#WarOnWomen Tweet of the Day: Let’s get the FCC to investigate Rush!

Posted by: ST on March 7, 2012 at 8:29 pm

From the “Tea Party Truth Squad” account:

Tweet of the Day

Tweet Of The Day

Here’s the “petition” (anyone can post a petition on the WH site, BTW). It reads:

direct the FCC to investigate Rush Limbaugh for biased and distorted news and for making intimidating statements

On February 29 and March 1, 2010 [er, 2012, dope! – ST], Rush Limbaugh broadcast biased and distorted news commentary as well as intimidating statements about an individual, Sandra Fluke.

On the air, he called Fluke a “slut” and a prostitute in response to Congressional testimony regarding contraception. The next day he aired these intimidating remarks:

“If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. We want you post the videos online so we can all watch.”

In addition, this language, directed at a specific individual, meets the Supreme Court test for obscenity: it appeals to prurient interest, it depicts offensive sexual conduct (peeping Toms) and it lacks serious literary, artistic or political value.

I’ve been saying for weeks now since the “war on women” rhetoric was escalated by Democrats for shameless political gain that their minions didn’t just want to see Rush “punished” with a loss of advertisers, they wanted to see him OFF THE AIR – period (a continuation of the decades-long effort by liberals in general). That’s played out in comment after comment I’ve seen posted on Twitter, Facebook, etc. Some variation of “Clear Channel – Take Rush off the Air Now or You Support Misogyny!!!” is usually about how it goes. Demanding the FCC to investigate just takes it to a whole new (and dangerous) level.

To top it all off, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) has joined some left wing “feminist” veterans in a call to have Rush taken off of the Armed Forces Radio Network. He tried to cover the censorship angle by saying he didn’t think it was something that should be legislated – but that’s nothing more than a convenient, disingenuous excuse that lets him get by with goading the hysterical “feminist” herd into perhaps eventually ‘forcing Congress to take action.’

These people are so transparent – and not in a good way.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

35 Responses to “#WarOnWomen Tweet of the Day: Let’s get the FCC to investigate Rush!”


  1. Robin says:

    Sheer genious. Censor what the men and women who fight for our freedoms get to listen to. Anything for the cause, I guess?

  2. redgypsy says:

    Good Lord, just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse….
    It just keeps descending, down into the ooze…. down, down, down.

  3. Sefton says:

    On February 29 and March 1, 2010

    Reminds me of Obama signing the wrong date on the Westminster Abbey guest book. Ironic that the petition is for “distortions” and they can’t even get the date right. I hereby rule it null and void based solely on the distorted date of said infraction.

    Rush Limbaugh broadcast biased and distorted news commentary as well as intimidating statements about an individual, Sandra Fluke.

    This is a contradiction of itself. Someone giving “commentary” is likely to already have a bias and the distortion can be subject to interpretation; as in the commenter being facetious (see the quote from Rush below, for example). “Intimidating statements” is just stupid. Monty Python would stop the sketch there.

    “If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. We want you post the videos online so we can all watch.” – Rush Limbaugh (who apparently said this in 2010 according to the petition) It’s also “want you TO post…”

    In addition, this language, directed at a specific individual, meets the Supreme Court test for obscenity: it appeals to prurient interest, it depicts offensive sexual conduct (peeping Toms) and it lacks serious literary, artistic or political value.

    At this point, Graham Chapman (of earlier Monty Python reference) ends the sketch and announces “Alright, that’s quite enough. This is all just silly. You’re the pot now calling the kettle black and so this sketch is over.”

  4. Carlos says:

    The difference between what the left says about and calls conservative women and what the conservatives (or even independent moderates) say about liberal females is that the leftists are correct in their assessments and the conservatives are just mean, threatening, uncouth bullies.

    Ask any liberal. They’ll tell you that’s so.


  5. dubiousraves says:

    One wonders if you free speech paragons would be so sanguine about a left-wing radio extremist (as if one existed) beaming invective like “traitor,” “fascist,” “honky,” “nazi,” “KKK leader,” “white supremicist,” etc., etc., about a republican president to the armed forces. Paid for by the taxpayers, just like the Rush broadcasts to the military are.

    Examine your hollow souls.

  6. Drew the Infidel says:

    The Constitutional liberties that allow Rush Limbaugh to say the things he does are the very same liberties that allow leftist jackwads to post crap like this in the first place.

