All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 6, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:54
September 6, 2007, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Don't you just love the Washington terminology trying to walk back his comments?
We have heard, ladies and gentlemen, through the grapevine, Senator Schemer is on the floor of the Senate trying to walk back his comments of yesterday.
Yeah, we are diligently trying to find those walk back comments, and if we do, we will ignore them.
Greetings 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
How many of you people out there get up early?
Well, you're in deep doo-doo, folks.
Generations have praised the wisdom of getting up early in the morning.
But now a Japanese study says early risers are actually at a higher risk of developing heart problems.
The study conducted by researchers from several universities and hospitals in the western...
You tell me my cold sounds better now.
Look, I start coughing and sniffing.
You know, you put this, what is it?
Everything was fine to you.
Now I wasn't even thinking about it.
Now I'm thinking about it.
Your cold sounds a lot better, Snirdly told me during the break.
Take that.
Anyway, this study that says you're going to die if you get up early was conducted by researchers from several universities and hospitals in the western Japanese city of Kyoto.
And it revealed a link between wake-up times and a person's cardiovascular condition.
Rising early to go to work or exercise might not be beneficial to health.
Rather, it might be a risk for vascular diseases, said an abstract of the study.
The study covering 3,017 healthy adults between 23 and 90 found that early risers had a greater risk of heart conditions, including hypertension, and of having strokes.
However, the study also noted that early risers were usually older.
You know what we can do with this?
Anytime you got a study in there with the word might, it's worthless anyway.
Go to the audio soundbites, ladies and gentlemen, shall we?
Been promising this the whole show.
This is about the debate.
Last night, Fred Thompson's announcement on the On Tonight Show will start on MSNBC today today.
Anchor Amy Roebuck, talking with the NBC political director Chuck Todd, said, Hey, Chuck, we know that Fred Thompson's now the ninth Republican contender.
What did you make of his decision to be in LA versus New Hampshire last night?
He took some shots from his Republican candidates.
Rush Limbaugh was actually very critical of Thompson picking Jay Leno over this debate.
So he certainly didn't win any hearts and minds inside sort of the Republican establishment.
And during the debate itself last night, the candidates, did I take a shot at Thompson?
Did I take it?
Well, they think I did.
You know, this is what excites them.
You know, when I criticize a Republican, that's big news for them.
And all I said was, I've got a little problem with announcing on the show.
It's not a show that the president, a president will ever visit.
So why should a candidate do so?
But you heard it, and I don't want to revisit it.
Here is a montage of the actual candidates last night taking shots at the guy who wasn't there, Fred Thompson.
That's a decision that Fred should make.
Maybe we're up past his bedtime, but the point is, I think.
The only question I have for Senator Thompson is, why the hurry?
Why not take some more time off?
I like Fred a lot.
I think Fred is a really, really good man.
I think he's done a pretty good job of playing my part on Law and Order.
That was Rudy Giuliani there talking about Fred Thompson's role as Arthur Branch.
By the way, there was a piece.
I wonder how many people fell for this.
It was Arizona Central website, the Arizona newspaper website.
And it was a story about how the Democrats are demanding unity from President Bush and the appointment of the next Attorney General.
And one of the Democrats suggested that the assistant district attorney in Manhattan named Arthur Branch be nominated as Attorney General.
And McCain says, well, if the Democrats can live with Arthur Branch, I'm not too familiar with Arthur Branch, but I could live with Arthur Branch too.
Well, because Arthur Branch is a character that Fred Thompson played on Law and Order.
There is no Arthur Branch in New York in the district attorney's office.
I wonder how many people fell for that.
And then, it wasn't long after that, maybe half an hour, a story came down to Pike where the Democrats are demanding unity in a choice for Attorney General by President Bush, meaning they want him to appoint somebody Democrats would love.
That's what they mean by unity is Republicans caving.
Now, let's go to Thompson.
Thompson announced on the Tonight Show last night, and Leno said, you were here in June, and you said then that you were testing the water.
