All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 7, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:46
January 7, 2011, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I'm just not.
I'm not going to use him.
I don't care what he says.
It's BS.
I'm not going to use the media.
All these soundbites talking about how wonderful the unemployment news is because we've already debunked it.
I don't need to.
Everybody knows the media just follows what the regime wants.
It's a screw it.
So that means you can skip everything up to number seven.
And we'll pick up a number eight.
And greetings and welcome back, folks.
It's El Rushbo starting a million conversations with Mind Over Chatter on Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday.
Happy to have you here.
Telephone number.
If you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882 and the email address, LRushbow at EIBnet.com.
No, I'm not going to play them.
I just decided.
I mean, if I was going to play them, I'd have played them before.
I went into the whole explanation of why.
Look at the AP got it right.
Why should I spend my time playing soundbites in a bunch of propagandists reading off the fax machine they got from the White House?
I got montages.
I can tell you what the media said.
take a lot less time than it would to play them, and you know.
They're just like Obama.
He had his press conference.
Great news out there today.
We knew the numbers can jump up around, but we got 100,000 new jobs.
We got a dropping unemployment.
Whoa, what?
It doesn't mean anything.
AP may be, long shot here, maybe getting tired of carrying their water puts the truth to the numbers, which we shared with you in the first hour.
Now, to wrap up, or to just get rid of all this confusion, because there's any number of differences being reported, this is from ABC News.
41% of New York City pregnancies end in abortion.
The rate for minorities is even higher.
And it says here that it raises questions about the effectiveness of current birth control education.
Really, that's the question it raises?
Is that the question it raised?
41% of all New York City pregnancies end in abortion.
And ABC says, even though it's new and eye-opening statistics, it raises questions about the effectiveness of current birth control education.
That's the question.
When you hear that 41% of New York pregnancies are aborted, that's the question that you ask yourself.
Well, they might really be having trouble with their birth control education.
What is their birth control education?
Condoms.
Cucumbers.
I kid you not.
That's what their birth control education is.
People come along and say, why don't you try absent?
Oh, yeah, yeah, right.
Yeah.
Just say no.
That's right.
Just absence works every time it's tried.
Well, yeah, well, easy for you to say.
Well, what's wrong?
If it works for you, why couldn't it work for somebody else?
Well, kids are going to have sex anyway.
You just can't stop them.
Okay, so then 41% of all pregnancies ending an abortion shouldn't be a surprise.
Well, yes, lither limboid is a thropride.
Why?
Shouldn't the question be twofold?
A, why are so many, well, real question is who's making all the money off of these abortions?
And I guarantee they're all leftists.
Planned Parenthood.
And the rate for minorities is even higher.
Both sides say the high abortion percentage is a crisis.
Both sides, a lot of us have felt it's a crisis for a long, long time.
The rate for minority is even higher.
If 41%, this is New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, if 41% of New York babies are aborted, with the percentage even higher in the Bronx and among African-American babies, it's downright chilling.
Broken down by race for 2009, blacks, 59.8% of all pregnancies aborted in New York City.
60% of all black pregnancies aborted.
Hispanics, 41.3%.
Asians, 22.7% abortion rate.
Non-Hispanic whites, 20.4% abortion rate.
That's the lowest of the groups.
So it's, we'll round them up.
50, 60% for blacks, 41% Hispanics, 23% Asians, 20% whites.
The fact that 41% of all pregnancies in New York City ended abortion is not a secret, and it's not anything new.
This is ABC.
In fact, things have been getting better over the past 10 years.
Back in 1998, 12 years ago, the number was actually 46%.
Planned Parenthood is also not happy about the numbers.
That is BS.
But they push education.
We believe in comprehensive sex education, which, by the way, does include abstinence, but abstinence by itself has been proven to be ineffective.
Oh, shut up.
What kind of a statement is that?
Archbishop Dolan reiterated the pro-abstinence, pro-life, anti-contraceptive position of the church.
My word, what have we done in the last 30 years?
There's candy balls on people's desks with condoms.
They're dropping them from airplanes, yet nothing seems to improve.
So they've been on the wrong track there.
Now, there's a story from 2009 that seems relevant all of a sudden.
And this story is from the CyberCast News Service.
Headline, abortion kills more black Americans than the seven leading causes of deaths combined.
And this is from the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta.
Abortion kills more black Americans than the seven leading causes of death combined, according to data.