  7. dubiousraves says:

    PS: It’s not censorship to refuse to broadcast something. It’s censorship for government to prevent someone from saying something or to prevent everybody else from printing or broadcasting something someone says.

  8. PE says:

    Wow, what a combination. Psychopaths leading morons. The party line’s rationale: Extremism in the advancement of communism is no vice.

  9. Kate says:

    Freedom of speech and censorship seem to be relative when it comes to liberals.

    Hypocrisy is a way of life with liberals because they cannot definitively say anything is right or wrong…except if it comes out of the mouth of a conservative, then it’s just plain wrong.

  10. H Hazell says:

    By definition, news commentary of any kind is biased. Whereas news itself isn’t. So let it known that it’s been years since we’ve heard the news.

  11. Robin says:

    “One wonders if you free speech paragons would be so sanguine about a left-wing radio extremist (as if one existed) beaming invective like “traitor,” “fascist,” “honky,” “nazi,” “KKK leader,” “white supremicist,” etc., etc., about a republican president to the armed forces. ”

    Yes, dubiousraves, I am totally okay with the troops listening to the “Randi Rhodes” program if they see fit to do so.

  12. dubiousraves says:

    Robin, I suspect not many on your side of the aisle would agree with you, even if, as you seem to believe, Randi Rhodes were just as slimy as Limbaugh. Got any examples of Rhodes’ misogyny, misandry, or racism?

  13. Chris in N.Va. says:

    Even Bill Maher, in one of his more lucid moments, defended Rush’s apology (and even statements) and pushed back against the “off with his head” histrionics of the supposedly tolerant mobs, in large part no doubt realizing that in light of his own “civil” descriptions of Conservative female presidential candidates and public figures, what goes around comes around.

    With that I offer “tolerant” (if grudging) kudos for his uncharacteristic equal application of the “free speech” rubric usually employed by the Left to brutally silence any otherwise-free speech with which they do not agree.

  14. Carlos says:

    Ya know, dubiousraves, I was all the way through your comment before it struck me you were talking about Rush. I thought you were talking about everyday Democrats back about 2004, 2005 or so, and them talking about the president then! Remember, it was back then that “Bushitler” was in vogue. Those are all the things that were accepted as gospel truth by the left back then about “a Republican president,” and not only to the armed forces but to our enemies, too.

    My, how perspectives change when one’s tin god is attacked.

  15. Robin says:


    “I suspect not many on your side of the aisle would agree with you, even if, as you seem to believe, Randi Rhodes were just as slimy as Limbaugh. Got any examples of Rhodes’ misogyny, misandry, or racism?”

    My response:

    “I suspect not many on your side of the aisle would agree with you”.

    You make the assumption that all conservatives are republicans and walk in lockstep, following a rigid ideology.
    You make what seems to be a blanket indictment of those you perceive to be on the right side of the aisle. We have brains of our own and will disagree amongst ourselves.

    “…you seem to believe, Randi Rhodes were just as slimy as Limbaugh.”

    I got a good dose of Randi Rhodes when I had satellite radio. This was on Air America, before it tanked. I listened to her show on a regular basis when I was waiting in line to pick up my daughter from school. I can say, in all honesty, that listening to her show made me sick. I have listened to Rush for 5 years and haven’t heard anywhere near the level of incendiary and hateful rhetoric that I heard from Randi Rhodes in just a few short months. That is my honest assessment. I don’t mean to challenge, I ask in the sense of all fairness, have you actively listened to Rush?

    “Got any examples of Rhodes’ misogyny, misandry, or racism?”

    I think it would be difficult to cite examples of Rhodes’ misogyny, after all, she is a woman. Misandry, well, no… I can’t say she is guilty of that. In kind, please provide examples of “misogyny” concerning El Rushbo. I am sure you could give me a dozen examples from the Media Matters website that you consider to be misogynist, but I invite you to look up the definition of the word before you do. Misogyny is hatred of a group of people- women. Rush does not hate women. He may disagree (politically) with a certain militant group of females (he coined the term “Feminazi”)- for example, NO*W (National Organization *for liberal Women)
    and most recently, Sandra Fluke (yes, she is militant, and I will tell you why shortly). I just happened to be listening when he called her a “slut” and a “prostitute”. I was waiting in the drive-thru line at the bank and the iced tea I was drinking nearly came out my nose. The teller must have thought I was crazy because I was laughing hysterically. I was not offended, I am a woman. Being a regular Rush listener, I didn’t take it seriously. I know his style. It may have been an over-the-top statement, but I knew he was trying to illustrate a point. That does not excuse his language, however. I thought he should apologize, and I am glad he did. The point I was trying to make is that his statement does NOT make him a misogynist. If he had made a blanket statement, such as, “all women are sluts and prostitutes”, then you would have a point.

