All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 6, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:41
August 6, 2012, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Let's see, let me check something real quick here, folks.
No update yet.
Okay, cool.
Greetings and welcome back.
Great to have you, Rush Lindbaugh, the EIB Network, Hannah Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Great to be here.
A brand new week of broadcast excellence.
The telephone number is 800-282-2882.
The email address lrushbaugh at EIBnet.com.
Right?
Look, I know I'm all alone on my prediction about what's going to happen with football.
And as the program unfolds, maybe if anybody asks me anything further about it, I'll tell you how I think this is all going to happen.
It's not going to be a ban.
That wouldn't work.
Everybody knows it wouldn't work.
There wouldn't be a ban.
Fans love a game too much.
So the people that want this game banned, the people that want it gotten rid of, which is silly because it's a cash cow for so many people.
But we're talking liberals now.
Look at how popular boxing used to be.
Look at how popular smoking used to be.
Tort lawyers got involved in both.
Tort lawyers involved here now.
Liberals involved.
Game needs to be fixed.
Game can't be fixed, though.
Oh, it can't be fixed.
Mike Ditka, you can't take these hits out of it.
Take the face mask off.
Ditk because you want to stop head injuries.
Take the face mask off.
There's all kinds of ideas like that.
That's not going to satisfy.
Once the game needs to be fixed, that's it.
So how are the people that want this game irreparably harmed going to pull it off?
I know how they're going to do it.
They're going to make you sick and tired of watching it.
And if you want further details, I'll provide it.
But there's other stuff going on out there.
I want to weigh in.
I want to go back to the unemployment numbers that came out Thursday and Friday.
As you know, the unemployment number went up to 8.3%.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics said that 163,000 new jobs are created.
We used BLS numbers ourselves to show you how this isn't true.
We talked about seasonal adjustment.
But in a random act of journalism, a stunning, random act of journalism, the Washington Post yesterday in the Sunday paper actually wrote this.
This was the headline.
Wait, the U.S. economy actually lost 1.2 million jobs in July?
The U.S. economy did lose 1.2 million jobs between June and July, but that's not how it got reported.
When the Bureau of Labor Statistics released its job figures for July, said the economy gained 163,000 jobs.
So what gives?
Well, they're not hiding anything, as we pointed out last week.
The discrepancy has to do with what's known as seasonal adjustments.
Now, you who are regular listeners are well aware of the seasonal adjustments and January and July being the two months traditionally where the BLS says the most jobs have been lost.
But it's a guess.
It's a wild guess.
Even John Crudell, writing in the New York Post, said, you know, up till now, you know, I knew the numbers were fudged.
I mean, up until now, I knew they were playing games of the numbers.
But not until last week's report did Crudell think that we're being lied to about it all for political purposes.
That's how egregious this report was.
The U.S. economy follows certain predictable patterns in hiring and layoffs every year.
Scruel districts always let workers go for the summer and they hire them in the fall.
Retailers always staff up for the Christmas holidays and lay people off in January.
Students always flood the labor market in June.
So if we want to know how well the economy is doing and we want to know how many jobs were added after taking these predictable fluctuations into account, some seasonal adjustments are necessary.
Anyway, cut through all the gobbledygook here.
And what you're left with is the guy, name is Brad Plummer, says, over the longer term, these fluctuations shouldn't matter much.
Inaccurate seasonal adjustments might make some job reports look unduly pessimistic and others unduly optimistic, but they cannot mask, they cannot mask the overall health of the economy for too long.
Eventually, the jobs reports balance out.
So look at the long-term trends.
For the past one and a half years, the U.S. economy has added about 152,000 jobs per month on average.
Now, stick with me on this because at the rate, and this was in the Washington Post on Sunday.
It was in other places too.
The Washington Post, at our current rate of adding jobs, we will not get back to full employment until 2025 at this pace.
That's Obama's summer of recovery, which was three years ago.
And then last year, they didn't talk about it being the case this year.
But see, see, right there, ESPN's on.
They're showing the hit against a quarterback.
And they're asking, is this the kind of hit that the Saints would have been penalized for under the bounty program?
It was a legal hit.
The quarterback's taken out.
They're asking anybody on the Saints paid for this hit.
I guarantee folks, I know what I'm talking about here.
And I'm going to be the only one that believes it until it happens.
And then everybody will forget that I was the first making the prediction.
