All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 16, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:41
September 16, 2014, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program documented to be almost always right 99.7% of the time.
I am Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchorman, doing the work that Drive-By Media, well, I was going to say used to do, but that's questionable.
Doing the work that Drive-By Media should be doing.
The views expressed by the host of this program may not necessarily represent the views of the staff management nor sponsors of this station, but they should and someday will, even if it takes another 25 years.
800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address, LRushbo at EIBNet.com.
We had a lot of NFL fallout today, folks.
The singer Rihanna, you big Rihanna fan, Mr. Snirdley?
You know, that's one of these sad things.
I have never heard a Rihanna song.
She came along and got big after I lost my hearing.
So, well, it's sad from the standpoint I can't comment.
I have to ask other people if she's talented or not, because I can't tell.
And what I'm hearing is that she's not particularly, well, she may not be, but she's clearly written about as a superstar.
Well, hey, here's the news.
And there's so much NFL fallout today.
This is just a smidgen of it.
She is furious with the NFL for pulling her song from a pregame show last Thursday night, Steelers Ravens game.
She was going to be featured in the pregame show.
And she has taken to Twitter to tell CBS and the NFL what she thinks about that.
Now, they pulled her song.
That was to play before the Ravens game on Thursday because apparently they thought it would be in bad taste given her fame as a victim of domestic violence and the Ray Rice business.
Wasn't she domestically abused by the singer?
Chris Brown, right?
Is that right?
No, no, but the abuse happened.
Chris Brown beat her up or something.
And CBS and the NFL thought, maybe we want to stay away from that.
And in fact, some people are saying that Rihanna might be thinking the NFL pulled her song because she has reconciled with her abuser.
That's what some people are saying, that CBS pulled a song, the NFL pulled a song because she got back together with her abuser, and that's not in the game plan.
I mean, no, no, no, that's not the image we want.
Janae Palmer, notwithstanding, that is not the image that we want.
Anyway, she's ticked about it and letting everybody know in no uncertain terms.
Adrian Peterson, running back Minnesota Vikings, suspended from Sunday's games after it was learned he was indicted for child abuse by whooping one of his sons with a twig that drew blood on various areas of the four-year-old boy's body.
The Vikings clearly don't know what to do.
The NFL traditionally in matters like this has said, you know what?
The players will play and we will withhold our action, our suspension, our penalty, whatever we decide to do.
We'll withhold that till the legal process.
Well, a lot of people say, screw that.
That means you've got wife beaters on the field.
And they point to a guy in San Francisco and they point to a guy in Charlotte, the Carolina Panthers.
And the activists are, what do you mean you wait a legal process plays?
Oh, we don't need to wait for the legal.
These guys did it, and you refuse to take action against them because they're good players.
The NFL is feeling the pressure.
And the Vikings, and then it was revealed that a second child of Adrius and Adrian Peterson's might have similarly been abused during a whooping or a spanking.
Now, Peterson's lawyer, Rusty Hardin, who represented Roger Clemens in his case against the U.S. Congress perjury and so forth.
Wait, wait, wait, wait a minute, Hardin says.
That second case never happened.
People are making this up.
And so now the Vikings don't know what to do.
Do we let the legal process play?
Well, we don't want to convict the guy before he's actually convicted.
But the legal system, they don't know what to do.
They've reinstated him.
He's going to play someday.
This is making everybody very nervous.
The league is getting nervous.
Women's groups, the feminist groups are getting very, very nervous about this.
And let's clear what happened when you opened the door.
I mean, it's – this is – look, I don't mean to sound arrogant, folks.
Please.
I really am not an arrogant guy, but this is what happens when you don't have a firm stand on anything, when you go out and try to please every whiner and moaner and complainer.
You go out, you turn the whole month of October over to pink.
Come on.
May I ask you, women, a series?
Because I need to ask you.
I'm not a woman, and so I can't really put myself in your position.
And I'm not a male lesbian, so I can't put myself in your position.
But does players wearing pink and pink ribbons and so forth on the field, does that actually attract you to the game of football in October?
Does the fact that players might be wearing pink shoes or pink towels or maybe the markings on the field are in pink or the penalty flags are pink?
Does that say to you women, you know what?
I've changed my mind on this game.
I'm actually going to watch the NFL because they got pink stuff in October.