You've been in the water for a while now.
Are you starting to get a little wrinkly?
These wrinkles don't come from the water.
They don't come from the water.
All right.
Well, what's the temperature?
Is it tepid?
What does the water tell you?
Nice and warm.
Yeah, it hasn't been that long, really.
We've done it a few months, what a lot of people have been working on since they were in the choir in high school.
And so we're where we need to be right now.
And that's one of the things I wanted to talk to you about.
All right.
I'm running for President of the United States.
Right off.
Right.
All right.
Hey, applause signs lit up in front of the audience there at the tonight show.
Jay Leno said, well, what about getting your rest?
You waited too long.
Pundits say that you waited too long to get in.
No, I don't think so.
Of course, you know, we'll find out.
But I don't think people are going to say, you know, that guy would make a very good president, but he just didn't get in soon enough.
Communications being what they are nowadays, if you can't get your message out in a few months, you're probably not ever going to get it out.
Well, that's true.
People don't start paying attention to these elections until they get a little closer.
They treat politicians kind of like a dentist.
They don't have anything to do with them until they have to, during the election.
Well, that's a good line, I think.
And I hate the look of the drill.
I hate the sound of the drill.
I just despise those people.
Well, not as, I mean, the profession.
By the way, have you seen the story that they found a skinny gene in mice?
And they think that they might be able to turn that on in human beings.
It struck me, I am 56 years old, and for, well, let's say the last 41 years, I have been paying attention to stuff.
In the last 41 years, I can't count for you the number of scientific discoveries are going to lead to the cure for obesity or overweight.
And we're nowhere nearer than we were 41 years ago, folks.
Same thing with cancer.
I mean, we're making some progress here in certain kinds of cancers, but they were testing rats and beasts, mice, and all that 15, 35, 40 years ago.
It just, it strikes me they keep taunting us with all this stuff.
I keep hearing that finally we're going to get drills, dental drills, and they're so fast you don't even know it's happened.
None of this is going to happen before I die.
I guarantee you, none of it's going to happen.
The promises are going to continue to be empty.
The progress, these people are just fooling themselves on these genetic alterations that they think they're going to be able to make.
All right.
Now, let's move on to some other stage of the debate.
HR, you mentioned earlier that as you watched, you thought McCain got off the mat here.
You thought you thought McCain made a little recovery here, right?
Would you say McCain won the debate last night as you watched it?
Yeah, that's right.
There's a giant disconnect.
Nobody that I know, including myself, thought McCain won it.
He's okay.
Got off the mat, as you say.
Got back in the game.
But Frank Luntz and his band of people with their little meters out there in the coffee shop, McCain was far and away the winner.
I mean, he wasn't even close.
And the pundits are saying, you know, we just don't get this.
The people we think do well, Luntz's focus group people, the average Americans out there, just don't see it.
There's a huge disconnect here between us in the drive-by media and average people.
So really.
But the way I look at this is, I look at the guy that the American people last night thought, or Luntz's people in the diner, thought that they won.
And I try to find which candidate sounds most like me because that's the candidate that's going to win.
And last night, apparently, it was McCain on a number of issues.
For example, on the immigration bill.
The bottom line is this.
And this is why the immigration bill went down the tubes.
Nobody trusts the government.
Few people trust the government to do what they say they're going to do.
And I set it up there.
That's February.
That's July 6th, this past July.
And I'm explaining why this thing went down the tubes.
So Luntz was talking to a focus group last night and a diner in there.
An identified voter said this about who he thought won.
John McCain sounded the most presidential.
Even the other candidates were quoting John McCain during their responses.
My biggest problem with McCain had been his immigration stand.
And I think he indicated at least that he may have heard the clamor in the country over his position on that and may have mollified it.
Modified it.
That's what the voter meant to say, not mollified.
But we'll look past.
I shouldn't even have mentioned it.
Now, here's McCain's immigration answer in a debate last night.
It's a total limbaugh echo.
The question was from Chris Wallace.
