All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 24, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:43
September 24, 2014, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Greetings, my friends.
Welcome back once again.
Great to have you here, Rushland Boy, behind the Golden EIB microphone.
Three hours of broadcast excellence straight ahead.
And as always, it is great to have you here.
The telephone number, if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882, and the email address, lrushbo at EIBnet.com.
So George Bush supposedly went to Iraq for oil, right?
So I guess we could say that Barack Obama went to war with ISIS for the Senate.
It looks exactly like that's what's going on.
And I'm like you, I'm watching all of the reports about our over, you know, we've already taken ISIS out.
I watched Kerry on TV this morning.
They're done.
They're over.
We have wiped them out.
John Kerry was talking to Christiana Manpour on CNN, and he said, it's, yeah, yeah, we wiped him out.
We're going to keep going, too, but we've wiped them.
I mean, they're putting the news out there that we've, after one day, two days, that we have just had overwhelming success against ISIS, ISIL, the Kardashians, the Coruscants, whatever they are.
I know, I know that's the point.
ISIS is advancing.
I mean, I've got Max Boot here, who is, you know, Max Boot used to be at the op-ed page, editorial page of the Wall Street Journal years ago.
And now he's, I writes for foreign policy.
He's a freelancer, gets a lot of his stuff published.
And he has a piece here, Commentary, Yesterday's Real News Out of Iraq and Syria.
And he says there were three big stories yesterday out of Iraq and Syria question which is the most significant.
And here is story number one.
U.S. Navy and Air Force, in cooperation with our coalition of five Arab allies, Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, launched a series of airstrikes and cruise missile attacks on ISIS targets in and around Raqqa, Syria.
Separately, the U.S. launched airstrikes against the Kardashian group, another jihadist terrorist organization.
You know what?
All they are is Al-Qaeda.
They are maybe an Al-Qaeda splinter group, but they have been given, from what I understand, the regime has given this group a new name in order for Obama to be able to continue to say he wiped Al-Qaeda out.
And so you come up with a new name for Al-Qaeda, the Kardashians, or whatever, the Khorasans, whatever they are.
And either way, it's defeating.
I mean, if you wipe out Al-Qaeda, how can they have a new group spring up?
If you wipe them out, you wipe them out.
If you get rid of a species, it's gone, right?
Until you discover it somewhere in the Himalayas.
So this new group essentially is this Al-Qaeda rename.
There may be some differences beyond that, but nevertheless.
So anyway, that's story number one.
Story number two from Max Boot.
ISIS continued to attack the Kurdish area of northern central Syria, killing large numbers of people and pushing more than 130,000 refugees over the Turkish border.
This doesn't sound like we've wiped anybody out.
Did I mishear Kerry saying?
I mean, I'm watching him.
I didn't have the audio on.
I'm looking at their headline slug, their Chiron graphic.
And it was clear that they were conducting an interview with Kerry in which he was talking about phenomenal first day success against ISIS.
Story number three, ISIS attackers in Anbar province, Iraq, reportedly killed more than 300 Iraqi soldiers after a week-long siege at one of the camps where some 800 soldiers have been trapped.
Few, if any, Sunni tribal fighters did anything to prevent yet another large Iraqi army formation from suffering annihilation.
Few, if any, and now remember, these are the moderates we're depending on here, folks.
These are our boots on the ground.
Few, if any, Sunni tribal figures, fighters did anything to prevent yet another large Iraqi army formation from suffering annihilation.
Another got annihilated, and they didn't do anything to stop it.
The Iraqi army showed itself unable to supply its soldiers or to fight effectively.
Now, judging from the news coverage, story number one is the most important.
And that would be, again, the Navy and the Air Force cooperation with the five Arab states launching a series of airstrikes and cruise missiles on ISIS targets in Syria.
Max Boot says that's not the most important story.
Just the media coverage.
And I guess that's what I saw on CNN.
I guess Kerry was out there with Christiana Manpour taking great credit for this attack and actually suggesting that it was quite substantive.
And Max Boot says here, in reality, I'd argue that number two and especially number three are more significant.
No one doubts the U.S. can launch airstrikes on ISIS.
Nobody doubts that.
Why is that big news?
And he's got a point, wouldn't you say?
Is this echoed?
Mr. Snerdley, have you been watching any of this this morning?