So I think that's a little, well, I don't know, insulting, but I'm not a woman, so I don't know.
Well, it is attention drawn to breast cancer.
So you appreciate it.
You appreciate the symbolism that it represents, and that is that the league is aware of and concerned about and focusing on breast cancer.
So that's what the pink means to you, so you're supportive of it.
Does it make you want to watch games more than otherwise?
Well, anyway, there's that that's going on.
So the NFL, we announced yesterday, has hired four different women in four different areas of expertise to join the league at the executive level to assist them and advise them going forward on how to limit the fallout and the damage and how to construct policies going forward.
That will be more.
acceptable to the public and help the NFL recapture whatever, if anything, it has lost here.
Now, one of the women hired is named Cynthia Hogan.
She is a veteran Democrat Party operative.
She served as a key Senate aide behind the passage of the Violence Against Women Act as its new Washington office head honcho.
She is going to be the league's first female top lobbyist.
She comes on board after the NFL engaged in a protracted job search that included several rounds of interviews and dozens of candidates.
Again, Cynthia Hogan, she served as counsel to Vice President Joe Biden.
She served as staff director of the Senate Judiciary Committee when Biden was in the Senate, which means she probably doesn't have a whole lot of love for Clarence Thomas or Sam Alito or John Roberts.
Since leaving Biden's office last summer, she's been serving as a consultant.
She will have a broad range of issues in her portfolio, including the NFL's Political Action Committee.
Hogan, who was hired to help the NFL regain credibility on domestic violence issues, is expected to make an assessment of the NFL's Washington presence and as lobbyists and examine the strategy and personnel, both internally and externally, according to an NFL insider.
Now, she's just one of the four, but a Democrat Party operative who spearheaded as the Senate age, the Violence Against Women Act.
She, uh, well, we'll just have to wait and see.
We'll wait and see how this manifests itself.
I want to go to the audio soundbites.
Let's start with number, let's see.
Let's start with 16, Kirsten Gillibrand.
Yesterday on the Huffing and Puffington Post, the political reporter Laura Bassett interviewed Kirsten Gillibrand, and they were talking about the Ray Rice story.
We have two soundbites from Kirsten Gillibrand.
Here's the first.
All of the fans, young boys and girls watching this, are watching the NFL say it's okay to beat your wife.
It's unacceptable.
It's not about just Roger Goodell and this one player.
There are hundreds of players who are beating their wives, committing assault, committing rape across all sports, and we have to hold them all accountable.
Pretty broad allegation there, sports fans.
A pretty, pretty broad allegation here.
Hundreds of players who are beating their wives, committing assault, committing rape across all sports.
And we have to hold them all accountable.
It isn't just Roger Goodell and Ray Rice.
There's rape.
There is assault.
There are wife beatdowns.
It's all over the place out there.
Here is the next soundbite.
The question was asked.
This was from a labor leader to win this election.
Let me set this up because this is there's a labor leaders are Democrats.
Kirsten Gillibrand is talking about insults that she has received.
And this is one.
She's talking about a labor leader told her, Kirsten, to win this election, you need to be beautiful again.
That labor leader comment was so devastating because I just had a baby.
I am just been appointed.
I have a lot to learn, so much on my plate.
And this man basically says to me, You're too fat to be elected statewide.
And at that moment, if I could have just disappeared, I would have.
If I could have just melted in tears, I would have.
But I had to just sit there and talk to him.
And I switched the subject and I didn't hear another word he said.
But it wasn't in a place where I could tell him to go himself.
Oh.
Why not?
What does it have to be a specific place before you can tell the labor leaders are who?
And Democrats, right?
Labor leaders are Democrats.
A big labor leader, big Democrats.
Kirsten, Kirsten, you don't have a prayer.
You've got to get beautiful again.
The implication, clearly, you're not beautiful now.
You were once, and you got to go back to being beautiful.
And she's recounting how offended she was by this.
Democrat labor leader.
Up next, Michael Wilbon.
Now, this NFL business, the case of Adrian Peterson, child abuse via spanking.
Ray Rice and Greg Hardy and Ray McDonald, wife or spouse abuse.
And according to Kirsten Gillibrand, there are hundreds of players doing this, committing assault, committing rape.
As is usual, by the way, just a brief aside, the NFL is filled with a lot of good people.
