All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 14, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:00
November 14, 2011, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Look at this.
Using Memphis as his whipping post, Limbaugh criticized the federal government's healthy, hungry, free kids legislature.
They're all upset in Memphis.
Well, the media is upset in Memphis.
I don't think the people are.
The media is upset.
And I call them out on the support for dinner in the schools.
Anyway, folks, I hope you had a great weekend.
We're back here at the EIB Southern Command, Rush Limbaugh, at the distinguished and prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
The telephone number, you want to be on the program 800-282-2882.
The email address, lrushbaugh at eibnet.com.
Okay.
You probably have heard by now.
What's that?
Is he still alive, Dan Rather, up there on MSNBC?
I've had no idea.
Hot damn!
Hey, damn, how you...
Gee, I did not know!
Oh, that changes a whole attitude I have toward today.
You probably have heard by now, folks.
The Supreme Court has finally agreed to take up Obamacare.
They're going to begin oral arguments next March.
And they say they're only going to allow five and a half hours for oral argument.
I don't know what they normally allow.
It's not much more than that.
That sounds like a long period of time.
Maybe they go all day on tradition.
I'm not really sure.
It doesn't matter.
But if they make the oral arguments in March, they submit the briefs.
It's possible.
I think the regime wants this.
The regime is out there saying they want an early decision.
The regime is suggesting they would like a decision on the constitutionality of Obamacare next June.
Well, that's going to have a possibility or potential to make health care the issue in the campaign.
And I don't know how that works out for the regime, folks.
If you look at what just happened in Ohio, where issue three, 66% of the American people want no part of the mandate requiring them to buy insurance, the news about health care every day, it gets worse in terms of people losing their insurance, costs going up.
But the regime claims that they want this decision before the election, and they're out there predicting victory.
I don't know when the decision would come.
That would be an awfully quick decision for the court to hear a case in March and have a decision in June.
It's not unprecedented, but it could happen.
You know, for national politics, it's a TV age.
We all admit this, right?
There's no question about it.
It's a television age.
If you can't master television, you are behind the eight-ball.
You want to be in politics and you can't master TV, then you have many hills to climb, many obstacles ahead of you, many Botox treatments in store.
For national Democrat politicians, it's particularly helpful to, therefore, develop extensive contacts with the media that you will soon be controlling.
Networking with the networks, in other words.
No, Chelsea Clinton, starting today, will be getting her paychecks from the National Broadcast Company, NBC.
Wonder how Luke Russert feels about this.
Chelsea Clinton at NBC, she's not a journalist.
She is a politician in training.
That's what this means.
Politician in training.
It's an incestuous business, circuitous route, revolving door, politics and media on the Democrat side is one and the same profession.
So Chelsea Clinton going to NBC means that she is furthering her political education, that she is furthering her ability to master the medium of television for her later career in politics.
I have no doubt that that's what Chelsea Clinton to NBC is all about.
Learn about television for a later professional career.
Now, this is an avenue not open to conservatives.
It is an avenue not available to us.
At least, not with any of the big three networks.
I guess you could say we go to the media after we bomb out in politics and we go to Fox, but that's after we bomb out.
After we lose our elections, that's where we get hired by Roger Ailes and so forth and so on.
But seldom do we go from Fox back to politics.
I may be wrong about this.
I'm trying to think off the top of my head if that happens.
But we do know that Chelsea Clinton is going to go from NBC to politics.
There's no question about it whatsoever in my mind.
So what started at home for Chelsea Clinton has moved now to a broadcast operation.
The Clintons have done all that they can with her.
It's time now to move on to the next level.
Soon she'll be controlling homes and corporations from Washington as a representative of a liberal state.
After her training at NBC, after mastering the business of television, New York comes to mind.
She might be being groomed even now for the position next senator from New York.
New Yorkers don't care whether you got experience or not.
They don't care if you've even lived there.
All they care about is if you're a big enough star.
And Chelsea Clinton is going on television to become a media star as a precursor to becoming the next senator from New York when her mother decides it's finally time to go back to the White House.
Whenever that might be.
So Chelsea Clinton now being schooled in public relations, on-camera presence, the inner workings of the communications branch of the Democrat Party.
All this under the guise of becoming a journalist.
Speaking of becoming a journalist, I knew this is going to happen.