Well, Rush, where you been on this?
Oh, yeah, I forgot.
I was only the first.
Anyway, 2020.
This is awful, folks.
This is literally awful.
We won't get back to where we started in 2009 when Obama took office.
We won't.
Well, we won't get back to where we were before he took office.
Let's say 2008, 2007, until 2025 at this rate.
And this rate's not going to be maintained.
It's going to get worse.
That's the really sad thing.
Even the New York Times, they had a random act of journalism on Friday on their blog post on their website.
They even said these seasonal adjustments are wrong more than they're right, that they've been wrong 62% of the time.
We would have to add 280,000 jobs in each of the next three months for the unemployment rate to get below 8%, which, by the way, the regime, from what I gather, was actually hoping that that would, they actually were hoping the number is 7.2%.
No incumbent president ever been re-elected with an unemployment higher than 7.2%.
What they needed was this number to get down to 7.9.
Once it gets to 7, then the 0.9, 0.8 wouldn't matter.
They would just report the rate of 7%.
But now they know that there's, we lost 1.2 million jobs in July.
We did not add 163,000.
At the rate we are, that's the net.
There might have been 163,000 jobs filled, but that didn't end the story.
And I only mention this because like I said on Friday, these numbers represent real people, real people and their lives.
Real people.
This is not a game.
It's all reported on and talked about, analyzed in American politics, particularly Washington.
It's just a game.
How does this help Obama?
How does this help Romney?
How does it hurt Obama?
How does it hurt Romney?
What is this going to say for Obama's reelection?
What about the real people being affected here?
If it were a Republican president, we'd have a never-ending trail of damaged lives, people whose lives have been destroyed by the Republican economic policies.
Now it's just a game.
Just a game.
It's sad because it isn't a game.
It is real lives.
They have 1.2 million jobs.
That's just a statistic.
It's nothing more than a statistic.
The individual tragedies behind that, 1.2 million, never told.
Never humanized.
Just, gee, in news that is not pleasing to the Obama administration, which was hoping for a better report.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Listen to the Washington Post also on Sunday.
They did a random act of journalism on the unemployment numbers, but they canceled it out with their story on Harry Reid.
Listen to this.
Listen to the way they start their story on Harry Reid's lie about Mitt Romney not paying taxes.
Republicans on Sunday escalated their attacks on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Really?
That's what's happening out there?
Republicans escalated their attacks on Harry Reid.
Harry Reid started all of this.
In fact, we got to go to the audio soundbites, and there's one in particular that I want to get to, and that's number, where is it?
Number 14.
Grab audio soundbite 14.
This is our old buddy, Jonathan Carl.
Jonathan Carl used to be at CNN, where, when he was there, I might be doing career damage to the poor guy.
When I say this, when he was at CNN, and Snurdy will remember this, Jonathan Carl was, if he leaned in any direction, it was to the right.
Now he's with ABC.
No, Brian Ross still hasn't told us who the guy was that shot up the church in Wisconsin Sunday.
And I know they're saying that he's a white supremacist.
That's the Southern Poverty Law Center, but till Brian Ross weighs in, folks, we won't know who this guy really is.
We're waiting for Brian Ross to discover whether or not there's a Tea Party member, for example, with the same name in Wisconsin.
So don't jump the gun on this yet.
Brian Ross and Stephanopoulos haven't weighed in.
This is during the roundtable yesterday.
The same roundtable where George Will was talking about how football is killing its players and it can't be fixed.
Jonathan Carl talking to Stephanopoulos about Harry Reid's remarks about Romney and not having paid taxes.
Stephanopoulos says, you've been covering Harry Reid an awful long time, Jonathan.
What do you make of how he's doubling and tripling down on this charge without releasing any evidence, folks?
Here's the whole thing.
This answer, in a nutshell, is the whole story.
Number 14.
All I've ever seen actually made on the Senate floor.
Mitt Romney paid $3 million to the IRS in the one tax return that we've seen so far.
He paid taxes.
It's a completely false charge.
But Reid loves it.
The Democrats love this because no matter how much he digs in, no matter how much he gets attacked, you know, here or by Jon Stewart or anywhere else, it gets the story out there again and again.
And I'll tell you, Romney played into it by telling Harry Reid to put up or shut up.
And then it becomes this back and forth.
Instead, he should have laughed it off.
