'd be asking this guy to go get us our coffee.
And I was joking a moment ago about Michelle my butt.
Damn it.
Michelle my bell's obesity thing out here.
Look at this.
Speaking at Monday's AP, it's at Newsbusters.
It's a number of places.
Speaking at Monday's signing ceremony for the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act, or Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act.
So I didn't know if, I keep getting confused, if today's bill is to stop kids from starving to death or to keep them from getting fat.
I still don't know what it's all about.
Is it to keep them from starving to death or keep them from getting fat?
At any rate, that's not the point.
The Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act is a law that'll subsidize and regulate what children eat before school.
Regulate what children eat before school, at lunch, after school, and during summer vacations in federally funded school-based feeding programs.
First Lady Michelle Obama said of deciding what American children should eat, quote, we just can't leave it up to the parents.
We can't just leave it up to the parents.
Your first lady, our first lady, we can't leave what our kids eat up to their parents.
They had to leave it up to us.
Michelle and Barry.
Speaking of that, a new study provides real evidence for the benefits of imaginary eating.
I saw this over the weekend.
When people imagined themselves eating M ⁇ Ms or imagined themselves eating pieces of cheese, they became less likely to actually gorge on the real things.
Findings from the study at Carnegie Mellon University were reported in the current issue of science.
So if you sit around and imagine of eating a lot of M ⁇ Ms, you won't.
If you sit around and imagine yourselves eating a bunch of cheese, you won't.
I don't know if it works with sex.
If you imagine yourself having a lot of sex, you won't.
I don't know where this ends, but I just do, it does have some important implications for the food stamp era.
If you imagine yourself eating, period, then you won't.
How much money could we save?
We should try this on the food stamp recipient crowd.
Just imagine yourself drinking that six-pack.
You're full.
Just imagine eating all those cashews.
Just imagine it.
And you won't have to go buy them.
Frankly, I can't see it.
Something you don't want to imagine eating, something you really want to eat, Sherry's Berries.
You got somebody on your Christmas list, you really want to impress them?
Spouse, future fiancé, suck up to the boss or whatever.
Folks, send them a box of hand-dipped gourmet strawberries from Sherry's Berries.
These are not, well, you can't get these strawberries at a grocery store.
They're not available there.
When you go to Sherry's Berries, and that's berries.com.
Go to berries.com, B-E-R-R-I-E-S.
Look at the pictures.
You'll see what I'm talking about.
They take these colossal strawberries, they hand-dip them, they roll them in delicious toppings, chopped almonds, coconut, chocolate chips, whatever.
And they have a Christmas deal, specially for you.
You can send anybody a box of these hand-dipped gourmet strawberries just $19.99, $15 off.
I send these out.
I send them to family.
I mean, I send them out because people don't believe them.
Even after I've talked about it, are those strawberries really that big?
Okay, wait and see.
And everybody is shocked.
Call 866-FRUT02 or rushberries.com, RushB-E-R-R-I-E-S dot com, and get the hand-dipped strawberries for just $19.99.
It's rushberries.com.
They're delicious and they're unbeatable and they're unbelievable.
Try them.
Now, there's no labels business.
I've been thinking more and more about this.
And I just, well, nope, nope, I didn't just see anything.
Yes, I did.
I just saw a guy talking about them.
And the guy said exactly what I imagined them saying.
For those of us in the middle who don't really want to be held hostage to the far right or the far left, but we have our solutions to issues.
We want to be heard too.
Okay, fine.
Somebody explained to me in what walk of life there are no labels.
Religion?
No labels.
Business?
No labels.
Gender?
No labels?
What?
Somebody tell me where there aren't any labels.
Go to the grocery store and get rid of the labels.
And then what would you have?
Well, you'd have a lot less government because you wouldn't have those phony ingredient labels on there.
How many of these people are registered with a particular political party?
Most of them are a bet, and most of them are registered Democrats.
We know who they are.
We know the founders are left-wing political consultants.
And we know that Democrat and liberal are labels that do not help political people these days.
Of course, they would want to get rid of them.
By the same token, conservative is a good label.
Naturally, they'd want to get rid of that.
And naturally, they'd find some so-called pseudo-smart Republicans who would agree with them on this.
How many of these people belong to a particular religion?
And why?
It's because of their belief system.
Nothing wrong with labels as long as they are appropriate, as long as they are true, as long as they are properly descriptive.
It's called language.
So it is not possible.
It's impossible to have no labels.
Oh, it sounds wonderful, Mr. Limbaugh.
It sounds right up the alley, Mr. Limbaugh.
It sounds like it would be fuff-sweet.
It would end partisan thippip.
No, it wouldn't, Mr. Castrati.
Here's the bottom line.
No labels is founded by a bunch of people who don't like the labels that do apply to them.
Liberal, statist, fraud, Democrat, Marxist, what have you.
They don't like labels that appropriately describe them.
So they want to get rid of them.
And as I say, a bunch of foolish Republicans, conservatives want to do, oh yeah, sounds so sweet, so wonderful, get rid of partisanship.
What we're for here, ladies and gentlemen, is truth in labeling.
The no-labels people want to do away with truth in labeling, which is consistent.
Liberals are confounded always by the truth.
It's no wonder they would form a group to get rid of the truth.
Well, that's it for another external finding, a great excursion into broadcast excellence.
Ladies, there's a lot of stuff I didn't get to today, such as David Epstein, 46, Columbia University political science professor, been arrested, charged with having a three-year-long consensual sexual affair with his own daughter, 24 years old.
And supporters at Columbia say, what's wrong with that?