I knew it was going to be, it was going to happen.
We had this story out of Memphis.
And when I made mention of the fact, they talked about this 11-year-old kid at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, a big sob story.
The kid, a snack just won't do.
A snack won't hold him over.
The kid's got to have dinner.
And the Memphis schools and the federal governor are right in there with now dinner for the kids.
And I did say that the reporterte who wrote the story for the Memphis Commercial Appeal didn't go out and find anybody who thought this a bad idea, didn't find one contrary or contrarian opinion.
I mean, I guess the pretense in journalism is now off.
It used to be that you'd at least pay lip service to people who disagree with the primary premise of your story.
Now, to hell with it.
If you're going to have dinner in the Memphis schools, everybody loves it.
Don't even worry about finding somebody who disagrees with it because it's not worth the time.
Journalism is now.
So I made mention of this.
And lo and behold, where is this?
It's WMC-TV, Action Eyeball News 5.
Here's a montage.
I haven't heard it yet.
By the way, Cookie sends me the soundbite roster in MSNBC free.
There's no MSNBC soundbite.
I've been telling everybody for the past week, if it weren't for MSNBC, we would not have any liberal soundbites.
So I guess Cookie took that as a personal challenge.
She went out there and she has found liberal soundbites that don't have any to do with MSNBC.
I knew it could be done.
And she's found.
Well, I look, let me tell you something.
Let me tell you something.
Snirdly's in there whining.
And I like the MSNBC stuff.
I, frankly, to be honest, I get sick and tired of telling everybody, okay, let's see, this is so-and-so's on MSNBC.
I got so sick of saying it's on MSNBC last night.
The funny is, it struck me, that's the only place liberals go.
CNN, they don't even need guests.
Before that, here, let me.
Bertie Goldberg sent me a note today and warned me about this, told me about this.
I'm looking for it.
It's audio soundbite.
Let's see.
Let's see if it's.
Well, I was just reading it.
It's Dan Lothian of CNN.
It's number nine.
Grab audio soundbite number.
And I want you to listen to this question.
This is Dan Lothian at an Obama press conference last night in Honolulu.
Last night at the Republican debate, some of the hopefuls, they hope to get your job, they defended the practice of waterboarding, which is a practice that you banned in 2009.
Herman Kaine said, quote, I don't see that as torture.
Michelle Bachman said that it's, quote, very effective.
So I'm wondering if you think that they're uninformed, out of touch, or irresponsible.
This is a mainstream media guy asking the president of the United States, do you think that these Republicans in a debate are uninformed, out of touch, or irresponsible?
Folks, this is a more profound example of media bias than you're ever going to hear.
This is the reporter sucking up to Obama.
And Obama, I think, recognized what a suck-up question it was.
A question even embarrassed Obama because here's Obama's answer.
That's a multiple choice question, isn't it?
Let me just say this.
They're wrong.
Waterboarding is torture.
I think Obama, he may have wanted the question.
I think the way Obama answered that question is, oh, geez, I don't need the bias to be this obvious for crying out loud.
Are they uninformed, out of touch, or irresponsible?
I watched that debate.
Did you watch a debate Saturday night, Sterling?
I did quite by accident.
Surfing around, and there it is.
I missed the first 17 minutes of it.
I saw, oh my gosh, there's a Republican debate on it.
I hit the record button.
I was 17 minutes late.
But I saw this waterboarding question, and the whole time I'm saying, do none of you Republicans know?
I keep shouting, Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, Khalil, Sheikh Muhammad, Khalid, Sheikh Muhammad.
It worked.
It worked.
It's how we found out everything that happened.
It's how we caught some of the bad guys.
It worked.
And I've become, folks, I've been struggling for a way to say this.
Not that it's difficult to say.
I've been struggling for a smart way to say, put into words the reaction I have like this Lothian guy.
I watch liberals in the media.
And be it, I don't care what the subject, be it feminism or what's happening at Penn State or the discussion, the Republican debate on waterboarding.
I don't think that these people actually know what the conservative position on things is.
I think they are that.
You speak about uninformed or ignorant or what have you purposely said.
I don't think they have the slightest idea.
I think whatever they think conservatism is is just a cliché after cliché after cliché.
They haven't the slightest idea what it really is.