This is from 2005, the latest year for which the abortion numbers are available.
Abortion killed at least 204,000 blacks in 36 states and two cities, New York and D.C., that reported abortions by race in 2004, according to the government.
During that same year, according to the government, a total of 200,000 blacks nationwide died from heart disease, cancer, strokes, accidents, diabetes, homicide, and chronic lower respiratory diseases combined.
These were the seven leading causes of death.
Which takes us, here are the numbers.
60% of blacks in New York City, 60% of black pregnancies are aborted, and abortion kills more black Americans than the seven leading causes of death combined.
White flight, Ronald Brownstein, the National Journal.
By any standard, white voters' rejection of Democrats in November's elections was daunting and even historic.
Fully 60% of whites nationwide backed Republican candidates for the House.
Only 37% supported Democrats, according to the national election poll exit poll conducted by Edison Research.
Not even in the Republicans' 94 congressional landslide did they win that high a percentage of the white vote.
Moreover, those results may understate the extent of the white flight from the Democrat Party, according to a national journal analysis of previously unpublished exit poll data provided by Edison Research.
The new data show that white voters not only strongly preferred Republican House and Senate candidates, but also registered deep disappointment with Obama's performance, hostility toward the cornerstones of the current Democrat agenda, and widespread skepticism about the expansive role for Washington embedded in the Democrat Party priorities.
There is a genuine, huge white flight away from liberalism, statism, leftism.
Obama is whatever you want to do, because none of this, very little of this white flight went to the Republican Party because they were the Republicans.
They went there because they weren't the Democrats.
That's not a put-down.
This is something everybody needs to realize right now, particularly in the political context.
The question then becomes: all right, how do you hold them if they're if this large a number of people is abandoning the Democrat Party, how do you keep them away from the Democrat Party?
Well, first thing, you don't do anything the Democrat Party's doing.
So you do not do anything to grow government.
You do not do anything to expand or increase debt.
You don't do anything that imposes limits, further limits on liberty or freedom.
It's very simple.
We're sitting on a goldmine of opportunity here.
Take the racial component.
I mean, it's interesting that 60% of white voters are fleeing, but they're the largest block.
So just figure huge numbers of voters.
Obviously, we know this, the election return fled the Democrat Party.
And because it's exit poll data, we know why it was about Obama.
It was about his policies.
It was about what the Democrat Party stands for.
It wasn't marketing or packaging.
It wasn't the wrong words being used.
It was totally based on substance.
Each one of these questions, on each of these questions, minority voters expressed almost the exact opposite view from whites, which explains why every black Democrat candidate in the House won re-election.
White voters' deep disappointment with Obama's performance, not so with black voters.
White voters' hostility toward the cornerstone of the current cornerstones, health care, deficit spending, government control, white flight.
Black voters like that stuff.
Widespread skepticism about the expansive role of Washington embedded in the party's priorities.
Sends white people away from the Democratic Party, keeps black voters with the Democrat Party.
Now, much can change in two years, hopes Mr. Brownstein, as Obama's own post-2008 Odyssey demonstrates.
But these results, however, could carry profound implications for 2012.
They suggest that economic recovery alone may not solve the president's problems with many of the white voters who stamped toward the Republican Party last year.
Economic recovery alone may not solve.
It comes down to those voters as skeptical of the expansion of government, says a veteran Republican strategerist.
The voters who went with Obama in 2008 did not know what they were going to get with that vote.
And that's true.
Time to finally admit this.
That was an optics vote.
It was a vote of hope.
Finally eliminate this vestige of slavery by showing we're not racist by electing the first black president.
Didn't work.
And now that they've seen the health care bill, the stimulus bill, the bailout, the cap and trade proposal, issue after issue, voters don't like what they see.
Now, that resistance could in turn increase the pressure on Obama to accelerate the generation-long transformation of the Democratic electoral coalition that he pushed forward in 2008, with so much of the white electorate, especially working-class whites, dubious about Obama's direction.
To win a second term, he will likely need to increase turnout and improve his showing among the groups that keyed his 2008 victory.
Minorities, young people, and women.
In 2012, Obama may be forced to build his electoral college map more around swing states where those voters are plentiful.
Colorado, it's a test case.
Democrats are looking at it.
North Carolina, even Arizona, and less on predominantly blue-collar and white states like Ohio and Indiana that he captured in 2008.