Senator McCain, when you were backing comprehensive immigration reform this spring, you accused Governor Romney of flip-flopping on the issue.
Is the governor playing politics on immigration?
And are you now doing the same thing, backing a new plan which would enforce the borders but without any longer a path to citizenship?
Look, this is an emotional and passionate issue, and one that very seldom have I seen an issue that aroused this much passion with the American people.
Why we failed is because the American people have lost trust and confidence in us.
Our failure in Katrina, our failures in Iraq, our failures to control runaway spending, and so we failed.
I commit to securing the borders first.
We can secure those borders.
As president, I would have the border state governors certify that those borders were indeed secure.
I mean, this is a 100% limbaugh echo.
It's no wonder he won the debate last night in the minds of Luntz's focus group in the diner.
That's why I went back and played you to sound bite here from July 6th.
Bottom line is, the government is something nobody trusts.
They trust the government to do nothing.
They're not going to do what they say they're going to do.
They can't get anything done.
McCain says, look, I mean, we fail because the American people have lost trust and confidence in us.
Whoever sounds the most like me in these debates, folks, I'm telling you, is going to win them.
We'll be right back.
Stay with us.
Hi, welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
I am Rush Limbaugh, well-known radio raconteur, all-round good guy, harmless, lovable little fuzzball, meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis.
New York Times today, the mystery of Norman Shu, the wealthy Clinton donor who turned out to be a fugitive from justice, took a bizarre twist yesterday when Mr. Shu disappeared yet again.
How can it be bizarre if he's disappeared before?
The story goes on to recount how he's disappeared like this two other times, and they have failed to get his passport both times on the word that his lawyers will get the passport.
He's not a flight risk.
He's demonstrated flight risk twice.
They didn't get his passport this time.
Somebody wanted Shu to get away.
Powerful people somewhere.
Forces wanted Norman Shu to get away.
Now, my guess is, folks, I wouldn't be surprised the guy turns up dead somewhere.
This, this, this, this, I'm telling you, this, this, this, well, I'm not going to say anymore, but, but, uh, he's, he's either going to be found in Hong Kong or he's going to disappear in Hong Kong.
We'll never hear from him, or there's going to be this something that smells, this smells all the way to China, I'm telling you.
But what this guy did, he was a, it was a, we claimed he was in a real estate business, and he wasn't in the real estate business.
Uh, the address he gave for his own FEC forms and all this, the address he gave was for the Midtown Public Library here in New York.
He was never in the business he claimed to be, and this guy has been a shyster from the get-go.
But what he did, he was a well-known bundler.
Now, there's this family out there in Northern California called the Paul family, P-I-W.
They have no money, but they got lots of pets.
Mr. Paul, and they got Mr. and Mrs. Paul got three or four kids.
I think there's five members of the family total, maybe six.
And he's a letter carrier.
He makes $45,000 a year.
Now, let me find the exact article.
I want to get the exact amount of money because these people donated somewhere to the tune of $245,000 to the Democrat Party this year.
With what?
With what?
Yeah, they got a good contract.
Yeah, well, but the guy makes $45,000 a year.
Let's see.
No, no, no.
The Paul family did not hit their own.
One of Mr. Shu's donors with the Paw family, the modest Chinese-American family, California mail carrier, annual salary, $45,000, but whose family has donated $244,000 to the Democrats since 2004, 55 of which went to the Clinton campaign.
So this is what Shu would do.
Shu would find the families like this.
This is what happened with the Buddhist monks, the nuns, remember that?
From which Gore said there was no controlling legal authority.
They did the same thing.
Take people with no money, put a lot of money in their hands, or make donations in their name.
I'm sure the Paws never saw the money.
Well, anyway, the guy's missing.
They can't find him.
He's on the lamb.
He has fled the scene, Norman Shu.
The president met with the Chinese premier Hu Zhintao today, and I wonder if he asked who where Shu is.
Because, I mean, who is the head Shaikom leader?
This guy's from Hong Kong, and they run Hong Kong now.