And as such, they genuinely are shocked when they hear a rational conservative explanation of something because they don't know what it is.
It does not interest them.
They think it's all kookery or what have you.
But this question: is it uninformed, out of touch, irresponsible?
It worked.
Does this guy not know that everybody associated with it claims it worked?
It's credited for bringing Khalid Sheikh Muhammad to heel.
It is credited for us understanding and knowing what we know about 9-11, who planned it, what their objective was, where they planned it, the people involved.
It's how we caught them.
It prevented his right.
It prevented more.
It prevented more acts of terrorism.
I don't think they know.
All they know is that whoever did it, whoever conducted the waterboarding, ought to be put in jail.
And that's what they want Obama to do.
I got to take a break.
Sit tight, my friends.
We're coming back with much more right after this.
Don't go away.
Back on May 4th of this year, Tommy Hardin of the UK Telegraph had a story.
Leon Panetta, the CIA director, has confirmed that controversial enhanced interrogation techniques such as waterboarding yielded some of the intelligence information that ultimately led to Osama bin Laden.
Waterboarding enabled Obama to say he got Osama.
And I remember Panetta, the CIA director at the time, admitting it.
Now, these people, like Dan Lothian, I don't think, I really don't think they even know what can.
It's not that they understand it or have had it explained and they've rejected it.
They have rejected it without knowing what it is.
I mean, conservatism.
The clichés of the day, the absolute simplistic left-wing clichés become SOP standard operating procedure become the template, the narrative of the day without question.
And they're idiotic.
And it makes people who believe them blindly look ill-educated, uneducated, or what have you, uncurious.
And yet these are the smartest and brightest among us by reputation, supposedly journalists.
They're blockheads.
They're really blockheads.
They don't know.
And it's Scott Pelley.
Scott Pelley at this debate Saturday night was amazing to watch.
This is the anchor of the CBS Evening News.
And he thought he had Newt Gingrich twisted in circles over foreign policy.
That at one point, Pelly got this contorted, smug, all full of himself smile on his face while he could not have been more wrong about something.
And Newt slapped him down, put him in his place.
But Pelley to this moment doesn't know that that's what happened.
Newt put this guy in his place.
Pelle still thinks that he won that little tete.
I'm convinced he does.
I'm convinced Pelley has no clue how stupid and idiotic he looked after Newt finished with him.
I've got the soundbite coming.
I'll play it for you in just a second here, but let me find it.
We have time.
Let's see.
Yeah.
Number 14.
I really wish I had a still shot of Pelly after he argues with Newt here.
It's one of the most convoluted, contorted, smug looks I have ever seen on journalists' face.
Here's the question from Pelley.
Speaker Gingrich's president, would you sign the death warrant for an American citizen overseas who you believe is a terrorist suspect?
He's a person who was found guilty under review of actively seeking the death of Americans.
Not found guilty by a court, sir.
He was found guilty by a panel that looked at it and reported to the president.
Well, that's extrajudicial.
It's not the rule of law.
That is explicitly false.
It is the rule of law.
If you engage in war against the United States, you are an enemy combatant.
You have none of the civil liberties of the United States.
You cannot go to court.
There's a huge gap here that, frankly, far too many people get confused over.
Civil defense, criminal defense, is a function of being within the American law.
Waging war on the United States is outside criminal law.
It is an act of war and should be dealt with as an act of war.
And the correct thing in an act of war is to kill people who are trying to kill you.
Now, that's the soundbite.
Now, the question was first asked of Mitt Romney.
The question, and Pelley thought he was tripping these guys up.
Pelly thought he was going to get these guys to all show that they're a bunch of murdering, killing, anti-civil rights people.
Do you think an American citizen ought to be targeted?
You're a terrorist suspect without a warrant?
Would you sign a death warrant?
Kill somebody.
And Newt said, in that case, Romney said, yeah.
And Newt didn't say yeah.
Newt corrected the question.
Newt said, he's not a terror suspect, Mr. Pelle.
He is a person who was found guilty under review of actively seeking the death of Americans.
That escapes Pelley.
Pelley says, he was not found guilty by a court, sir.
And Newt says he was found guilty by a panel that looked at it and reported to the president.
And then Pelley said, well, that's extrajudicial.
It's not the rule of law.