    Now, back to Ms. Fluke, she is actively working with the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party to force contraceptive coverage in religious institutions. This is a trampling of the Constitutionally protected religious liberties that so many of us hold dear. The way we see it, Ms. Fluke (an activist with an agenda, not some hapless student) and the Administration are essentially spitting in our faces, and no, WE ARE NOT TAKING KINDLY TO THIS! If you poke a bear with a stick, chances are pretty good that you’re going to get bit. Ms. Fluke has the right and freedom to choose another school, the church has a right to adhere to their religious doctrines.

    I will address any accusations of “racism” in the same manner that I addressed “mysoginy”. If someone makes a racially insensitive remark towards (or about) a person, that does not make them racist. If someone harms or mistreats a person for the color of their skin, or their sex organs, then you have a problem. Calling someone a name over a political disagreement does not qualify as misogyny. Disagreeing with the President does not make Rush (or the rest of us) racist.

    I refuse to submit to the idiotic meme that there is a #WarOnWomen. I don’t walk in lockstep with my church, my party, or my “sisters”. God gave me a brain and I intend to use it. I refuse to be defined by what’s between my legs.

  16. Carlos says:

    Very good, Robin, except for one thing: “God gave me a brain and I intend to use it. I refuse to be defined by what’s between my legs.”

    Please refuse to be defined ONLY by “what’s between your legs.” Be proud of that, but never, ever let it be the only way you are defined. I don’t, I wouldn’t, I never have and never will because I am so much more than some on the left have ever given anyone credit for, and obviously, so are you.

    Best to you and your child/children. Raise her/them correctly and they’ll be proud of who they are forever. Me and mine? Just sinners saved by grace, and we all consider that the beginning of who each of us is.

  17. Robin says:

    Thank you very much for your words, Carlos. I do my best to walk a straight line and teach my children to so the same. I am absolutely convinced of God’s grace, having been saved by it many times (unbeknownst to me at the time) when I had turned my back on Him. I reflect on those times and wonder how He ever saw me as worthy, but I am so grateful that He did! Blessings to you and yours! >:d<

  18. dubiousraves says:

    Wow, Robin, you sure are making lots of excuses for Rush — something you don’t seem willing to do for Randi Rhodes. Limbaugh’s record of woman-hatred and hatred of non-white people is quite well documented. You could start here:

    and here:

    And there is so much more. Face it, Robin, you agree with Rush’s politics, so you are willing to excuse his racism and sexism. That’s fine — it just makes you part of your tribe. But please don’t pretend Rush — or you — are any kind of honest broker.

  19. dubiousraves says:

    Carlos — Let’s try to stick to the original point, shall we? We have a situation where Limbaugh’s racist, slanderous commentary against the COMMANDER IN CHIEF is beamed regularly to the U.S. Armed Forces. Just as a matter of etiquette this is screwed up, much less morale. And you’re OK with this? As I pointed out earlier, we have never had a parallel situation with a radical-left radio personality and a Republican president, and had there been one, I highly doubt it would be tolerated by your “free speech” loving team.

  20. dubiousraves says:

    Carlos — Gosh, you’re awfully brave not to allow yourself to be defined by what’s between your legs. I mean, I’m assuming you’re a man. I could be wrong, I guess, but I don’t know many women named Carlos. I suggest you go back to Limbugh’s comments about Sandra Fluke, think about them, and ask yourself if what he’s doing is not defining her by what’s between her legs. See, women aren’t just sex providers and abortion seekers. They happen to be human beings who desire the same level of access to medical care as men get. Instead, they are losing that access, and that’s exactly why there’s a war on women, especially poor, rural women. But in the freedom fields of Sister Toldjah, I guess it’s just their tough luck.

  21. Carlos says:

    You are assuming a lot about me, d., but that’s OK because we all assume a lot, every day.