All right, so is the news media in fact reporting, focusing on the airstrikes and how massive they were?
And how that's the story.
Okay, all right.
Yeah, oh, it could go on for years, even though we've wiped them out.
Okay, it could go on for years.
So Max Boot is right.
That's the big story.
That's what the media is doing.
It's still, it's all about winning the Senate or holding the Senate.
And it's all about positioning Obama politically.
Pure and simple.
Now, Max Boot argues that in reality, number two and number three, ISIS continuing to attack the Kurds in northern Syria and ISIS attackers in Anbar province killing more than 300 Iraqi soldiers.
He thinks those are much more significant stories.
No one doubts the U.S. can launch airstrikes on ISIS.
The question is whether those attacks will be effective in degrading and eventually destroying this group.
The answer is not until there is an effective ground force able to take advantage of the disruption created by American bombs.
And without that ground force, serious people are asking, okay, how serious is this?
Do we want video of massive launches of fighter and bomber aircraft?
Do we want American people to just see the launch at the takeoffs?
Boom, down the runway and lift off the carrier and lift down on the carrier and lift off.
And then footage of bombs dropped or the results of bombs dropped.
You know how important pictures are.
And therefore, the pictures, coupled with the footage of our jets and bombers taking off, creates the illusion that massive success occurred overnight.
The question is whether those attacks can be secured without a ground force.
And they can't.
There is, I don't know how many years of world history, world military history, that confirms this.
It still all comes back to how serious is everybody involved here.
And it won't take long to find out.
It really won't.
If no ground force of ours that's competent is part of this, then the main reason we're doing this is for the pictures everybody has already seen, which are supposed to convey an impression or image.
Now, Max Boot, wrapping up, sir, what all this means is that however welcome the U.S. airstrikes in Syria are of more symbolic importance than anything else.
Their military significance is likely to be scant until the U.S. can do more to train and arm forces capable of mounting ground attacks on ISIS militants.
There you have it.
There you go.
That's pretty much where things stand with this right now.
We've got symbolic footage.
Well, we've got footage of a symbolic attack that is supposed to convey to low-information voters that we are kicking butt.
We got John Kerry on CNN confirming the pictures everybody's seen that we kicked butt yesterday.
And ISIS and ISIL and everybody, the Kardashians are on the run.
The truth of the matter is ISIS is on the run, but not from us.
ISIS continues to advance.
But the news is we bombed Syria.
Take a brief time out.
We'll come back.
There's more of this.
And we've got Obama's speech at the UN.
Some of it worth hearing.
Well, none of it, really, but we're going to do some anyway.
So sit tight.
We'll be back.
We'll continue with much more right after this.
Don't go away.
And the way the left is rationalizing all of this, ladies and gentlemen, is that George W. Bush's war on terror was a dumb war, and Obama's is a smart war.
Well, they're not, yeah, depending on where you look, they're calling it a war, but they're still calling it an action, and they're saying that Obama's doing it in a smart way.
And of course, Bush was dumb, shouldn't have gone there in the first place.
But, you know, back to this Corazon group.
They come out of nowhere, named by the administration just in the past couple of days.
Well, last week sometime.
Is there any doubt if Obama hadn't been running around bragging about taking out al-Qaeda and wiping out bin Laden and thus ending al-Qaeda, would we even have heard the name Corazon Group?
But because Obama's been running around bragging about taking out al-Qaeda, starting at the Democrat convention in 2012, okay, Al-Qaeda hasn't gone away.
So the regime has to give them a new name to make it look like it's a new group after Obama wiped out al-Qaeda.
But it's just, it's Al-Qaeda.
Now, we have a couple of John Kerry bites.
Let's listen to these.
We got the audio soundbites of what I saw but didn't see on CNN today with Lurch speaking with Christiana Manpour.
Her question, the Corazon plot.
Mr. Secretary, can you confirm precisely what it was and the imminence of it?
These are remnants of core al-Qaeda.
These are people who were definitively plotting against the United States and the West.
It is true that we didn't put a lot of public focus on it because we really didn't want people, particularly, we didn't want them to know that we were, in fact, tracking them as effectively as we were.
So this would have happened with or without ISIL.
There were active plots against our country, and we knew where they were, and we did what we needed to do.
Can you tell us?
No, he's not going to tell you because they're making all this up.
So you're going to be right here.
It is.
