The Rush Limbaugh Show 11:00 AM - 2:00 PM
Call The Rush Limbaugh Show at 1-800-282-2882.
Call The Rush Limbaugh Show at 1-800-282-2882.
In case you missed this on the virtual continue loop on cable news, here's the video shot by a Texas man of the fertilizer plant blast. You can hear his child saying "I can't hear" due to the concussion of the blast.
I have been painted as a cave man by the pro-gay marriage crowd because I argue that polygamy and adult incestuous marriage would be as allowable as gay marriage if the Supreme Court rules there is a constituional right to marry. I hope they read this piece. Despite their howls, I haven't heard any gay marriage advocates make a coherent case against polygamy. I don't support polygamy, but the case she makes shows that the belief that it could be next to be legalized isn't a fringe one:
Many people argue that there is no such thing as a “healthy, responsible” polygamous family, particularly for the children born into one. “Children are harmed because they are often set in perennial rivalry with other children and mothers for the affection and attention of the family patriarch,” argued John Witte Jr. in the Washington Post. “Men with lots of children and wives are spread too thin,” agreed Libby Copeland in Slate. The earnestness of these arguments is touching but idealistic. Men in monogamous marriages can’t be spread too thin? Children in monogamous families don’t rival each other for the attentions of their parents? Two-parent families are not the reality for millions of American children. Divorce, remarriage, surrogate parents, extended relatives, and other diverse family arrangements mean families already come in all sizes—why not recognize that legally?
The point is this: her argument for polygamy is every bit as rational, if not more so, than the argument for gay marriage. So why am I or anyone else crazy to argue that polygamists will insist on exercising their right to marry under "marriage equality." After all, by its very name, "marriage equality" cannot be selective
I vote creepy. Can we sink any lower than this? harvesting the eggs from a discarded human being so we can use an artificial process to create a human being? Here's why this is even creepier than it seems on its face; abortion advocates argue that aborted babies are merely "clumps of tissues." Yet in harvesting eggs from an aborted baby you are, intentionally or not, recognizing the potential in that "clump of tissue."
It has already produced eggs capable of creating another human being. How in GOD'S name can it NOT be a human being if it's already produced the tools needed to create ANOTHER human being? We'll put no value on the tiny human life but will put a high value on the eggs that life holds. I'm literally nauseous while writing this. We've reached, at the same time, a level of technology and depravity that allows us to do this? We may actually have human beings born whose mother's were not? This reveals the complete fraud that is the abortion debate. Will anybody notice?
As one who has made an egregiously bad error in judgement in public life, it was hard not to be glued to what happened this afternoon. I posted on Facebook the conflicting reports and a listener was quick to correct me that an arrest had been made. He cited several networks reporting it. That really doesn't matter anymore. I think this is far worse than the mis-reporting of the Obamacare ruling. It's clear how quickly all media outlets jump after one jumps.
This is personal experience talking; I have a pretty good idea of what happened. Were the sources who said an arrest had been made in a position to know that? I'm guessing not. Seeing Megyn Kelly hopping mad on Fox News was a sight to behold. The question is, will they resist the temptation next time?
Could be a record. What a complete weasel answer. The answer is NO. Collateral damage in a war zone is NOT terrorism. Just ask liberals who tried to defend the drone killing of a 16 year old U.S. citizen. You want to talk about moral equivocality.
My Facebook page is already dotted with comments of listeners critical of President Obama as they respond to the Boston Marathon terror attack. I am not going to pile on, but I do think something needs commenting; the President's failure to call Monday's attack terror.
The President did urge us not to rush to judgement and I agree with that. We don't know whether this was Al Qaeda, a home grown cell, or a domestic terrorist with a completely different agenda. But we do know it was terrorism. The President's aversion to that term continues to confound. And after Mr. Obama failed to call the attack terrorism, an unnamed offical in his Administration did:
The president addressed the nation from the White House briefing room just hours after the explosion. Though Obama did not use the word "terror," officials separately told Fox News that the White House does believe this was a terror attack.
"When multiple devices go off, that's an act of terrorism," a senior administration official told Fox News.