He should have made a joke about Harry Reid's imaginary friend and moved on.
Now, let me put this in perspective.
Here's a reporter who knows it's bogus.
A tantamount admission here.
Jonathan Carl knows this is bogus.
Yet instead of reporting that the game, Harry Reid's actually pulling this off.
Why, every time he doubles or triples down, it keeps the story out there.
And then the way Romney responds to it, that keeps the story out there.
And we know what Romney ought to be doing is just laughing it off.
And so, well, we can argue about that.
But the point is, the media knows that there's nothing to it, and yet they're reporting it as though there might be, because they want there to be, they want the thing to work.
They want the tactic to work.
So the truth is irrelevant.
The fact that nobody has any evidence that Romney hasn't paid tax, that doesn't matter.
I'll tell you, folks, I remember throughout my entire Sterling 24-year broadcast career, as you well know, I have come under attack and under assault countless times.
And I've had people, you can't let that stand.
You got to respond to it.
And I respond to it, and just did this, prolongs and elevates the story.
And you shouldn't have responded to it.
See what you did?
Now they're just talking about it even more.
You can't win.
Everybody who asks, well, why don't the Republicans say that?
Why don't they fight back?
Why don't you report?
Well, when they do, guess what?
The media says, see, guilty.
Wait a minute.
You know there's nothing to the charge.
Doesn't matter.
He's acting guilty.
He deigned to react.
So you react to the charge.
That must mean now that the meme is he must have something to hide.
He won't release them.
This couldn't happen without a media that's chosen sides.
This couldn't happen without a corrupt media.
Pure and simple.
Now you can debate all day strategically how to react when something like this happens.
Frankly, it is predictable.
This is a page right out of the Democrat playbook.
I mean, I'm giving you all the examples.
George Bush secret meeting in Paris, 1980 with the Iranians.
No evidence.
And precisely because there was no evidence of the seriousness of the charge, Tom Foley, Speaker of the House, had to investigate.
An investigation was called for.
There will be an investigation called for here.
Now, I've got a lot of other soundbites coming.
Carl was at the trail end of what we have here.
You've got all these other people.
What's he hiding?
Why doesn't he just release them?
Media knows there's nothing to the media knows that Harry Reid's lying through his teeth, and yet they're reporting how impressed they are with the tactic.
Impressed with the technique.
And here you have it.
Washington Post yesterday, Republicans on Sunday escalated their attacks on Harry Reid.
Republicans aren't attacking anybody.
They are reacting.
They are attempting here to deflect.
You might want to say they're being defended.
Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz is out there now demanding that Romney turn over 23 years tax returns.
All but one year of the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz wants Romney to release all but one year of his tax returns during the history of this program, 23 years.
Here's a question for Dingy Harry.
As majority leader, he has paid $193,000 a year.
How did he get to be worth $10 million?
Gotta go.
Be right back.
Okay, here for right here, right here, just got it.
Wall Street Journal.
Headline, is it time to retire the football helmet?
Is it time to retire the football helmet?
Yes, my friends, the march is on.
Zero interest in Barack Obama's admissions papers at any of his universities.
Zero interest in Barack Obama's transcripts.
Zero interest in anything about Barack Obama's past compared to the endless attacks on tax returns.
Republicans on Sunday escalated their attacks on Harry Reid.
Really?
Really?
That's the story?
To the phones, Great Falls, Virginia.
This is Ray.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hey, Ross.
This says in the side, Obama wrote a book where he said he did cocaine.
How much more disclosure do you want from the guy?
I mean, the least Romney can do is release his tax returns and prove.
I'm not suggesting Obama divulge anything.
I'm asking, where's the media trying to find out for the rest of us?
Well, let me get to the point I called on, which is NASA, because you opened up your show with it.
You're talking about this wonderful miracle just about that they pulled off, how technically intricate it was and how they nailed it.
And I'm thinking to myself, well, NASA's populated with hundreds, maybe even thousands of PhDs who went to federal schools on federal student loans and federal student aid.
It's a government agency itself, and it got it right.
It seems like a premise of this show is the government doesn't get anything right.
Yet before the EPA, you had rivers catching on fire.
In the first place, I've never said that government never gets anything right.
Secondly, throughout the course of this program, I have always heralded NASA for the contributions they have made to the advancement of science and the human standard of living, American standard of living.