The question is, can they, how do they, how are they going to do that?
How are they going to, what they stand for?
And with these abortion numbers, I know this is New York, but folks, you have to figure that percentage is probably pretty much the same around the country.
Democrats have to seriously be worried here because their future voters are being killed in the womb.
I mean, in huge, both Hispanic and black.
Gee, with 60% of all New York City African-American pregnancies are aborted.
So anyway, this is a very, it's a long piece.
I've given you some of the highlights here.
Here's what Axelrod's counting on, by the way.
This is again from the piece.
More specifically and perhaps more revealingly, David Axelrod also has his eye on the Colorado example, Michael Bennett, where the exit poll found that Bennett lost blue-collar white women by double digits and blue-collar white men by more than two to one.
Yet, he prevailed by amassing strong support from young people, Hispanics, and other minorities, holding his debt.
So I want to prepare you.
And Axelrod's running the reelection campaign along with Gibbs.
So what they're saying is they're going to have to go out and get more minorities, blacks, and women.
How are they going to do it?
Well, by virtue of the details in this piece, they're going to have to go out and basically promise communism.
This is going to be fun to see because people assuming that their far left-wing leftist socialists is what has driven all the independents and whites away from Obama who did vote for him.
And now they've decided the only way they're going to win re-election is by getting more minorities to vote, more young people.
Can you imagine if they believe that, and if that holds true, what this campaign's shaping up to be?
They're going to have to be bluntly open and honest.
I mean, you think class warfare rhetoric has been now worse.
It's going to get bad.
It's going to get worse now.
All the traditional Democrat attacks on achievement, success, going to get even worse now.
In order to make sure they got enough votes, factor in all the potential voters being aborted out there, it's wow.
It's going to be interesting.
If this stuff all holds true and its politics thinks can change overnight.
Sounds to me like this is a recipe for a landslide defeat, folks.
Now, the real question, it's a question that's answered to which is known, but it's rhetorical.
It still is interesting to me.
The whole Ronald Brownstein piece is on white flight.
60% of whites fleeing because of X, Y, and Z.
Well, when you read why they're fleeing, it's pretty bad stuff.
I mean, it's harmful to America as we've known it.
The real question is, why are the minorities hanging around?
Why are the blacks and Hispanics and the other minorities sticking with the Democrat Party?
I know the number, 60% of white flight, that's a big number, but it's so big that you might want to say, well, why?
That's not unusual.
That's kind of sensible.
What is it about these others that's making them hang in there?
And of course, the answer is the welfare state, which is by design.
But it's heartwarming to know that the welfare state has not captured a majority of the dreams and thinking of the country.
Here's Joe, Rockland County, New York.
You're on Open Line Friday.
Hello, sir.
Hi, Rush.
How are you doing?
It's great to talk to you.
Thank you very much.
I can finally brag to my wife that I spoke to you on the air.
I hate to switch gears on you.
I know that's such a somber subject you're talking about, but I was just calling to get your expertise on the playoffs for the weekend.
I'm a huge Giants fan.
If you caught me, please blue.
Giant fan, but I'm pretty depressed about what happened with them.
Yeah, I can imagine.
Yeah, so but I'll follow the Jets.
I'm not a Jets hater, but I'm kind of rooting for them, but I'm also rooting for the Saints because I love Drew Brees.
He's a good conservative Catholic guy, and I hope him the best relationship.
You're for the Saints because you're a good conservative Catholic guy.
Well, he is.
Drew Breezes.
Oh, Drew Brees.
Okay.
So what do you want to know?
You want to know who I think is going to win?
Yeah.
I mean, give me your idea of what you think is going to happen at least for the weekend and who you pick for the Super Bowl.
I tell you what, I've got 25 seconds before the break, and you hang on through the break, and we'll talk about that when we come back.
And by the way, this is what Open Line Friday is all about.
There is no taking me off topic.
Don't ever feel guilty about that for any of you out there.
There is no, we don't do topics here anyway.
We do events.
So whatever you want to talk about on Fridays, if you want to do NFL games and picks, bring it on.
I'm happier than shaved ice to do that.
And we're back, El Rush Ball, Open Line Friday, 800-282-2882 is the number if you want to be on the program.
We're back to Joe in Rockland County, New York.
And you, yeah, I'm sorry, what were you saying?
I said I just said hi.
Oh, okay.
Now, we want to, we're going to go through the weekend's wild card games.