That's where Shu is from.
So anyway, Heath in Madison, Wisconsin.
I'm glad you called, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
You're welcome.
Mega, mega ditto.
Thank you, sir.
You bet.
Liberal capital.
One thing, and I apologize, I was actually doing some paperwork last night.
I was out of town in a hotel room.
The thing that puzzles me is that it just feels like we just don't, we as conservatives from the pulpit of the puppets, a true vision of where they're going to lead us.
I know that the past accomplishments are very important.
I apologize, I'm a little nervous here.
But yet, I just don't feel like there's a one person, and maybe that's what I'm trying to identify with, like you said, is just trying to find that one person that is speaking what I'm thinking.
Well, I think it's a little bit more complicated than that.
I think I know what your frustration is.
And as you said, where's the conservative here?
We got conservatism in each of these guys, but there's some things there that we're not crazy about in each of them, too, or at least we're not sure about.
Either one of them may be kick-ass when it comes to national security, but on social issues, we think we may end up with the next Arnold Schwarzenegger.
One of them may be really kick-ass on international affairs and foreign security, but just recently tried to let every illegal citizen in the country or alien become a citizen.
And I do it again.
It has not been good on tax cuts.
I don't know.
There doesn't seem to be one of these candidates who's simply articulating conservatism as the driving force and reason he wants the job.
And I totally agree, Russia.
In order to make the country a better country because of those principles.
That's exactly, I know exactly how you feel about this.
Thank you.
And that's my prediction for next year is when one of these representatives actually step out and get the nominated.
It's going to happen.
I'll tell you, that's this debate last night.
It proved it to me.
I know exactly what's going to happen here.
I mean, McCain was perceived the winner by the people in that bar.
The diner.
Franklin, sorry.
McCain.
Slap me.
McCain's perceived as the winner.
Who sounded like me last night?
You.
McCain.
McCain, of course.
McCain sounded like me.
Now, the difference is people hear me say it, they know I mean it.
And then the other thing, too, is I have a hard time getting past Russ Feingold Bill that he partnered with.
Of course, he's from the lovely state of Wisconsin where I am.
Well, it's just hard for me to see.
And this is a good idea.
That's what I'm talking about.
Every one of these candidates has got something in there that's a red flag.
But this is the lot.
To close a loop on this for you, Heath, and he's been out there waiting for 99 minutes here, folks.
That's why he's nervous.
The longer you're on hold, the more nervous you get because you think you forgot why you called.
You listen to the rest of the show, and it's so compelling and interesting that you forgot why you called.
Then you think, I don't want to hang up because I may never get back through.
Anyway, the candidate in these debates that ends up sounding the most like me, whoever it is, is going to end up being the nominee.
So exactly what we do here, ladies and gentlemen, we make the complex understandable.
Few people can do that because most don't understand the complex to begin with.
800-282-2882, if you would like to be on the program, how have I done today in dialing back the self-absorption?
I've had a brief lapse at the beginning of the program, I know, when I talked about the flyover.
But generally, after that, have I done pretty good keeping myself out of the show?
Good.
All right.
Anna Marie in Grapevine, Texas, is near Dallas.
Nice to have you with us on the EIB network.
Thank you, Rush.
It's an honor to speak to you today.
I'm a longtime listener and first-time caller, so I'm a little nervous.
I want to tell you to please continue and to play Lee Greenwood's parody over and over and over again because it's so dead right.
What is it?
I want to take a little informal survey here because we're getting lots of phone calls, emails, and really record numbers of people who love this thing, and it's right on, right on, right on.
They can't one of them keep playing it and so forth.
What is it about the song?
Because I think I know, but I'm just testing my ability to understand why you like it.
What is it about it?
Because you said it hits home.
It just, it's right.
What is it about it that you like?
Because it shows just how much they hate the United States.
That's it.
It shows how they're Stalinists.
I would even take it to be communists.
They don't want this country to secede.
They say and blame it on Bush.