I think NASA, Obama shut it down.
Some people told me, Ray, that they didn't know there were any Muslims on Mars because that's what Obama's turned NASA into after this.
Muslim outreach.
I don't know how many of the people of the jet propulsion labs got student loans or any of that.
I don't care.
None of that matters.
They did great work.
It's a phenomenal thing.
I've never said the government's totally worth it, but I can tell you the people running the government right now don't know what in the hell they're doing.
And this program predates Obama and any of his people arriving on the scene.
And we're just lucky they didn't shut it down.
We're just lucky that they didn't decide this trip was worthless because they've pretty much said that everything else about NASA is.
They walked away from NASA, give the money Cylindra, give the money to a bunch of worthless so-called green energy.
This is an illustration of what government can do.
I'll guarantee you, Ray, I probably am, I got to get some people calling me right now and telling me that I'm a little bit confused, that they're not that great at NASA.
That happens sometimes.
But NASA started, and really as a Department of Defense program, is where you go to trace its roots, which, of course, people on the left don't dig at all.
Hi, welcome back.
Great to have you, folks.
Rush Limbaugh having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
You know, one might say, when speaking of NASA, that the space flight realm of NASA, what happens there is the vast majority of it is actually done by private aerospace companies bidding for the jobs.
Private aerospace companies bid for certain aspects.
Like the government didn't build the rover.
They let a contract for it.
A private sector firm, yes, with Obama bucks.
I take it back, the money was allocated before Obama came along.
That's probably why the money was still there.
But it was your taxpayers' dollars, our taxpayer dollars, that were awarded to a private sector company to build, and probably a bunch of them combined built various aspects of the rover.
The rocket.
Somebody won a bid to build that parachute, for example.
The rockets to slow the rover down as approached the Martian surface.
What you've got at NASA is the flight engineers and these people that manage the actual mission on the computer side, you know, engineer managers and so forth.
And none of this stuff is cheap.
And there's always been an argument of what's the reward here, the risk-reward.
What are we as a society gaining?
Okay, what's the big deal landing on Mars?
I had somebody ask me yesterday, I was marveling at the achievement here, and I was going on and on.
Somebody says, well, what's the big deal about landing on Mars?
And there are a lot of people look at it that way.
When you compare what it costs to get there and pull this off and what we derive from it, benefit-wise, versus the age-old argument, how many starving people could we have fed with the money spent on the mission to go to Mars?
That never-ending question.
How much money should we spent on education, Mr. Limbaugh, and rebuild some crumbling inner city schools for the money we spent to go?
You're always going to have those questions.
We always have had.
And the people that want to argue the benefits of missions like this fall, in some cases, woefully short in trying to explain to society at large how everybody benefits from the technological advances to pull this off.
It's always been part of the space program.
There have always been the naysayers, and there have always been people opposed to it who claimed that the money would.
And, of course, incumbent in this whole phony argument is the assumption that we're not spending enough.
We're already not spending any on education.
And we're not spending anything on feeding people.
If we weren't spending any money on poverty, if we weren't spending money on education, and they might have an argument, but we are.
We're spending much more than we're getting any return on in all of these social programs.
I would argue the return that we've gotten on the space program in terms of advancing American lifestyles, technological, all the things, you know, back in the 60s and 70s, there was a list, and it was a long list of all of the advances in everyday life that were outgrowths of the manned space program to the moon.
Now, the Curiosity, not the mission, but the vehicle, the whole thing, $2.5 billion.
$2.5 billion.
$2.5 billion is a drop in the bucket in education.
But there are still people who make the argument that $2.5 billion to build the Curiosity spacecraft.
A total waste of money.
What are we doing going to Mars?
Those people are always going to be there.
But just the point is that the guy Ray called, look at what all government did, but they always do here.
Private sector aerospace companies built everything involved here.
Nobody in government built the rover.
Pierre and Simon.
This is not to put anybody down.
This is to be accurate about this.
Here's Annette in Highland, Illinois.
Great to have you on the program and welcome.
Hello.
Thank you for having my call today.
I'm so excited to get through.
Thank you.
Glad you got through yourself.
I've tried a couple of times to call when you're talking about football because I'm going to give you some quick background on myself before I make the comment because people are going to jump to conclusions about why I feel this way.
I'm 44.
I'm a PE teacher.
I'm happily married.
Love my mother.
