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 me almost always right 99.7% of the time.
I am Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man, doing the work that drive by media.
Well, I was going to say used to do, but that's questionable.
Doing the work the 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.com.
We got a lot of NFL fallout today, folks.
The singer Rihanna.
You big Rihanna fan, uh, Mr. Snerdley.
You know, it'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 it's I mean it's sad from the standpoint I can't comment.
I don't I I have to ask other people if she's talented or not, because I can't tell.
And the what I'm hearing is that she's not particularly uh well, she may not be, but she's clearly written about as a superstar.
Well, hey, here's here's the news.
This is 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 uh 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.
Um wasn't she domestically abused by the singer what Chris Brown, right?
Is that right?
Sh sh no, no, but the abuse happened.
Okay, so Chris Chris 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, there that that that no, no, no.
That's not the image we want.
Janae Palmer, notwithstanding, that is not the image that that we want.
Anyway, she's ticked about it and letting uh 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.
They uh 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 play?
We don't need to wait for the legal.
These guys did it, and you you you you you refuse to take action against them because they're good players and start.
The NFL's 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 Harden, 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 cave 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 this is going to 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 open the door.
I mean, when it it's I 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 you turn the whole month of October over to Pink?
Come on.
May I ask you women is serious, 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 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 uh pink shoes or uh pink towels?
Or maybe the uh the markings on the field are in pink and 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 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, and so you're supportive of it.
Does it make you want to watch games more than otherwise?
Well, anyway, there's that uh that is that that's going on.
Uh so the NFL, we announced yesterday, has uh 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 and 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 whose spearheaded is the Senate age, the violence against women act.
She uh well, we'll just have to wait to see.
We'll wait and see if this how this uh manifests itself.
I want to go to the audio soundbites and start with number uh, 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, and we have two sound bites from Kirsten Gillibrand.
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.
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 uh 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 a place where I could tell him to go fucking himself.
Oh.
Why, 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.
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 gotta you gotta go back to being beautiful again.
And she's recounting how offended she was by this.
Up next is Michael Wilbon.
Now, this NFL business, the uh 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's filled with a lot of good people.
The NFL is filled with a lot of players, good citizens who are responsible.
Large part you never hear about them, they're chasing their dream.
They are they're 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 got 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 uh Senators 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 Mushnick 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 NF, 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 Wilbut.
He's the co-host of Pardon 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, as soon as 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.
Grandparents, your parents, it 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 ought to happen to all of us, he's saying.
And his theory is it worked.
In his case, it kept him straight and arrow.
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 nerdly I spoke to?
Uh it was.
Ah, I feel so amazed.
Thank you.
Um, I called to get your insights on something that came up the other day.
I was having my haircut, and the deficiency was musing about why the sudden anger at ISIS.
And what she pointed out was that ISIS had been doing horrible things for 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 all of a sudden ISIS had now attacked a journalist.
And the comment she made was the journalist, the journalist is one of their own.
They 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 I don't 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 gonna 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 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.
Um 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 was pictures.
Now the fact that it's a journalist, that would cause unity among journalism practitioner, 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.
Um, I'm a little confused by Obama, though.
We're gonna bomb ISIL, but we're gonna support ISIS is my gist of it.
Uh what do you think of the.
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 is Islamic State of Iraq, and I forget what the L stands for.
I could never remember it, and then just IS.
Levant, right, and then uh, and then IS is just Islamic State.
It's the same bunch of people.
Uh, it's it's no different, you know.
Fox News pronounces it Usama bin Laden, and they spell it Usama bin Laden instead of Osama bin Laden.
Uh the continued use of of the term ISIL has, you know, a lot of people scratching their heads.
You know, what's Obama really trying to accomplish here by calling them that?
I mean, and and to whom is he speaking when he gets really curious, because they're they're basically just uh they're one and the same.
The real interesting thing about this, and I'm gonna 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 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, say, well, 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 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 they started committing mass mayhem against citizens in Iraq and made to look like it was happening by the uh in Syria and 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 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, uh 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 take out our planes, we're on your side.
It's a stunning, it 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.
Uh this is Lee in Queens.
Lee, you're next.
It's great to have you on the uh EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, thanks for taking a call.
Uh 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 all 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 know.
Uh 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 polling data of recent uh 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 the 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.
Oh I only discuss it that way because I don't see anybody opposed to it.
That's 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 nod.
I mean, at that point, why do we even have a courthouse?
What is the whole point of uh of courts and laws?
Well, bingo, that's the whole point about the emigration 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, say, 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 that's the whole thing.
Lawlessness doesn't seem to bother anybody.
Extra-constitutionalism behaving outside the bounds.
I mean, you 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.
Right.
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 it 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.
Even 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 said, 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, uh considering the prospects of impeaching.
And they weren't.
The Democrats and Obama put it out there anyway, trying to goad the Republicans into doing it.
The Democrats can't run for re-election here on anything positive.
There is not one thing the Democrat Party can run for re-election 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.
It's uh this is actually worth a bit more discussion from a uh 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 I'm looking at the fact that 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 a hundred times in in a five-hour period.
I think Obama's 38% approval in Gallup has yet to be mentioned in a dry buttons.
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 Hagen 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?
I this is one of the biggest blown opportunities I 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 they think the Democrats are committing such suicide that the active theory of standing aside, letting them keep doing it is 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 Smithere's.
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 uh 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, sir, I know what the Republicans are afraid of.
And in a way, and I I I well, I don't want to say I understand the fear.
The Republicans are afraid of the war on women.
They 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 work for them.
Now there's a poll out there that we had last uh couple days, yesterday, that it was in Sunday's papers that uh, and it depressed the drive-by's.
Democrats in 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 what's what's happened?
And how can they the war on women was so successful?
So what they're trying to here's 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 they don't have a uh uh a response to any of these outrageous, absurd claims.
And it's it's the same type of thing when it comes to Hispanics.
Uh, 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 just 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 mean the end of civilization?
You know, and then they'll move to war on women as a way of analyzing it.
And then they'll see 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.
Uh, and they don't want you having any fun, and they don't want you having any abortions and any of this, 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 re 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, everyone, I would 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 they might be lying to you.
You can't take if 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 gonna take the time to seriously analyze the stupidity and folly of that.
You're just gonna keep voting Democrat because you don't want to take the risk.
And it's the same approach that they're you 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...
That's why.
I forget who did it.
A Republican, if this is just a middle block, actually suggested making birth control totally over the counter, no prescription, and 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.
Oh, and they were they tempted to come out against it.
Because it would take away such a huge 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