But you know, there are a lot of us who support this country and support President Bush as the leader of our military.
And there's a lot of us conservatives who view the military as the true heroes.
They really are.
And to hear somebody like Senator Schumer say the things he said about them, Lick Greenwood's God Bless the USA is our theme song.
I believe that any conservative here today, when you listen to the words of the song, it is God bless the USA, God bless our military.
We wouldn't be free without them.
And history teaches us that time and time again.
And what they refuse to look at is what happened with the Nazis.
You know, this is happening again.
And who would be the first people to die?
The Jews, the Christians, the homosexuals?
No, no, no, the journalists would be the first.
I hope so.
We didn't say that, though.
No, no, no.
The journalists.
They go after the free press.
They go after all that.
That's what they do first, absolutely.
Yes.
So you only hear one voice.
And of course, the drive-by media, what is that?
One voice.
Except for God bless you, Rush.
You know, you are also a hero because you have fought the fight.
And it just makes me so angry when they, the way they treat our military.
I'm from the United States.
Let me tell you something, Anna-Marie.
There's no question that they, you know, they don't think they hate the country.
They actually think they love it.
They've got a perverted view of what patriotism is.
They have a little depraved view of what love of country is.
What their objective is, is to destroy the traditions and institutions that have defined this country and kept it great and remake it in their own image.
They want as large a government as they can get with themselves in charge of it, with no chance for Republicans ever to win electoral victory again on a national basis.
They want to control as much of life as possible.
They want to make as many people dependent on them as possible to ensure just a string of elections, years, so forth, where they are always in power.
And even should the odd thing happen and they lose an election, they want enough people in the judiciary, various bureaucracies that are immune from elections because those people don't run for elections.
It's a quest for power.
The difference between liberals and conservatives is, and this is one of the differences that we try to note several times because it's fundamental and it's really crucial to understand.
In order for liberals to get what they want, they have to win elections.
They have to get control of the government.
The government is the means by which they entrench themselves and do everything else throughout the rest of the country they want to do.
We, and as such, they raise all their little skulls full of mush to be bureaucrats.
They go to the Ivy League and they train them to end up as bureaucrats in one way or another so that they're infested in government.
We conservatives, we don't want, we want to win elections to get government out of everybody's way.
The problem is that every time we win, we can't clear enough of the government out for these career liberals that have been installed in there for the last 50 years since FDR.
So it's really an ongoing battle and a motivation to say win the presidency on the Republican side is far different than it is for the Democrats.
Have you ever noticed the Democrats seem always coordinated and they seem like they never give up.
And they're always relentless no matter what the issue.
They are out trying to destroy their Republican opponents.
Do you see the Republicans today at all reacting to Senator Schumer?
No, not at all.
You're absolutely right, Rush.
They should be out there speaking.
You know, they're our elected officials.
Why aren't they representing us?
Well, why aren't they out there speaking for us?
I don't know.
We've been through this too many times.
I think it's fear.
I think fear.
And plus, they know that they've got willing accomplices in their side of the media, such as me and others, such as I and others who will do it for them.
But at any rate, I understand your frustration.
You have requested that the tune be played again, and you say it, we play it.
That's the name of the day here on the EIB network.
Thanks, Anna Marie, for the phone call.
I love your passion out there.
Didn't sound like you were nervous at all.
You know, if you notice that drive-bys are just, they're all excited about this potential tropical storm out there in the Atlantic.
You don't know about this?
You ought to look at the models on this thing.
It hadn't happened.
No, relax.
It's not going to affect Florida.
It's off the coast of northern Florida and Georgia right now, and it's moving east.
But it's supposed to, the computer model is going to turn around.
It's going to come back.
And it's going to circle up the East Coast, going to run ground anywhere between North and South Carolina and head to Cape Cod, but turn out.
You ought to see the patterns of the models on this thing.
It's not a storm yet, but they're just panting, hoping for it to be with the impending disaster.
Do you understand how disgusting, not disgusting, how depressing it must be for these two category fives not to hit the United States?