    One of the things you assume is that I wish for access to reproductive/contraception care removed from women in general, poor women (and by the tone of your responses, especially poor women of color) specifically. That is as false as your general liberal ideology. I have never even hinted at that because I don’t believe that is a solution for anyone, anywhere, anytime.

    I do, however, object to the forceful theft of my money (called taxes) to pay for those services/products, and I know a lot of others do, too. Never mind the constitutional questions involved here, sir, the idea that one is forced to pay for such service or product used by another because of a lack of character is inherently abhorrent to me. Whether the government pays for those services/products or not, they are still available.

    If the activity being pussy-footed around here is so necessary to the person/persons involved, they are (or at least should be) responsible for the results of that activity, not me, not you, not our neighbors. What you are promoting here is the idea that every taxpayer is responsible for every activity, good or bad, of everyone else, and that’s not only ridiculous on the face of it but goes against the grain of everything our founders believed in, fought and died for, on established our country for.

  22. Robin says:


    I thought we were having a discussion, but you went on the attack once presented with an opinion you didn’t like. I stick with my assertion that the troops (and the rest of us) should be able to listen to whatever we want.

    For the sake of time, I will refer you to this snopes page:


    I don’t have the time or care to address each one individually. You cited “Black Planet” and “Red, Black and Blue” sites. C’mon now- if you expect me to be balanced in the presentation of facts, you should have to play by the same rules. You can find the same info on the Media Matters website. They’re all one in the same, however, as they all have a political axe to grind.

    “And there is so much more. Face it, Robin, you agree with Rush’s politics, so you are willing to excuse his racism and sexism. That’s fine — it just makes you part of your tribe. But please don’t pretend Rush — or you — are any kind of honest broker.”

    I do agree with Rush’s politics, for the most part. I am socially conservative, but identify as libertarian/constitutionalist. There are “big government” guys on both sides of the aisle and I reject them. Rush tends to be more in line with the “establishment” Republicans. Rush and I do not agree on all counts, by any means.

    “Wow, Robin, you sure are making lots of excuses for Rush — something you don’t seem willing to do for Randi Rhodes.”

    False, False, False! I stated that I thought Randi Rhodes was hateful, in my OPINION. I did not make accusations based on anything other than my personal experience listening to the woman. She regularly went on diatribes against GWB, but you seem to want to ignore that. I guess we’re not allowed to criticize a President these days, no? I was aware that Randi Rhodes made a comment on a radio show recently about conservative women and how they need to need to have their “ovaries removed”.


    OMG! Did I just hear that crazy Randi Rhodes advocating VIOLENCE against women? Call in the troops! We must rally around our sisters! Who do we boycott? We must silence this lunatic immediately! This is a “#WaronWomen” and we must act now! (Whispers: “She’s talking about conservative women.” “Oh, I didn’t know. My bad”) Move along, nothing to see here! — While we’re at it, let’s play the game called, “What if Rush Had Said It?” It would be front-page news. Randi Rhodes’ hateful comments seem to have slipped the “feminist radar”.

    Can I get you and your friends to defend these conservative women? Are you willing to defend all women regardless of party affiliation? Or should we just be honest and call the #WarOnWomen out for the ruse that it is? On the same note, can’t we grow up and agree that Rush, like Randi, were using satire to illustrate a point?

    We can have a discussion when you are willing to concede a point or two, but your refusal to do so reveals a mind that’s chained to ideology. Until you break free of that bondage, an even-handed and civil discussion is impossible.

    I am compelled to respond to your attack on “Carlos”. You conclude that “Carlos” is not in possession of certain female bits because of their user name. I feel I must tell you that “Carlos” is a common surname, particularly in certain “ethnic groups”. Since you attacked “Carlos” based on their user name, you are clearly a racist.

  23. Robin says:

    Not that it’s any surprise, I thought I might add that “dubiousraves” likes to troll conservative websites and stir up the bee’s nest. A quick “google” search revealed that fact. Shame on myself for trying to have a “conversation” with a rabid leftist.

  24. Carlos says:

    Last comment on this post: when will someone not a conservative suggest an investigation of at least the President of the United States, his actions since assuming the presidency and his background, and an investigation of every one of his cabinet (especially “TurboTax Timmy” and the Attorney General who doesn’t believe racism can exist if it’s a person of color doing the discriminating), and a thorough investigation of all 27 or 122 or however many illegal “czars” the ChiTown thug has adding misery to all our lives?