We'll do Eastern Time, 1.30 Eastern Time.
We've got your Saints.
Well, since the Giants aren't there, we got the Saints at the Seattle Seahawks.
Right.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, we own Seattle here.
We're huge in Seattle.
And there are a lot of people who, in a desire to create some interest in the game, are saying, don't write off the Seahawks just so fast.
I mean, the Saints aren't the team they were last year.
And the Seahawks are playing at home, and the Saints are a dumb team, and it's cold.
And I would throw all of that out.
Even if you're going to play the points.
What is it?
10.5?
Last time I looked?
Yeah, 10.5.
The Saints aren't the team that they were last year.
But the Seahawks, if you look at home, were creamed by teams in the Saints League by 22, 18, 32 points.
I mean, it's this, this, I mean, if there is a lock this weekend, it's the Saints over the Seahawks.
I'd have to agree.
I don't think the Seahawks.
I mean, it's odd that they're even in it to begin with, being that they're 7-9.
Well, 7-9.
That's a whole other story.
Oh, the fact that they're in it because they're 7-9?
Yeah, that's a whole other story.
I know.
You can't blame people for trying to drum up interest in the game.
And, you know, the Saints, they do have down to Reggie Bush in the running game.
But this one, I don't.
If the Seahawks win this game and the Saints are going to have something going to lay down, something's going to have to go terribly wrong on that side.
Now, the Jets and Peyton Manning, because that's about what this game shapes up to.
The Jets and Peyton Manning on Saturday night.
Now, we own Indianapolis and we own New York.
So you start making these picks legitimately.
I stand to make some enemies here.
Rex Ryan has never beaten Peyton Manning.
He's beaten Colts once, but not when Peyton Manning was playing.
He's a defensive coordinator for the Ravens, nor is the head coach for the Jets.
Peyton Manning starting to get comfortable with his replacement tight end.
Dallas Clark was his go-to man.
Gets injured reserve earlier in the year, and the replacement Peyton's just now getting comfortable with the guy.
The Jets' defense is not what it was.
They are vulnerable up the middle.
Rex Ryan.
Pardon?
We saw that against the Patriots.
Yeah, but that's you throw that game.
That's a 45-3 game.
That's not going to be, I think, reflective of this game Saturday night.
But everybody thinks that the way you get to Peyton Manning is you have to, the same thing they think about Brady.
You got to make him nervous.
You got to blitz, and you've got to go up the middle to get him.
Coming off the edges doesn't matter.
It's been tried both ways.
The Steelers, interestingly, have a great defensive game plan against the Colts.
Steelers have no problem with the Colts in playoffs, and they do rattle Manning, but the Jets don't seem to be able to do it.
And if you look at the rosters, 45 guys on a team, players number three through 45 equal on both sides.
What's the difference?
Right, right.
Quarterback Sanchez.
You have to go to the Colts at home in this game.
I would think so.
I would agree there, too.
What's your hunch, though?
I don't know if they'll be able to get past the Colts.
What's your hunch, Jets?
I'm hoping for the Jets.
I don't think they're going to do it, though.
It's my hunch.
All right, let's go to Sunday.
These two good games we got, the Ravens at the Chiefs and the Packers at the Iggles.
And I tell you, I see the Chiefs upsetting the Ravens.
I'm a lone wolf on this item, but I just playing hunches here.
I'm just talking straight up, not points.
I see the Chiefs.
I think everybody, they're saying about the Chiefs are largely what they say about the Seahawks.
They had the easiest schedule in the league against winning teams that didn't beat anybody.
But if they run the right offense, you look at the Ravens' offense in the second half, particularly fourth quarter.
Everybody talks about their offense being impotent and all over the place and a matter of discontent on the team itself.
I mean, defensive players starting to mutter loud enough, offensive players can hear it.
But I think the Ravens' defense runs out of gas in the second half.
It depends if the Chiefs can get the running game going and keep it because it's going to be tough, but that's the upset I see.
Packers, I think, over the Eagles.
Oh, yeah, I agree.
Well, that's going to be the best game of the weekend, I think.
That's the one I'm looking forward to watching.
Packers, Eagles.
Yeah, that should be a good game.
Yeah, the Packers, folks, are an amazing team.
I wish I had the list of all the players on injured reserve.
They have an all-star team on injured reserve.
They have the fact that they are, I mean, they skated in.