The NFL is filled with a lot of players, good citizens who are responsible.
In large part, you never hear about them.
They're chasing their dream.
They are fulfilling a life's dream by playing in the NFL, trying to get as good as they can.
They're trying to win a championship.
You don't hear about them.
You get broad-based statements like this.
The entire league is now being tarred and feathered.
And of course, it's going to be accepted.
Anytime a U.S. Senator says this kind of stuff, nobody stands up and tells the U.S. Senator that they're wrong about this.
Instead, you react to it and try to change the senator's mind.
And so then you try to please all these different critics, and you end up with a kaleidoscope of policies that are impossible to keep up with.
But these problems, like I was reading Phil Mushnik in the New York Post on Sunday, he had an interesting observation.
Every one of these guys that has been accused of or found guilty of spouse abuse, wife beating, child abuse, whatever, they all come from colleges.
They're all college educated.
So what's going on there?
It's not the NFL that turns these people into who they are.
They arrive there being who they are.
So where is it that they're learning to behave this way?
And that's what nobody wants to tackle, I think.
I don't think anybody really wants to get to the root issue.
What they want to do is pretend that all of a sudden when players get to the NFL, they're going to be in awe.
It's the NFL.
I need to shape up.
I need to get my act together.
This is the big time.
This is the NFL.
And it doesn't happen.
Obviously, in some of these cases.
So the NFL is relying on just their own stature and uniqueness to straighten people out, but they're arriving this way.
And they all come from college.
Now, I don't know how many classes they attend.
I don't know how many degrees they actually get, but they are in college.
They arrive this way.
If you really want to get to the bottom of why all this is happening, you're going to have to be honest and deep in your cultural examination.
Well, I don't think anybody's interested in that.
Now, this is Michael Wilbon.
He's the co-host of, pardon the interruption, Tony Kornheiser on ESPN.
He was not on ESPN saying this.
This soundbite comes from the Kornheiser radio show.
And they were talking about Adrian Peterson being in trouble for hitting his son with a switch.
I think the decline in behavior in America is directly traceable to the lack of whippings with switches.
Your grandparents or your parents says you have to pick your own switch, you go out, you snatch it off the tree, you cut it down, whatever you do, depending on where you are.
It's such a common thing.
It's like baking a pie.
So what we have here is Michael Wilbon say, hey, you know what?
The decline in behavior in America is directly traceable to the lack of whippings, the lack of switches.
Your grandparents, your parents that send you out to pick your own switch.
You go out, you snatch it off the tree, you cut it down, whatever you do, depending on where you are.
It's such a common thing.
It was like baking a pie.
It happened to all of us, he's saying.
And his theory is it worked.
In his case, it kept him straight and narrow.
He was properly punished, in his view.
So he's saying nothing wrong with it here.
And in fact, if there were more of this kind of discipline, there might be less of this kind of behavior going on in the NFL.
Okay, to the phones we go.
People have been patiently waiting.
We're going to start with Dana in State College, Pennsylvania.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Well, hi there, and thanks for taking the call.
And I actually have a small question first.
Was that Snerdley I spoke to?
It was.
I feel so amazed.
Thank you.
I called to get your insights on something that came up the other day.
I was having my hair cut, and the beautician was musing about why the sudden anger at ISIS.
And what she pointed out was that ISIS has been doing horrible things to people for quite a number of years.
They've been burning, beheading, attacking Christians, killing people.
And yet now, all of a sudden, the horror is being presented to the American people.
And one of the things that she was wondering is if it was because all of a sudden ISIS had now attacked a journalist.
And the comment she made was, the journalists see a journalist as one of their own, so don't relate to the Christians and the other peoples over there that were being attacked.
I thought that was an interesting question.
Well, it may be a factor, but I actually don't think that is the number one reason.
I'll tell you what the number one reason why everything going on in Iraq was ignored.
Long before ISIS beheaded James Foley, and it's all about protecting Barack Obama, Barack Obama got elected on the premise that the Iraq war was illegitimate, should never have happened.
It was stupid Bush cowboyism, and it was dumb, and it was stupid, and it was a waste, and he's going to get us out of there.
He got elected on that basis.
The Democrat Party drove their base insane for five years of incessant nonstop criticism of the Iraq war.
So Obama gets elected and has to get out of there.
He doesn't leave a residual force.