    Investigate Limbaugh? Talk about small potatoes compared to the (little “m”) mess-iah!

  25. dubiousraves says:

    Robin — sorry if you’re having trouble entertaining viewpoints different from your own, but since Sistah Toldjah isn’t blocking my comments, I guess it’s a free country here; i can respect that, at least. 1. So are you saying those Rush Limbaugh quotes aren’t real? If so, then sorry to say you’re in deep denial. Please show how they’re false. 2. Let’s please stop the silliness that Randi Rhodes is anything remotely approaching the clout of Limbaugh, who has an audience of millions and such a tight grip on the republican party that very few are willing to stand up to any of his lies, racism, and bigotry, a record of foul expression that goes back decades. What’s sad is that YOU defend it. And, BTW, I respect his right, under the Constitution, to say whatever he wants. And the rest of us non-bigots have the same right to attack him for it. Just please don’t insult your own intelligence and everyone else’s by saying that a few bigoted comments on the left, especially directed at PUBLIC FIGURES, add up to Limbaugh’s rancid record. The main difference is this: Limbaugh isn’t just shouting into the breeze: his misogyny actually gets RESULTS. He influences policy, which is why we’re seeing these disgusting anti-women laws being passed all over the country. This isn’t “satire,” Robin, it’s marching orders. 4. Your silly comments about my statement to Carlos aren’t worth responding to. Better stick to the issues, where at least you have a position.

  26. dubiousraves says:

    Robin — Nice to know you’re doing research on me, but please understand, I am far from a rabid leftist. I’m actually just a liberal. I believe in things like equal rights, full, equal access to healthcare and education, and progressive taxation. Positions that, if you think about it, are well in the mainstream, and arguably possessed by the majority of the country. A rabid leftist would be … Chairman Mao, Joe Stalin, and the Symbionese Liberation Army. I wouldn’t accuse you of admiring Hitler, so please stay calm.

  27. dubiousraves says:

    Carlos — I really don’t feel like getting into a debate on medical coverage here. But I would like to welcome you to the United States of America, a modern democracy in which taxes — as written in the Constitution — are levied to pay for things voters agree upon. Included in these things are roads, schools, police, military. You and your compatriots are drawing a big line in the sand against including health care on the list, despite the fact that A) Every modern developed democracy includes it, and B) National Health Insurance has been sought by most Republican administrations, including Eisenhower’s and Nixon’s, and “Obamacare” is a bi-partisan bill crafted with lots of republican input and based in large part on ideas developed and pushed by the Heritage Foundation. Now that it’s passed, you want to shift the goal posts to exclude basic reproductive health care for women, even though A) Similar services are covered for men, and B) Men undeniably benefit when women have access to contraceptives — a point that seems to be lost in the current froth of demagoguery that passes for debate. So, Carlos, there’s your War on Women in a nutshell.

  28. dubiousraves says:

    Carlos — just noticed your humorous call for the president to be investigated for things that were also practiced by GWB and Reagan (whose admin actually has the highest felon rate of any post-war president). You’re showing your true colors here, so I won’t bother responding, except to say that your inability to write intelligible English seems to mirror your faulty thought processes.

  29. Carlos says:

    Thanks for the lesson(s), d., it’s been a long time since I was taken to the shed for such a whuppin’.

    Yes, I know taxation is allowed in that Constitution that you revere so highly. My point was that, beyond paying for the things actually allowed by the Constitution for the federal government to do, federal taxation is theft. If I’m not mistaken, that was one of the irritants for the Founding Fathers, excessive taxation, and they didn’t even have the backing of a clearly worded constitution to draw such a conclusion!

    And gosh, where was my mind when I argued against nationalized health care? Every other “civilized” nation on earth has it, why not us? Well, like my dear ol’ daddy used ta say, “If everyone else was jumping off a cliff, would you jump too, or would you have the brains to figure out maybe that’s not the best thing to do?” Just because every other “civilized” nation on earth is jumping off an economic cliff doesn’t mean we have to. Also, I have a very difficult time trying to find national health care as one of the enumerated powers (without distending the words beyond recognition.)