They are remnants of core al-Qaeda.
See, we wiped out Al-Qaeda.
That's what you are supposed to take with you from it.
We wiped Al-Qaeda.
Obama did it.
Bush, dumb war, he failed to get al-Qaeda.
There were no weapons of mass destruction.
Bush is an idiot.
It's a calibrate.
Obama's brilliant.
He's a smart, smart commander chief.
Despite the styrofoam cup salute to the Marines, he's still a smart commander-in-chief, and he knows how to do things.
He wiped Al-Qaeda out, and now here comes the remnants of core al-Qaeda, which we wiped out.
But we must have missed a couple of those maggots.
And so they formed a new group called the Corazon.
And we're on them, and we've been on them, and we knew what they were going to do, but we didn't tell anybody about it because we didn't want to let them know what we knew, that they knew, that we know, how we were going to wipe them out.
And Christiana Manpoor nodding thoughtfully and understandably.
And then she said, you've been doing this now for six weeks plus in Iraq, Mr. Secretary, against ISIS or whatever targets.
They haven't been flushed out.
They're not retreating.
They are not surrendering.
What we've done is we've stopped the onslaught.
That was what we were able to achieve with air power.
They were moving towards Erbil.
They were moving towards Baghdad.
Baghdad could well have fallen.
Erbil could have fallen.
They could have control of all of the oil fields.
We've re-secured the Mosul Dam.
We broke the siege at Sinjar Mountain.
So air power has been effective.
Okay, so we saved Baghdad.
That's what Kerry was telling Christiana Vanpour.
We backed them up.
We stopped them.
We put a halt to their advance.
And we beat them back in Baghdad.
Meanwhile, as reported, well, everybody, Max Boot and everybody else, they're in Syria.
They're continuing to advance Anbar province and so forth.
And it still remains true that even though there's nothing wrong with air power, I don't want anybody to think that I'm down on air power.
I love it.
I'm like everybody.
I just bombed these bastards to the Stone Age.
But if you really want to get rid of them, if you're really serious about securing whatever you secure with airstrikes, there has to be an accompanying coordinated ground force.
A question, ladies and gentlemen, here from the, what is this, the San Francisco Chronicle headline, where are the peace protests over the Syria bombing?
It's by Kevin Fagan.
Maybe it's war fatigue.
Yeah, see, these Occupy Wall Street and the global warming protesters and the animal rights activists and the feminazis, they're just worn out.
They don't have the energy to protest the war anymore.
They don't have the energy to demand peace right now.
They'll get going in a while, but they've got to regroup because they're just worn out.
Maybe it's war fatigue.
Maybe climate change is consuming all the protest energy right now.
Maybe momentum just needs to build.
But most likely, all of the above are the reasons anti-war protests didn't erupt throughout the Bay Area.
Veteran activists say after U.S. warplanes roared over the Syrian border Tuesday to bomb more than a dozen enclaves of Islamic radical jihadists into rubble.
Some activists even conceded that many people weren't going into the streets because the militants being targeted deserve to be dealt with.
If not, so you see, the reason there isn't a peace protest is because these people are leftists and they're not going to protest one of their own unless it just gets out of hand like it did with LBJ and the Vietnam War.
But they're not going to, they're not going to start protesting for peace and they're not going to.
And when is the last time you heard a peace activist suggest that targets, people targeted by the U.S., may in fact deserve to die?
When's the last time you heard that?
I've never heard that.
I have never heard left-wing peace protesters suggest that targets of American bombs deserve to die.
By Tuesday afternoon, there were still no loud demonstrations to be found anywhere in the Bay Area.
Major military incursions in years past launched seas of banners down San Francisco's Market Street, but this time there was nothing, at least right off the bat.
David Hartso, executive director of the Peace Workers Anti-War Group in San Francisco, said, Well, people are war-weary and have already been very disappointed in President Obama for some time.
He said he and other longtime activists are outraged at the bombing and they believe nonviolent solutions to jihadist terror be more effective, but the groundswell on this hit the streets just isn't there.
So they must not really believe in anti-American militarism.
It's selective opposition.
It must not really be the peace movement.
When the last time the peace movement ever said anybody deserved to die except an American soldier, Hartzow also said, You know, I think a lot of people are focused on the climate right now, especially young people.
What, can you people not chew gum and walk at the same time?