And that's when Pelley backed up, raised his head, a cockeyed, stupid look, grin, smile like he had just nailed Gingrich to the cross on his face.
I wish I had that shot.
It's the most telling, grotesque at the same time.
He could have qualified for a horror movie with that look.
As he thought he had Gingrich nailed.
And Gingrich summarily told Pelley, you don't know what you're talking about.
Your question's premise is full of beans.
And then proceeded to answer the question and set the interrogator correct, set him right at the same time.
I don't believe that Scott Pelley has the slightest idea even now what happened to him during this little té té.
I don't think, I think he thinks he got the best of Newt and that Newt was trying to cover up his own lack of knowledge and the applause didn't work all that well.
Pelley thinks he won it.
I'm actually kind of shocked.
I'm getting emails.
People want to know if I think that the super committee is going to actually come to their deal on November 23rd.
Hey, Rush, do you think the super committee is going to come?
No, there will no.
I'm going to predict to you right now.
This is the congressional supercommittee that was created during the debt reduction fight.
They got to come up with a trillion or $1.5 trillion in cuts by Thanksgiving, the day before Thanksgiving, or there will be $500 billion in Medicare cuts and $500 billion in defense cuts.
And from what I gather, there's not going to be a deal.
The Democrats are under orders not to make a deal.
The Democrats are convinced if they don't make a deal, the Republicans are going to get blamed for it.
And that's the objective.
So there won't be a deal.
There won't be a deal.
The Democrats are going to see to it.
There's $500 billion cut for Medicare and blame the Republicans on it.
That's the plan.
And $500 billion in defense and blame the Republicans.
They are going to use their media bias advantage full tilt.
That is what I understand is the strategery.
No deal.
Democrats are under orders from Pelosi and Reed not to make one.
Stall it.
And when the deal goes south, say the Republicans just wouldn't cooperate.
They won't be bipartisan.
The Republicans don't want to get along with anybody.
You know the drill.
Here's that Memphis.
Sounded by this WMC TV Action Eyeball News 5.
This is a montage of a report about the Memphis City School Student Supper Program.
And the anchor that you hear here is Ursula Madden.
And then there's a correspondent, Anna Marie Hartman.
And of course, what would the bite be without me as part of it?
We're hearing radio personality Rush Limbaugh's rant against Memphis City Schools.
He's upset over the school supper program.
A story in the commercial appeal about the federally funded program caught the attention of radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
The article spotlighted an 11-year-old student at Shelby Oaks Elementary who expressed his gratitude for an additional meal at the end of the day.
Why does this kid need supper at Scruel?
Using Memphis as his whipping post, Limbaugh criticized the federal government's healthy, hungry-free kids legislation passed last year, having dinner and lunchrooms across the country for the nation's poorest students.
The sperm meets the egg.
The kid's born and off to school he goes.
And you might see him on weekends, but you're not going to be expected to feed him.
A Memphis City School spokesperson told me they weren't going to dignify Limbaugh's comments by making a statement.
I tried to reach Limbaugh for a one-on-one.
As you can imagine, he's a tough guy to get a hold of.
And the phone number, the media relations line for the EIB network on which he appears has either been busy or just rings and rings with no voicemail since early this morning.
I don't know.
That was, I don't know which info, babe, that was.
It's a dummy number.
It always just rings and rings and rings.
There is no voicemail.
It never answers.
Anybody that calls that number, we're sort of clued into who's calling when that number rings.
And occasionally, we do pick it up for the fun of it.
And the person who does answer it is under orders just to say no.
Again and again and again.
Of course, I'm the bad guy here.
These people, now that makes three female reporters have no idea what the story is really all about.
It's in their own town and they don't even know what the story is.
Federal taxpayers, we're not paying enough tax.
Now we've got to start paying to feed people at night.
Where are the parents?
So this is the two stories now where they have not gone, as is a principle of journalism and found an opposing point of view.
Rush Limbaugh doubled down Doubled down and made, yeah, doubled down to the 11-year-old boy hungry again, can't make it with just a snack.
Anyway, that's what happened.
Gloria Steinem is 70-some-odd.
She was on the Today Show this morning during the fourth hour.
She didn't even rate prime time on the Today Show anymore.
Co-host Hoda Cutby.
Am I reading that?
Is that the co-host's name?
Hoda Cutby?
That's her name?