Agreed. So, regardless of who is responsible, why couldn't the President call it terror? Whether the party or parties responsible are Al Qaeda types or Timothy McVeigh type, what does it matter? Why can't the President say the word?
This piece does Badgers place kicker Jack Russell a disservice in more ways than one. First, the headline clearly suggests that Russell somehow misbehaved with a gun, perhaps in public. Second, Mulhern obviously doesn't like guns and feels this tweet was inappropriate, but doesn't have the courage of his convictions to spend any time in the article explaining exactly what he thinks Russell did wrong. Apparently just posing with a gun was wrong. Or supporting 2nd Amendment rights. Or both. He calls the posting "a headache" for newly minted coach Gary Andersen, but doesn't really explain why? Apparently, to Mulhern, his angst needs no explaining; Russell is posing with a gun. Guns bad.
This is part of the delegitimizing of opinions by the left that I've been talking about on the show recently. Mulhern thinks it's shocking that Russell would pose with a gun. Anybody who doesn't is on the fringe, in his mind. What Mulhern doesn't seem to understand is most of Badgerland will have no problem with this; the problem is his. Further, Mulhern says Russell poses with "what appears to be an automatic weapon." It also appeares Mulhern is another rmedia lefty who knows nothing about guns. I'm guessing, and only guessing, that by that statement Mulhern means fully automatic. Likely, it's a semi-automatic rifle, which a large number of rifles are. Many in the anti-gun crowd have gotten caught in this trap.
Andy Coppens, Managing Editor of the MadTown Badger Blog and a good friend of the Jerry Bader show tipped me off to this and posted a very good response of his own here.
Another chapter in the censorshp of the right campaign I've been harping on lately. In fact, the story is even worse when you read the original reporting on it. It wasn't enough they had to take it down; the city confiscated the flag? How the hell is that legal? This is pure liberal ignorance at its finest. From Wikipedia:
Considered one of the first flags of the United States, the flag was later replaced by the current Stars and Stripes (or Old Glory) flag. Since the Revolution, the flag has seen times of reintroduction as a symbol of American patriotism, a symbol of disagreement with government, or a symbol of support for civil liberties.
A liberal city council member as the ignorance and the nerve to compare the Gadsden flag to the Confederate flag? Seriously? Because they've seen this flag at Tea Party events, it's now seen as anathema to them. You see the Stars and Stripes at those events too. Is that next on their list? Some conservatives seem to be oblivious to the efforts by the left to marginilize them into silence. Just as Philadelphia's Mayor Nutter wants a magazine punished for an article about race relations he doesn't like, a local government in New Rochelle is silencing a message they don't like. How far will this go before conservatives understand the threat?
Hardly a shocker. Consider this; Ellen DeGeneres came out via her TV persona in 1997. This was a cultural watershed moment. The next year Will and Grace, featuring a gay leading character, debuted with barely a cultural ripple.
Earlier this TV season Person of Interest featured an episode where a female heart surgeon's "wife" was held hostage unless she made a surgery turn out the way the bad guys wanted. The fact that they were a same sex couple was as irrelevant to the plot as was the fact one woman was white and the other black. I disagree with conservatives who don't believe current public opinion polls concerning gay marriage. As I've been saying for several years, the real debate on this issue is already over. It's not if, it's when. And I believe when will be much sooner rather than later.
This guy has never played football and it's possible he won't make it in the NFL, but he sure seems worth the risk of signing. And I'm not sure where he's more impressive; punting or place kicking. What we don't know is how heavily edited this is; how many misses were edited out? Regardless, that he can do this stuff at all is simply amazing:
Taking control of a commercial jetliner with an Android phone? Speaking as someone who is flying this week, this is scary stuff:
Once he was into the airplane’s computer, he was able to manipulate the steering of a Boeing jet while the aircraft was in “autopilot” mode. The only countermeasure available to pilots, if they even realized they were being hacked, would be to turn off autopilot. Yet many planes no longer have old analog instruments for manual flying. Teso said he could take control of most all airplane systems; he could even cause the plane to crash by setting it on a collision course with another plane. He could also give the passengers a serious adrenaline rush by making the oxygen masks drop down.
Really? This is possible? Really????
UPDATE: Time Magazine says relax, nothing to worry about.