If you get totally devoted to climate change, it means you don't have time or energy to protest death.
I mean, let's face it, you people in San Francisco, you got to shape up.
You're letting us down here.
I've got Slim Whitman ready to go as our theme song for the global peace march.
The anti-nuke faction.
I've got it queued up.
I've got it ready to go.
And you are letting me down.
Where are the peace marches?
Where are the peace protests?
Where's the anger over death caused by American bombs?
I mean, at least in your theory, if global warming is going to kill people, it's going to take centuries by your own definition.
But people are dying instantaneously because of American ammunition.
And where are you?
What a flimsy excuse.
You people on the left, you peace protesters, you're really embarrassing yourselves.
And you're letting me down.
I had so much hope.
I came to the program today with such lofty, elevated expectations.
Slim Whitman wants to be part of the program again.
And what are you doing?
You're lazy.
You're making excuses.
Yeah, well, maybe they deserve to die.
And, you know, we're so worn out trying to save the atmosphere.
Flimsy excuse.
Doesn't count for anything with me.
I just want you to know.
People want to weigh in on this early.
Let's get started here with Greg at Rapid City, South Dakota.
Thank you for calling, sir.
Great to have you here.
Hi, Rosh.
Howdy.
I appreciate everything you do.
I just, you know, watching the news over the last couple nights when we started these airstrikes, not one casualty.
I mean, I don't know if we got some bad guys with all that air power and all those missiles.
Did we get anybody?
Because when Israel went into Gaza, everybody was pointing the finger at Netanyahu and all these casualties.
Yes, yes, yes.
I predicted this very thing yesterday.
I predicted that there would be a whole lot of things not reported in this operation that were reported throughout Iraq.
For example, we will not hear a running body count of American military personnel, which we were treated to every day during the Iraq war.
We are not going to get body counts on ISIS because the regime is not going to lock itself into statistics that could perhaps be shown to be untrue.
We're going to rely on image, as I said earlier, the jets and the bombers taking off, B-roll footage of them flying and dropping bombs on targets that we don't know if they're actually real or just B-roll footage.
And then we're going to see black and white before and aftershots of the targets we hit and the result of the hit before and after.
And that's it.
And we're going to have a well-orchestrated, essentially a PR campaign to show how successful the operation has been.
And it'll be backed up and buttressed by appearances on TV of regime figures like John Kerry describing the overwhelming success that the operation is incurring.
Meanwhile, something else, you can look all day and all night, and you will not see.
I'm going to make a prediction to you.
You will not see any reports of civilian casualties resulting from our bombs.
And you will not see any reports of collateral damage like, oh, what?
A child nursery school accidentally blown up by an American bomb.
You will not see any footage of a hospital blown up by an American bomb, which you would if George W. Bush were still president and operating this campaign or commanding this campaign.
So you can look long and hard.
You're not going to find any of the usual touches that the media uses to accompany reporting on conflicts like this that Republicans are in charge of, that the media wants people to think negatively of.
Let me give you a further example.
Mark, thanks for the, I'm sorry.
Not Mark, thanks for the call.
I appreciate it.
There's a story here at CNN by Dan Abash and Deirdre Walsh.
And the headline, Politics of Fear, how the GOP is using ISIS against them.
Are you kidding me?
How the Republican Party is using ISIS against the Democrats?
The politics of fear.
Until recently, that seemed so 10 years ago, right after September 11, 2001.
That is until ISIS started beheading Americans.
Now, just a minor correction, 9-11 was 13 years ago.
So what CNN's doing here is referencing George W. Bush's reelection campaign in 2004.
That's what they're talking about here.
And if you recall that campaign 2004, if you don't, don't worry, I do.
The media repeatedly said that Bush and the Republicans were not allowed to mention 9-11 or to show any images of it in the campaign ads.
That would be politicizing a tragedy.
And they were not permitted to do that.
And if they did it, the media was going to call them on it.
Do you remember this now?
Even before that campaign got in gear, the media is out there, Democrats, you better not use footage in 9-11.
You better not politicize this tragedy.
You realize people are still hurting.
Do you realize families are still trying to re- You better not use and they didn't And now here comes CNN claiming that the Republicans are using ISIS against Democrats.
Six weeks, just six weeks before Election Day, security concerns could be a September surprise that shakes up the midterms.