But I'm really tired of the feminist movement messing with football.
And this is why I think this is happening because MMA, they beat each other in the head.
Hockey, you know, there are a lot of injuries.
But several years ago, they started doing the breast cancer awareness thing.
Now, the whole month of October, I have to watch the football game with everybody in pink.
Now, I think it's a good cause, but I think they need to give that money to research.
And people say I'm cold-hearted, but my mom died of breast cancer.
Wait, wait, wait.
Give what money to any money that they use to produce the pink tennis shoes and pink towels and all that stuff for breast cancer awareness.
Oh, oh.
They need to give that to research, all of that money.
Because for October, you know, I'm not cold-hearted.
My mom died of breast cancer when I was 14.
She battled for two years.
I took care of her.
But I don't want to think about breast cancer when I'm watching football.
My mom was not a survivor.
I don't want to think about it.
I don't want to see women down on the field.
I can't tell you the law.
They say that they need to spread awareness.
And you take a popular event like the National Football League and have pink shoes, pink shoelace, pink towels.
Oh, what the hell is breast cancer awareness?
Oh, okay.
They want more people to be aware of it.
Well, and I think there are other avenues, but the majority of people who get breast cancer are women.
So why don't they do it on the View all month?
Why don't they wear pink?
Or if they're going to do that with the NFL, why doesn't the View have prostate cancer awareness and wear their ribbon color?
Why don't they have speculative cancer awareness?
I mean, I'm really frustrated.
Wouldn't it be sexist to point out that more men die of prostate cancer than women die of breast cancer?
Yeah, probably.
But I see, I think the answer to your question is, well, you want to spread awareness to a male audience precisely because it's assumed that women are already aware.
Right.
But what I'm saying is it's the venue in which they're doing it.
I don't have a problem with it.
It's the venue in which they're doing it.
And it's not just that.
I have direct TV.
I have NFL tickets, but I watch a lot of games.
Well, I can't venue the last.
If I may, if I may translate for you, I think I know what really bothers you about it.
Okay.
You're a PE teacher.
You like sports.
You watch football on Sunday afternoon, and you don't want to be preached to about politics.
That's what you think it is.
Everybody knows that these things have political attachments to them.
And so here you are watching football in the month of October.
You can't escape the pink stuff when you watch the NFL.
And you probably, even though you're subconscious, you may be consciously aware of it.
What you're really objecting to is, look, I'm watching this to get away from real life for three or four hours.
Do you have to keep preaching politics to me when I'm watching football?
Isn't that what it really is?
That's absolutely right.
It's an escape.
And I watch a lot of football, and I can't tell you the last time I saw a male reporter doing an on-field interview.
There are always females doing on-field interviews.
And then, you know, I played football with my class.
I put high school football boys.
And I got injured in January.
I'm 44 years old, and I got injured.
And I'm still struggling through the injury.
It was a right-hand injury.
And everybody's like, what are you doing?
Well, I like the game.
I love the game.
And I'm really upset with players who I have met personally, some of them at training camps, who are coming out saying things that are going to hurt the game.
I knew the risk when I went in and played in January.
And I do it again because I love football.
And so, I mean, I'm all around upset about what's going on with the NFL.
Well, I think what you've swerved into here is that this is a political movement.
The danger, the concussion, it's all perceived.
Well, it's not yet.
It's not yet perceived as what it is.
That's where I am light years ahead.
I don't say this in a braggadocious way.
Please don't misunderstand.
Where I am light years ahead is I understand who is behind this and what their objectives are.
I just got an email from a sports reporter.
I'm not going to mention his name, who heard me talking about this and wants to correct me on a few.
I ought to read this to you.
And he's exactly right in everything he says, but in my humble opinion, he's missing the point about what's going on.
And that is that this is politics.
The left politicizes everything.
And in everything they do, there's a political objective or there's a political motivation.
So you agree, well, what's the political motivation in harping on concussions, Rush?
I mean, it's absurd.
No, it isn't.
If you understand liberals who are trying to take the risk out of life, all risk, they are seeking perfection.
They're seeking utopia.
Why do you think you have this idiot mayor in New York saying, don't eat trans fats or salt?
It's all oriented under this false premise that if we do it right, nobody will ever get sick.
We do it right.
Nobody, we might get to the point, nobody will die.
I mean, it's absurd, folks.