He ignores the status of forces agreement.
He doesn't care.
He makes it clear he doesn't care what happens to Iraq after we leave because we shouldn't have been there in the first place.
He got elected on that premise.
That it was a total waste of time, a total waste of American military might and personnel.
So in order to protect Obama, there was no reporting of anything really going on in Iraq that was problematic or destructive because there wasn't going to be any reporting to make Obama look bad.
And I think the reason why all of a sudden the beheading of the journalist caught everybody's attention is there was a video of it.
Just like the video inside the elevator at that casino in New Jersey.
If you wanted to watch it, you could.
There was a video.
And once the video hit, it was impossible to ignore it.
There were pictures.
Now, the fact that it's a journalist, that would cause unity among journalism practitioners, no question.
Not the main reason, though.
Benjamin in Dallas, you're next.
It's great to have you, Benjamin.
Hi, how are you?
Hi, thanks, Rush.
I'm a little confused by Obama, though.
We're going to bomb ISIL, but we're going to support ISIS, is my gist of it.
What do you think about it?
There is no difference in the two.
And in fact, in fact, there are some people who are beginning to wonder what in the hell Obama's doing by pronouncing it ISIL and by trying to confuse people.
ISIL, ISIS are the same thing.
They use three names: ISIS, which is Islamic State, Iraq, and Syria.
ISIL is Islamic State of Iraq, and I forget what the L stands for, I can never remember it.
And then just IS, Levant, right?
And then IS is just Islamic State.
It's the same bunch of people.
It's no different.
You know, Fox News pronounces it Osama bin Laden, and they spell it USama bin Laden instead of Osama bin Laden.
The continued use of the term ISIL has a lot of people scratching their heads.
You know, what's Obama really trying to accomplish here by calling him that?
And to whom is he speaking when he it's really curious because they're they're basically just they're one and the same.
The real interesting thing about this, and I'm just to rehash this, but let's go back to the summer 2013, 2013.
Remember, Obama drew this red line for Bashar Assad, because in the summer of 2013, the popular consensus was that Bashar Assad was gassing his own people, and he was murdering, committing genocide against his own people, which happened to be a supposed civilian uprising against the Assad regime,
demanding their freedom and release from the yoke of control exhibited by Bashar.
And there were a lot of people that were questioning that analysis, saying, He's got no reason to be doing, he's not losing the civil war.
Why would Bashar Assad be doing this?
And I ran across a really comprehensive piece in a foreign policy digest, which made the case that in fact it was not Bashar Assad that was committing atrocities against these people,
that these people were committing the atrocities against their own in an effort to make it look like Assad so that Obama and the rest of the free world would come in and take out Bashar.
Now, that group, the supposed civilian uprising, was ISIS, used to be called Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
And they are a group which grew and came into existence and really prospered in the vacuum that was Iraq after we pulled out and did not leave a residual force to deal with any of this.
They spread from Iraq to Syria and they started committing mass mayhem against citizens in Iraq and made to look like it was happening by the Syria.
It made it look like it was a Syrian government doing it.
And we were on the verge of allying with those people last summer against Bashar Assad.
For whatever reason, we pulled back because it was just another example of Obama drawing a red line and ignoring it and getting the reputation of paper tiger.
Now We are ostensibly assisting Syria in taking the battle to ISIS, ISIL, whatever Obama wants to call them.
And that has prompted the government of Bashar Assad, prompted us to tell that government, hey, don't shoot down our planes.
We're going to start bombing, and we may start bombing inside Syria.
And if you don't, don't take out our planes.
We're on your side.
It's a stunning.
It's a literally stunning reversal.
It was so close a year ago that we actually were on the verge of supporting this group now that has become public enemy number one.
This is Lee in Queens.
Lee, you're next.
It's great to have you on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, thanks for taking the call.
My question is, why are we validating the fact that Obama can do executive amnesty?
What do you mean validating it?
I mean, because we're bracing ourselves and we're hoping that he doesn't do it like after the election or in the lame duck or whatever, and the underlying message there is that he can do it.
Well, no, I don't, no.
I get your point.
The answer to your question is, is that me, people in this audience, are not accepting.
We're totally opposed to that premise, but we don't have anybody in Washington that represents us.
Right.
Remember now, up until the polling data of recent weeks, it has been assumed that the entire Washington establishment, Republican and Democrat, wanted amnesty and the Republican Party because it was the only thing to save them.