Across the country, Republican candidates on the ballot in November are using the threat posed by ISIS to dust off an old playbook, which is attack Democrat opponents as weak on national security.
Why, how Machiavellian of them.
I mean, after all, ladies and gentlemen, we know there's not a shred of truth to the charge that Democrats are weak on national security.
We know that's totally made up, right?
It's so made up that the San Francisco Chronicle today is asking where is the left-wing anti-war protest that they could expect.
The left-wing anti-war protesters don't exist.
They're too tired.
They've just blown all their energy on climate change protests, and they just don't have any energy now to protest a war.
It's a terrible, not beautiful thing.
You know, ladies and gentlemen, there are labels work.
It's one of the reasons why people don't like them.
And in some cases, identifying templates also work.
And there is one that is undeniable, and that is that Democrats are doves.
Everybody knows this.
It's not something you have to prove.
The Republicans aren't out lying about anything when they tell voters that the Republicans or that the Democrats are weak on national security.
Which party was it that sought defeat for the U.S. military in Iraq?
I give you the Democrat Party.
Which party was it that was calling the generals leading that war in the surge, such as David Petraeus, liars before they even showed up to testimony, to testify before Congress?
Democrat Party.
Which Democrat Party, Senate majority leader, said, this war is lost.
This war is pointless?
Before the surgeon began to be Harry Reid, Democrat Senate majority leader.
It's not even arguable.
So the Republicans are out.
This is what happens.
When Republicans dare to tell the truth about Democrats, then the media gets in gear and accuses the Republicans of being too mean and accuses the Republicans of violating the standards of gentlemen agreements during campaigns.
Nobody should ever say a car party or a candidate is weak on national security.
And the reason they don't want it said is because it's true.
By the same token, how about the label or the narrative that Republicans are hawks?
I mean, in fact, it's even worse, warmongers.
They're racist, hateful, bigoted, so forth.
The Democrats could say that all over the place all the time.
And they're never chastised by the media for violating any gentlemen's agreements.
They're never chastised for lying about things.
No.
They're applauded for it when the Republicans dare to tell the truth.
This is, I think, one of the reasons why the Republicans are so cowed and for the most part refuse to tell the truth about Democrats because the media rises up and once again begins the never-ending assault, all because Republicans correctly identify policy beliefs of their Democrat opponents.
Listen to this from the CNN story.
The sun had barely come up Tuesday after a new night, I'm sorry, a night of new U.S. and coalition airstrikes in Syria when New Hampshire Republican Senate challenger Scott Brown released an ad using an ominous image of a fighter holding a black ISIS flag while Brown talks about the threat from radical Islamic terrorists.
Brown, a retired member of the Army National Guard, touts his own experience in the ad before putting up side-by-side pictures of Gene Shaheen, his Democrat opponent, and President Obama saying, President Obama, Senator Shaheen seem confused about the threat, but not me.
Well, wait, is the ad accurate?
So what's the problem?
The ad is accurate.
What's the problem?
But Republican strategists tell CNN that ads like this are driven by voter data from focus groups and polling all over the country, which signals that security is a rising priority among voters, especially with married ⁇ there it is, folks.
If you read far enough, you'll find out what this is really all about.
The reason Dana Bash and Deirdre Walsh at CNN are doing this story about how mean and tricky the Republicans are trying to use ISIS against the Democrats is because the Republicans have focus group data, which shows that especially married women have greater confidence in Republicans to keep the country safe.
They called those security moms in previous campaigns as opposed to soccer moms during the Clinton era.
These were security moms.
And of course, this doesn't jive with the war on women, which is that Republicans hate women.
They want them barefoot pregnant in the kitchen making babies and to shut up.
They don't want them taking birth control.
They don't even want them having sex, except when it's time to have a baby.
This is the image that the left has put out about Republic.
That's what the war on women is.
And yet Republican consultants say, hey, wait a minute, don't get me.
We got focus group data here.
Guess what?
The American people, particularly married women, very worried about the Democrat Party protecting the country.
Let me throw in a reason why this might actually be true.
Read this paragraph again.
Republican strategerists tell CNN the ads are driven by voter data from focus groups and polling all over the country, which signals that security is a rising priority among voters.
You think open borders might have something to do with this too?
And who's known for wanting that to happen?
Why, that would be the Democrat Party.