These people are flat out, dangerously absurd.
But I'm glad you called because the whole impetus that is now behind this notion that football is killing its players and can't be fixed is political.
And this is where I am light years ahead.
People, A, don't see it, B, don't want to.
And if you don't understand people ideologically, which is, folks, can I just give you another illustration?
I know you in this audience get it, but January 16, 2009, I said, I hope he fails.
I knew exactly this was going to happen to our economy.
I knew because I know who liberals are.
I knew this guy knew what he wanted to do.
I knew what his intentions are.
I knew he had a chip on his shoulder about this country.
I know that he doesn't like it.
It's found.
I know how he's been taught.
I know how he's been educated.
I know how he's been raised.
I did not want this to happen.
That's why I said, I hope he fails.
But back then, nobody was looking at things like, oh, no, it's history in the making.
It's our first black president.
This guy was anything but what I was telling people he was.
He was Mr. Unifier.
He's post-racial.
It wasn't going to be any more racism.
There wasn't going to be any more political divide.
All that was over people.
There were enough people who really bought that.
Because they don't look at things ideologically or at people ideologically like I do.
I can see it when I talk to people in person about this.
I can spot instantly a facial expression when somebody thinks I'm a raving lunatic.
When I make a prediction or explain to them why something's happening in a political sense, because they don't see it, don't want to see it, and don't have the, right now, the ability to.
Anyway, I'm a little long here, which means the next segment is going to be unfortunately shorter than norm.
Thanks for the call, Annette.
We'll take a break and be back after this.
Don't go away.
If you'll just stop and think about it, you'll know I'm right when I tell you that everything is politics to the left.
Everything.
There's not one thing in our culture or lives that they do not politicize.
Now, where would this country be?
Stick with me here for a second, folks.
Where would this country be without contact sports?
Where would we be without, say, the Second Amendment?
Motorcycles.
Pick anything.
What really is going on?
This is not exclusively about football.
It's not self-contained and it's not unique.
It isn't just about football.
Football's just the latest iteration of what the left is trying to do.
In New York, it's being done with trans fats and 16-ounce sodas.
And before that, it was done with smoking and cigarettes, tobacco, and all that.
They never ban what produces revenue.
And in fact, they fund healthcare programs off of it.
But they preach, they proselytize, they infuse guilt, which is what's going to happen here.
What this is all intended to do is to destroy individual choice, free will.
This is another opportunity to empower government to get involved in anything and everything.
If you are going to proclaim, look at who you are.
If you're going to proclaim that football is broken, it's killing its players for crying out loud.
That's a hell of a charge.
Football's killing us and it can't be fixed.
Well, what's called for?
Somebody must do something.
Remember Meryl Streep and LR?
What are we doing to our children?
60 minutes.
What are we doing to our children?
We're poisoning our children.
No, we're not.
Farmers just put stuff on there because it makes the apples look better in the grocery store.
It's not a poison.
LR.
We had a problem.
We need government to come in and fix it.
We got a problem.
Football is killing its players.
And in certain places, coaches are molesting the players.
We've got to do something.
We had a story either last week or the week before.
A woman who is a weird sex expert, according to her resume, wrote a piece in the New York Times actually suggesting that pedophilia in football is connected to brain trauma in kids who play the game early in life.
Don't doubt me about what's happening here.
See, I have the ability because I'm a student.
I see how they politicize everything.
I've seen it my whole life.
I know that they do politicize.
So that's how I look at them.
So if I look at a bunch of people not liking the NFL and they're leftists, I know it's political.
Okay, then it's very simple after that.
What do liberals believe?
Big government.
Fixing problems.
Eliminating danger.
Eliminating risk.
Eliminating death.
Eliminating injury.
Eliminating pain.
Eliminating suffering.
Yes.
In the name of equality and utopia and all that.
So this is just the latest effort to get government involved in everything.
Can't eat what you want now.
You can't play what you want.
You can't drive what you want.
You can't protect yourself with your gun.
George Will fell for it, hook line, and sinker.
Nothing to be fixed in football.
Nothing, really.
I ought to just call myself the lone wolf because that's what I want to be on this for about 10 years.
14% more women die of breast cancer than do men of prostate cancer, but more men get prostate cancer.
That's the truth.
I had it a little backwards.
I had it half right, and I want to get it all the way right.
We'll be back.
▲
Export Selection