Hoda Cotby is the name of an Infobabe of the Today Show in the fourth hour.
Okay.
So Hoda Cutby spoke with feminazi and Ms. magazine creator Gloria Steinem.
They're having a discussion about the 40th anniversary of the publication of Ms. Magazine.
It's not the 40th anniversary of it being around because it's not still around.
Hoda Cotby said feminism can have a positive feeling.
Some people think there's a negative tone to the word, though.
There's been a huge effort made to demonize when Rush Limbaugh calls me a feminazi.
More women consider themselves feminists than Republicans, despite all the demonizing.
I don't think that's true.
More women consider themselves feminists than Republicans.
It might be.
Who knows?
Okay, Gloria Steinem.
She's in her 70s.
She's making the rounds of it.
I guess she's got a book or something out that she's that she's hype.
What?
Oh, nothing for me.
You're just.
Yeah.
So, you just look at her picture.
Are you looking at her or Hoda Cutby?
I don't know.
I've never seen the fourth hour of the Today Show.
What time is the fourth hour today?
Seven to eight, eight to nine.
It's on at 11 to 12.
The fourth hour of the today.
Anyway, from the UK Daily Mail, men and women who bear more flesh are regarded as less intelligent, according to a study.
A study into human perceptions has discovered that revealing more flesh, the way you dress, can significantly change the way we think about men and women.
Really, we needed a study for this.
We needed a study.
Can you imagine the lucky stiffs that got to participate in this study?
If we see someone wearing revealing attire, we automatically assume they are less competent.
The findings were revealed in a study by a team of psychologists led by Professor Kurt Gray from the University of Maryland.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is what passes now for education and research at our major centers of advanced learning.
Research into what we think of people based on what they're wearing.
We wonder why there's such a thing as occupied with ourselves, which is what Occupied Wall Street is occupied with ourselves.
He said in six studies, we show that taking off a sweater or otherwise revealing flesh can significantly change the way someone's intelligence is perceived.
Research suggests that when men see a woman wearing very little, they focus on her body and less on her mind.
No.
Startling research, startling advances being made.
Did you realize this?
University of Maryland sturdily, they have discovered that when men see a woman wearing very little, the men focus on her body and not on her mind.
That's an amazing bit of research.
It is.
It is.
How much did that cost?
New findings show this is the case for both sex.
We're back to the Time magazine cover.
We're back to Time magazine, where they were so shocked that men and women are born different as boys and girls.
They had to do a cover story on it.
An important thing about our study said, Professor Gray, unlike previous research, ours applies to both sexes.
So when men run around half-dressed, we respond the same way we respond to women running around half-dressed.
We take men less seriously as do women focus on.
I guess the story is that when men take their clothes off, women focus on their body.
This was unknown up until the Maryland University research.
It was unknown.
And it was also under, which the guy says, his fire, our findings apply to both sexes.
never been done before.
How about when women see other women who are exposed?
What do they think of them?
That's in a future study.
Nothing on that out of the University of Maryland yet.
That's Professor Gray.
I had nothing in here about that.
When women see a woman wearing very little, they focus on her body and listen to her.
We don't know that that's true.
We don't know what.
Well, I don't know.
Oh, you're asking, I didn't do this.
So now they're popping me with questions.
What if both women are naked?
I don't know.
What's one woman think of the other?
Is she thinking about her brain or her body?
If both women are naked?
I don't know.
Let's see.
It translated here that wearing little clothes in an environment like the office can have a negative impact because it can imply a lack of competence and leadership.
How have we managed all these years without this insight?
I'll never know.
But at least we can be thankful we have the research now.
You know, you might be right.
It is only half the story.
Transit wearing little clothes in an environment like the office can have a negative impact because it can imply a lack of competence and leadership.
But it can also imply other things too, can't it?
Anyway, that's the latest from the University of Maryland.
Yeah, we'll be back after this.
Your phone calls are maybe coming up.
By the way, for you in Memphis, only hearing about the Memphis school supper story for the first time today, let me just tell you that your local media is not reporting who's really behind this.
There's nothing called compassion behind this.
This is the Service Employees International Union, which is behind taxpayer money being used to feed kids dinner.
And it's not just relegated to poor kids.
They want the schools to be serving dinner because the SEIU runs the cafeterias.
There would be more SEIU union people hired.