You know, they're number six seed.
But the fact that they're in at all, given the injury situation they had, and they had Rodgers down for a couple weeks, or maybe one week because of a concussion.
Wow.
Remember, this team was predicted by many to be in the Super Bowl before the season started, and that was a legitimate pick.
And here's the reason I think this: the Minnesota Vikings showed the NFL how to totally disrupt Michael Vick in that Thursday night game.
Well, at that Tuesday night game.
And then, by the way, that's justice.
The Eagles didn't want that snow game played because they thought it would negate Vic, put Snow out there, takes his speed and every other advantage that he brings to the game away from him.
So they get the game moved, and still Leslie Frazier comes up, the coach of the Vikings comes up with a way to totally discombobulate Vic.
And they had more.
Basically, they were corner blitzes that other teams had not tried.
Most people keep enough players back because Vic is so explosive that if you get too many people blowing blitzes, there's not enough people downfield to cover him, get him in a chase.
So they just sent one guy more than what was covered.
One guy more than what was covered, and they switched the side.
And the Eagles' offense was unable to pick the guy up every time they blitzed this.
Winfield, for the most part, came in untouched.
And the whole league saw this.
It's like, you know, the copycat in the NFL is a standard operating procedure.
And most teams sit around and they say, okay, Vic, they play the prevent defense with Vic every week.
Hold back, hold back, hold back.
He's going to escape.
We've got to have somebody in the deep secondary to run the guy out of bounds or get him.
Or if he stops, throws a pass, we've got to have enough coverage.
The Vikings said, hell with it.
We'll go man-on-man in the secondary.
We'll send one of the cornerbacks of safety on a blitz.
He ended up uncovered.
And Vic didn't know what to do.
Vic reverted the way he played in Atlanta.
In fact, there's been talk this week about Vic being benched in this game if he didn't start picking up blitzes better.
It's not all sweetness and length, but that loss to the Vikings, that took them from a bye week, a number two seed, to having to play on Sunday.
This is the Packers opened against the Eagles, and there was just a rash of injuries.
That game was like a war in terms of the number of players on both sides that went on injured reserve that day.
Remember that, Brian?
Brian, he was watching the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
He doesn't remember.
I watch every game.
That's why I know.
So my upset, I don't think maybe the points Philadelphia's an upset or Green Bay is an upset.
I think Green Bay wins, and my upset is Kansas City.
Anyway, thanks for the call out there, Joe.
A brief timeout.
We'll be back after this.
They'll call it.
Now, let me add something else interesting to the mix here on the four wild card playoff games.
If we were to go environmentalist wacko method this week, every bird team would lose and lose bad.
What's happening out there?
Birds are falling out of the sky.
Scientists are trying to figure out why.
But if you go the environmentalist wacko route, the Seahawks, birds lose.
Ravens, birds lose.
Eagles, birds lose.
The only game that doesn't feature a bird team is the Jets and the Colts, and the Jets, nevertheless, are in the air.
And some birds die because they get sucked in by the Jets, but the Jets aren't playing a bird team.
So environmental wacko method for the Jets and Colts, again, you'd have to go Colts on that because Colts are horses, wild, American history, cavalry, cowboys, Indians, and silver jets.
They're just expensive.
They pollute.
They foul mouth, lousy service, all the things you got to go through to get on one these days at the TSA.
You got a strip search.
You'd have, say, the Colts.
The environmental wacko method would have the Colts, the Saints, the Cheaps, and the Packers going the environmental wacko method.
Here's Doug in Great Falls, Montana.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Always great to talk to Mr. Big.
Hey, going back to your talk about unemployment, I'm a self-employed masonry contractor, and I've been unemployed for about two months, but I don't show up on any government list as unemployed because I don't pay into unemployment.
I take care of myself.
When times are good, I save.
When they're bad, I live off my savings.
Yeah, well, you don't have to have guys in this small town that are in the exact same boat as me, and we don't show up.
Right.
You're not even allowed to get unemployment.
Correct.
And there are a lot.
So this is evidence for more unemployment than what's being reported.
Well, yeah, I don't know what the number is.
I'm not Thomas Soul, but there's a lot of guys just in a small town where I am that are in the same boat I am.
And I can only imagine nationally with the housing, you know, the building crisis as bad as it is, there's got to be tens of thousands of guys that aren't reported that are just in my little niche world.
All right.