If they didn't sign up for amnesty and show the Hispanics they respect them and love them, they would never win the White House again.
So Obama doing executive order amnesty, of course it's unconstitutional.
I don't accept it and I don't validate it.
But if there's nobody in Washington willing to stand up and say, hey, don't, you can't, or try to stop him from doing it, then you might get the impression it's being validated as people discuss it.
I only discuss it that way because I don't see anybody opposed to it.
I mean, if somebody gets an illegal immigrant gets arrested, he stands before the judge.
The judge is looking at a rule book.
The illegal immigrant just looks at the judge and say, it's okay.
Obama gave me the knob.
I mean, at that point, why do we even have a courthouse?
What is the whole point of courts and laws?
Well, bingo, that's the whole point about the immigration laws that we have today.
None of them are being, well, not.
Very few of them are being really enforced.
That's the whole point of this.
You know, Arizona passes their own version of the federal immigration laws, and Obama sues them.
You know, Arizona wanted to do what it could to enforce laws the federal government wasn't, and Obama sues them, saying, you don't have the right.
Immigration law is a federal proposition, and you can't get involved in it.
So they sued the state of Arizona.
Right.
That's the whole thing.
Lawlessness doesn't seem to bother anybody.
Extra constitutionalism, behaving outside the bounds.
You can get away with anything if nobody's going to try to stop you.
If the cops stopped enforcing murder, you could get away with that.
If prosecutors stopped prosecuting people for domestic violence, you get away with that.
It's all a matter of what kind of spine you're going to have enforcing the laws that you've got.
Right.
And because of the historical aspect of the Obama president, we can't discuss impeachment.
Obama would love it.
I really think that a large portion of Obama's taunting and threatening to do amnesty before Labor Day, and coupled with a couple of other things, I think he was desperately trying to get the Republicans to start talking about impeaching him.
Because the Democrats believe that if the Republicans did that, that they would lose every bit of electoral momentum they have for the November midterms.
Because they believe that the American people don't want any part of the first African-American president being impeached or criticized or mistreated or what have you.
I think Obama's been taunting them.
There hadn't been a single Republican who had even mentioned impeachment.
And yet if you look at the news media every day and listen to Democrats, that's all you heard.
You heard Obama and the day Obama says, well, every day, you know what?
They're talking about suing me.
Every day they're talking about impeachment.
And they weren't.
And then the media would repeat it.
Republicans behind closed doors, considering the prospect of impeaching.
And they weren't.
And the Democrats and Obama put it out there anyway, trying to goad the Republicans into doing it.
The Democrats can't run for reelection here on anything positive.
There is not one thing the Democrat Party can run for reelection on that is premised on, you want more of this?
You like what we're doing so far?
You want to keep us in power to keep doing it?
There's none of that.
The only hope they have is to scare people away from the Republicans and back to the Democrats.
This is actually worth a bit more discussion from a political and scientific perspective because it's fascinating to watch how the Democrats and the media are trying to pull this and how the Republicans are.
You know, I'm looking at the fact, it gave rise to this.
I'm looking at the fact there still isn't a whole lot of polling data out there on these November races.
And do you know, you remember all those times when Bush's approval number fell to the 30s and CNN could not stop reporting it like 100 times in a five-hour period?
I think Obama's 38% approval in Gallup has yet to be mentioned in a dry button.
The major networks have not mentioned it, not once.
They are not talking about the polls they have that show Democrats getting shellacked.
But there's two different kinds of polls.
There are the national polls, but then when you get into individual states, some of these Democrat senators are actually leading in their polls.
One that doesn't make any sense to a lot of people is Kay Hagan in North Carolina.
She's actually leading in that poll against this guy named Tillis.
But other polls that are taken that show national intentions, Republican and Democrat voters, she's getting shellacked by six to eight points.
So a lot of people don't know what to make of the polling data, and they're really confused by it.
And some are disheartened by it.
So the Republicans, as a result, can anybody tell me what they stand for?
This is one of the biggest blown opportunities I've ever seen.
And yet the Republicans believe that the only thing they have to gain by speaking up is losing.
They really do.
They think the Democrats are committing such suicide that the active theory of standing aside, letting them keep doing it, is the operative strategy right now.