Kitchens would be open longer.
And there would be more dues collected from these employees, which would end up back at the Democrat Party.
I know you can't count on your local media in Memphis to tell you the truth about this story.
They will mislead you into thinking there's an act of great compassion behind this.
That somehow children in Memphis are going hungry, not eating dinner.
Somehow their parents have just punted.
And we never get a story about that either, do we?
Where are the parents?
Is it no longer the parents' responsibility to feed dinner to their kids?
We know it's no longer their responsibility to feed them breakfast.
The school will do that.
Ditto lunch.
Why now is it the parents' responsibility or lack of responsibility to feed them dinner?
So your local media will make you think that it's all just compassion and warm-heartedness and all that.
It's really just a labor movement angling for more jobs and more dues, more benefits paid for by you, the taxpayers.
You are going to be buying all of these so-called supposed starving kids dinner if this actually happens in Memphis and not just in Memphis pilot program.
If it works, it'll start popping up all over the place.
Donna in the Bay Area in California, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
Very well.
Thank you.
So excited to receive your, to be able to talk to you.
I just wanted to say, unfortunately, I am on a cell phone.
I just wanted to say that sometimes I'm so angry about the media more than anything else, even despite all the horrible things that Obama and the Democrats have been doing for many years because I find them so disingenuous.
And I contrast that with the recent Penn State issue, which obviously is horrible, but the way that they went about it with their moral superiority.
And I think to myself, they should look at themselves and how they've disingenuously covered everything that's been going on in this country.
Wait a minute.
What does the media have to do with what happened at Penn State?
Not sure I get that.
No, the way they've covered it.
Okay, how have they covered it?
How have they not covered it correctly?
Well, I think that they blurred the lines a little bit with the Joe Paterno situation in that if you were just dropped down by Mars from Mars the other day and you heard some of the ESPN covers, you would have thought Joe Paterno was the perpetrator.
Well, okay, okay, okay.
I see what you mean.
I see what you mean.
If you just got here from Mars, you might think Paterno.
I have to tell you, Donna, the sports media has been gunning for Paterno to retire for years.
He's 84.
They think the game has passed him by.
It just bugs him being there.
Jopa, as they call it, should go.
So since they think he should go, this is made in order to continue that narrative.
And not that he was the perpetrator, but the question is, how could he not have known?
It was his building.
It was his department.
It was his employee.
How could he not have known?
That's the question being asked.
And from what I know, the Sandusky, everybody knew there was a dessert at an ice cream shop in that town called a Sandusky with two scoops of ice cream underneath the cone.
It was made to look like male genitalia.
Everybody in that town knew what was going on.
To one degree or another, they're laughing about it.
I mean, a Sandusky is a joke dessert.
It looks, we show you a picture of it on Friday when we were out in California.
But even at that, I'll tell you, what are they, what media calling this, a sex scandal?
It's not a sex scandal.
This is not, I may be making a fine point on it, but the elephant in the room is not being talked about here.
There's a giant elephant in the room here that everybody's dancing around.
And they're using the word sex scandal.
It was a child abuse scandal is what this is.
This is a pedophilia scandal.
This is a child rape scandal by a guy, a football coach, who was raping young boys.
That's not a sex scandal.
Sorry, folks.
That's not, there's no sex involved here.
This is rape.
This is abuse, what have you.
There's a reason for mischaracterizing what it is in certain circles.
But as to Paterno, the sports media, and I read the sports media, they just, I don't know why.
They just wanted Paterno gone for a number of years.
He's too old.
The game has passed him by.
He can't possibly know anything anymore.
He can't possibly relate to these young kids.
These sophomores, juniors, and seniors can't possibly relate to him.
Time to move on.
Turn it over to some younger guy.
So this story pops up and it allows that narrative to be furthered.
But it is.
How did anybody not know this was going on?
This is going on for way too long.
And people did know it was going on.
That's the whole point.
That's why there's and should be tremendous outrage over this all over the place.
We'll be back.
You know, I don't mean to harp on things in Memphis, but I just have one more question for you in Memphis.
We're being told that your kids are starving and that you need to pay for them to be served dinner at school.
Why are we giving 48% of the people food stamps?
Why are we going to feed them dinner if they already get food stamps?
Or one or the other?
▲
Export Selection