    As far as my obvious lack of educashun goes, must be them publik skools I went ta. Ya gotta unnerstan’, A’m jist an ol’ country boy what has a hard taum figurin’ thin’s aot. Ya gotta give me a break here ’cause A’ve purty wale haid ta depend on common sainse ta git me thruw laif. Ya maight wanna try thait sumtime.

  30. Robin says:


    I am afraid we will just have to disagree on the Rush/Randi thing. I really don’t think it’s fair to say that derogatory remarks are ok when leveled at one person, but not ok when leveled at another. Whether someone is a public figure or not should not matter. in the case of Ms. Fluke, she put herself into the national spotlight. I don’t think the size of the “stage” makes a difference, either. Both Rush and Randi use the same airways to get their voices heard. Randi Rhodes should not get a free pass for her comments just because she has a smaller audience. I am not an advocate of censorship, no matter which side is speaking. I don’t like what Randi Rhodes says, but I am not the one running to the FCC or the Pentagon in an effort to have her removed from the airways.

    We obviously come from two completely different schools of thought. I provided you with a link that debunked most of the comments you cited. I wont say without a shadow of a doubt that Rush is guilty of making any, all or some of those comments. I would agree that several of them sound offensive. Some of them were middle-of-the road. I would be interested to see some of those alleged comments in full context before I passed judgement. Randi Rhodes was trying to say that republicans don’t deserve to have ovaries because they are against contraceptives/ hormone therapy or something. I get the point she was trying to make. I don’t agree with her perspective on the debate, but I am not going to get my panties in a wad over it.

    I called you a leftist for the same reason you called me a part of my “tribe”. You won’t find me on liberal websites poking around to see what I can stir up, however. If you want to have a balanced and productive discussion, I am game any day of the week. You came here to stir up trouble and fling insults at those who dont agree with you. You obviously have your mind made up and I don’t really care to perpetuate the back-and-forth with someone who is comfortable with double- standards. I did not wholly defend Rush, I am just trying to be fair. I gave the same respect to Rhodes.

    I called you a racist for your comments directed at Carlos. I don’t literally believe you are a racist, I was merely poking fun at the situation. I am a little weary of the perpetual outrage coming from the left. I was trying to give back a little bit of what Conservatives have to deal with every day. If we criticize a person on the left, that makes us racist, bigots, etc., etc. and on down the line. It is a practically a crime for someone to be white, female and Republican.

    Please do me the favor and answer the following question: which Republican candidate is calling for birth control, hormone therapy, healthcare to be denied to women? Please answer directly, which candidate(s) said this, what did they say and please provide links to support your answer. Secondly, please share your thoughts on the following:

    The first amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…..” 

    Finally, I don’t recall comparing you to Mao, etc. I called you a leftist, and I am perfectly “calm”. Thank you for bringing Hilter into the picture, I knew that would come up sooner or later.

  31. ST says:

    “Dubious raves” has posted their last comment here, FYI.

  32. Robin says:


    I am afraid that “common sense” doesn’t have much of a place in the New, Improved America. Such a trait is no longer considered a virtue. It only gets in the way of progress. If things don’t change course, I am afraid the woodshed is where people like us will stay. ;)

  33. Robin says:


    Thanks for doing us all a favor. :). Apparently, I can’t resist the urge to “reason” with these people!

  34. Carlos says:

    Robin: Fortunately, it’s not difficult for me to fall into a “backwoods neanderthal” mode, but I worry that there are some out there who take me seriously when I do. I am a product of public education, but fortunately it was just at the beginning of the transition period to the mush and moraless sex ed they teach now.

    I was also a reading and English teacher for a while, but saw the writing on the wall and got out long ago.

    ST has a brief of my background, and perceptive readers of this blog know more about me than I’m comfortable with, but life goes on. I’m thankful that d. doesn’t have a clue as to whether I’m male of female, white or hispanic (or something else), or whether I’m of an intelligence rating to challenge his effete intellectual prowess. Let him guess – it drives them nuts when they make unsure assumptions.

  35. Robin says:


    Good people come in all shapes, sizes an colors. As long as you’ve got your head screwed on straight, you’re alright by me!

    I had to yank my daughter out of an “exemplary school” in third grade. We saw the “writing on the wall” and have never looked back. I pray that laws are changed to allow school choice. It’s sad that so many are stuck in failing schools. “Waiting for Superman” reduces me to tears. I highly recommend watching it if you get a chance.