Well, the Labor Department just announced today, I'm told, that the Labor Department's going to start counting self-employed employment statistics starting this month.
Because, yeah, all those guys, there are a lot of them.
So the Labor Department's going to start trying to keep track of them.
And that's why there are six different unemployment numbers the Labor Department releases, U1 through U6.
And I get them confused, but the one that's reported that gives us 9.4% is not the real accurate number because it does no longer, it counts those, it doesn't count those who have ceased looking for work.
I think the real unemployment number is U3, or the real one might be U6.
That number's at about 17 or 18% because it counts the actual number of people who have been trying to find jobs or who've given up, are still out of work, who aren't working.
The number that's reported just counts the numbers applying for unemployment benefits.
There's a whole lot more out-of-work people than just those applying for benefits.
And that number, as I say, is around 17%.
Jim in Nashville, great to have you on Open Line Friday.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Pleasure to talk to you.
Same here, sir.
I feel like I should preface by saying I've followed you for years since the television days, and I agree with you almost all the time.
But the other day you said something that really upset me, and I've heard it echoed by a lot of conservatives, and that was your comments regarding death panels.
I am a doctor, and I do end-of-life care, and so I am intimately involved with this subject.
And the thing that bothers me, and you're the political expert, so you can discuss, I think, more about what you feel is the meaning behind what was written in the health proposal.
But I think there's a bigger issue, Rush, and that is the way that death is approached and handled in this country.
And the thing is that whenever people start talking about the death panels, it seems like the bigger issue gets swept under the rug.
My question for you is, when four out of five people that die in this country are over 65, meaning they're Medicare recipients, and the way that death is approached in this country needs to be addressed and education needs to be put into it, how do we do that without everyone becoming alarmed by the language that is in the panel or that is in the document?
That's not the question that I was debating.
That is an entirely different matter.
All I was pointing out was that something that was not in the original Obamacare bill was going to be added in December, and that was that doctors who are paid by Medicare because they see Medicare patients were going to be told that if they ceased having at least once a year end-of-life discussion counseling sessions with their patients, that they were not going to be reimbursed.
They were going to be frozen out.
In other words, it was a mild form of blackmail.
You either implement government policy and you tell these patients about dying, you counsel them on it, whatever it is, or we're no longer going to reimburse you for the work you do with any Medicaid patient.
So that was properly seen as an attempt by the administration to sneak something back in by executive order.
This was not done legislatively.
And it was kept out because it caused such a firestorm of opposition when it was first learned when people started reading the original health care bill.
They took it out because it was imperiling even Democrat votes because anything that even got close to confirming the existence of death penalty, after all, what's a death penalty?
A death panel is some agent of the government getting involved in a discussion with a patient.
And if you're a doctor being paid by Medicare, the government being told you have to do this, you're seen as an agent of government.
Talk about their death and counseling them on ways, so forth.
If it could get anywhere close where people could say you are counseling somebody to get out of the way, accept that death is imminent, anything like that, then the death panel discussions back, and it's a political problem for Democrats.
And that's why the whole thing came up, and it's been pulled again because they tried to sneak it in on the executive side just the latter part of December.
No, and I'm aware that it was pulled back out, and I agree with that because I don't know any doctor, including myself, and especially colleagues I have that do end-of-life care.
I think we all operate under the premise of autonomy and people should be able to make decisions.
What bothers me, and I mean, I was watching on Fox the other day, and the same thing happened because I see conservatives, which I consider myself one, when they start talking about death in the country.
They start talking about, well, everybody's going to die, and it's not like you need to be counseled on death.
And even you acknowledged the other day, well, maybe you should be a counselor on some of the emotional aspects.
Well, no, it's because Obama himself, in one of the debates on ABC TV about this, when a woman asked about her 100-year-old grandmother who needed a hearing aid or some such, she asked Obama if that would be part of, he said, no, no, we probably got to start taking quality of life too.
We can't calculate spirit and how much she wants to live.
Give her a pill.
People like that, we should just give them a pill.
So it was a hip replacement of something.
Give him a pill.
It's all incorporated.
People know who this guy is.
That's why this stuff can't be separated out.
I want to get into a little bit more detail.
Just a couple more things.
I want to send us into Life Stuff Death Panel.
But I will tell you this before we go to the break.
I've had these discussions, but not with a doctor.
Lawyer, family planning, financial people, but not with a doctor.
▲
Export Selection