There is no alternative being pitched or mentioned or proposed in terms of turning around the economy, in terms of immigration.
Pick any policy that the Democrats are blowing to smithereens.
There isn't an alternative to it being presented by the Republicans.
Maybe in local races, but there's not a national Republican message.
There's not a national Republican identity right now, other than we're not Obama, other than our guys do economics better, other than, but even that's being left to assumption.
Anyway, I got to take a break.
I just saw the clock sit tight, my friends.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
Now, folks, let me admit, I know what the Republicans are afraid of.
And in a way, and I, well, I don't want to say I understand the fear.
The Republicans are afraid of the war on women.
They really think that they're scared to death about it.
It's silly.
It doesn't make any sense.
But for some reason, they are convinced that it helped the Democrats and worked for them.
Now, there's a poll out there that we had last couple days, yesterday, that it was in Sunday's papers, and it depressed the drive-bys.
Democrats and Obama have lost a huge chunk of support from women.
I mean, they're way, way down.
And everybody's trying to figure out why, what's happened.
You know, how could they, the war on women was so successful.
So what they're trying to, here's how they want women to think of Republicans.
Totally anti-abortion, totally anti-contraception, which then means that Republicans don't want women having sex.
Because if you're not going to pay for the contraception, you obviously don't want them having sex.
This is how it works.
This is what the Republicans are afraid of.
They don't have a rejoinder for it.
They don't have any way.
They don't have a response to any of these outrageous, absurd claims.
And it's the same type of thing when it comes to Hispanics.
Same type of thing when it comes to blacks.
Republicans still believe in slavery.
They still support the rich.
They don't want you to have any money.
They don't want you to get a job.
They don't want you to ever pay off your student loan.
They don't want you.
I mean, it's silly that the Pelosi the other day, Pelosi's out there saying the election of Republicans would be the end of civilization as we know it.
And she was dead serious.
And of course, the media doesn't portray that as a literally lunatic thing to say.
They give it serious acknowledgement.
And the reaction to it is, well, you know, it does sound a bit out there, but we must examine what it is she really means.
Why would serious politicians claim that the election of Republicans would mean the end of civilization?
And then they'll move to war on women as a way of analyzing it.
And then they'll say, Republicans think you ought to buy your own birth control.
They don't think that they should be buying your birth control.
Therefore, they don't want you to have sex.
And they don't want you having any fun.
And they don't want you having any abortions and any of this stuff.
And all of it is positioned.
It's like the way the Democrats used to do way back long time ago when it worked.
The Democrats, every election cycle would tell old people that the Republicans wanted to take away their Social Security.
And they would tell old people that the Republicans wanted to kick them out of their houses.
Every election cycle, every one.
I would look at it.
It's absurd.
It never has happened.
There have never been any Social Security cuts, number one.
And number two, there was never any effort to end it.
Republicans have never supported ending Social Security.
And yet the Democrats accused Republicans of every election cycle.
Why did it work?
It worked because if you are a seasoned citizen and that's all you've got, you can't take the chance that the Democrats might be telling you the truth or that they might be lying to you.
You can't take, if somebody that you respect as a politician is telling you that the Republicans want to take away the only thing you've got to live on, your Social Security, you're not going to take the time to seriously analyze the stupidity and folly of that.
You're just going to keep voting Democrat because you don't want to take the risk.
And it's the same approach that they're primarily to single women.
Single women, minority, unmarried women is who they aim all of these allegations about Republicans to.
The Republicans don't want you to be able to have sex.
They don't want you to be able to have an abortion.
They don't want you to be able to get country.
That's why, I forget who did it.
A Republican, this is just a middle block, actually suggested making birth control totally over-the-counter, no prescription, and part of some kind of benefit.
Making it totally for Republican supported it.
And the Democrats panicked.
The Democrats got scared.
Oh, my God, if they do that, and they tempted to come out against it because it would take away such a huge, what, a Republican suggested over-the-counter birth control as a welfare benefit?
It would take the weapon away.
But see, that's what Republicans have been reduced to doing in effort to beat this stuff.
Essentially give the Democrats what they want.
Republican Senate candidate Tom Tillis suggested birth control available over-the-counter.
Planned Parenthood had a freak out.
A sorority is in big trouble after Taco Tuesday was deemed racist because people wore sombreros.
▲
Export Selection