I mean, you can't have, what has it been, 300,000 unaccompanied minors just flow across the border and picked up and snatched and then deposited in states all over the country.
And you got the President of the United States talking about granting amnesty with a stroke of a pen at any day, on any day, at any moment.
He might do it.
We're talking 11 to 12 million, maybe more millions of people.
And here's ISIS out there bragging about how easy it is to get into the country.
Do you think intelligent people, including Republican women, married, might be concerned that the Democrat Party's not taking the security seriously enough?
So the Republicans are running ads on it.
And CNN thinks it's mean and unfair and it's biased and it's politicizing the country at war in which we should all be unified.
It's just horrible.
Course, all of this is encouraged, promoted, and applauded when it happens with a Republican president.
So, that's why this whole story, because that one poll result of married women, Republicans are counting on winning married women.
We thought the Republicans are waging war on women.
All of a sudden, we hear that Republican women, married women, have more faith in the Republican Party to keep the country secure.
Security moms, they're called.
Quick timeout, my friends.
Back at meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
Rush Limbaugh, your guiding light here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Judy in Delaware, Ohio.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Hello, Rush.
I'm a first-time caller.
Enjoy your show very much.
My point is all the optics and everything around this: Ohio has early/slash absentee ballot thing starting next Tuesday, September the 30th.
We don't wait till November the 4th to elect.
We have five weeks of voting before that.
I know.
And that's my comment.
It's to afford a greater opportunity to cheat and engage in fraud.
And it's a way for the Democrats to find out what they need when Election Day comes.
Exactly.
Where they need the votes from and how they're going to get them and so forth, or if they do.
So, yeah, this early voting, I mean, that's a whole other subject.
But that's, to me, is, I mean, it's just, it's an open invitation for free.
But we have all of this now on our plate, you know.
All this optics, the imagery, and everything.
Yeah, so your point is that all this imagery and the optics are going to influence the way people vote if they vote early before we even really know whether this thing is successful or not, right?
Exactly.
You're right on.
Well, that's only because you explained it so well.
I was able to follow you and understand you did a great job.
Great job.
I and my grandkids are looking very much forward to another chapter of Russia Revere.
You are?
Yes.
Oh, cool.
Well, you know, I can't, every day, there's a story in the stack today.
I wasn't going to mention this now.
I'm sorry.
No, no, it's good.
I'm glad you did.
There's a story in the stack.
Denver, students in Denver.
I've got so many damn stacks.
I can't keep track of what I've got anymore.
Students in Denver are protesting that they're being taught capitalism in free markets.
They're literally protesting and walking out of class.
They're fed up that they're being propagandized, they say, with pro-America themes in Denver.
I shouldn't say in Denver.
I should say in Denver, as though it would be expected.
But it's it.
I saw the story today and I said, this is why.
This is exactly why there is a Rush Revere time Travel Adventure Series.
Anyway, I can't.
Judy, I really appreciate you saying so, and you're expressing hope that there will be another chapter.
Be confident.
Your hope can, you can allow your hope to become ontological certitude.
But I can't say anymore for just a little while.
But I can tell you this.
It's so good.
I shouldn't say that.
Oh, it's so good.
I'm jumping at the, but I can't.
Just hang in there.
Be cool and be patient.
I don't know what stack I put.
I thought the stacks were organized, and I sat down here and started at 12:05, and nothing's where I thought I put it.
So, anyway, I'll find this story during the top of the hour.
Here it is: Denver, you know what?
It's under, gotta tell you why I couldn't find it.
The Steelers suffered a massive number of injuries at a linebacking corps in Sunday night's win over the Panthers.
So, they're bringing back James Harrison, number 92.
He retired in September.
He played with Cincinnati last year.
They're bringing him back.
Here's the headline: Steelers foresee no issues with re-signing admitted woman-batterer James Harrison.
USA Today.
And there's even a quote from Coach Tomlin: We've got a soundbite about it.
Steelers foresee no issues re-signing admitted woman batterer.
It was seven years ago.
And Tomlin's, hey, the climate's changed now.
And he spoke with Harrison about it.
Anyway, the Denver story is underneath that.
All of this coming up, folks.
Sit tight.
Don't go away.
Denver screws students.
We're talking junior high and high school.
Walk out of school in protest over the curriculum teaching free market capitalism and respect for authority.
Details coming up, my friends.
▲
Export Selection