They have hit Belize, they've hit Jamaica, and they have hit Nicaragua and Honduras.
Bush's fault with Nicaragua.
Yeah, a good communist country down there was being destroyed now by another hurricane.
Took out another blue country.
Ha, ha, ha.
I still can't laugh yet.
Irv in White Plains, New York.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Good afternoon.
How are you?
I'm fine, Irv.
How are you?
Okay.
I'm hoping that you will dispense with some largesse and allow me to cite three issues that I'd like you to comment on at that spot.
Fire away.
Let's start with the first one.
That's generally a good place to start.
I agree.
I am unbelievably saddened by the phone call that you had with the lady from Seattle who cited the Mariner game and the Blue Angels and what have you and somehow was able to indicate that the response from the crowd was somewhat related to the fact that they were all Christian and you never said a word.
Are there no one?
Is there no other group in this country that loves it that's not Christian?
Would you not have told her that?
She was joking.
That was actually self-deprecating humor is how I interpret it.
She was joking about it.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
There are some things that are not funny, especially when we're talking about how Muslims feel, how this group feels, how that group feels.
It's not a comment to make on a program such as yours where we are very sensitive about people, their feelings, the constitution, all those good things.
You don't say that.
It's just not appropriate.
Well, we have a First Amendment on this show, Irv.
Yeah, but, you know, but there are still seven words you can't say, and that's a First Amendment, right?
Yeah, but all right, look, I really think she was joking.
I made my point.
I made my point.
But I want to also tell you, I agree with.
I don't think anybody thinks that the only people in this country who are patriots are Christians.
And it was not something that even popped a red flag with me.
I'm sorry you're offended by it because it's not the purpose of the program.
I just think it was wrong.
Now, just let me say two things very quickly that the drive-by conservative media will never comment on.
President Bush was quoted as saying that Judge Roberts recommended, what's her name, Myers, for the Attorney General.
And Roberts has since come out and said this judge never recommended Harriet Myers for the Attorney General.
It is not true.
That's number one that the conservative media has not commented on, nor have you.
And the second thing is even more interesting is that there's all this talk about supporting troops.
And yet, in the last two and a half years of the Republican-dominated Congress, the Pentagon requested over and over to have Humvees that are extraordinarily protected for the IEDs because that's where 70% of our kids were getting killed or injured.
And in two and a half years, the Republican-dominated, Republican White House could not find a dime to get that out.
And just last month, the Pentagon said, oh, yes, we think we're going to get 1,000 of those perhaps in the beginning of next year.
Just in time.
We're talking about three and a half years of troop support that we couldn't get them Humvees to protect their lives.
Irv, I want to thank you.
In the first place, that's not true.
That's not true.
And nobody here can figure out what in the name of Sam Hill you're talking about.
John Roberts suggesting anybody to President Bush for Attorney General.
He's a Supreme Court chief just wouldn't be.
Harry, have you, anybody heard this story?
We have not heard of this story, Irv.
What wacko tinfoil hat publications are you reading or are you listening to?
But the thing that I want to thank you for, Irv, and God love you and God bless you.
You are the first liberal to call this program to care about the troops.
And man, I am almost in tears, Irv.
I thank you so much for that.
Mike, in North Caldwell, New Jersey, Sopranos Territory.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi, Rush.
Hi, Ditto.
Thank you, sir.
I'm confused about this term bundler.
I have lots of questions, and I hope you can help.
Well, I'll do my best.
Is this guy Shu the only one?
I mean, has anyone asked Hillary to provide a list of her other bundlers?
You know, I'll tell you what I'm going to do.
Mike, do you have a computer?
Do you access my website now and then?
Yes, I do.
There's a great piece on this.
Bob Tyrrell, writing at the American Spectator today in his column, what's called a current crisis, details the entire Chinese funny money connection to the Clintons going all the way back to 1996.
In fact, I think maybe even, yeah, it goes back even far.
The Chinese were supporting Clinton and the Riotti family, the Limpo group, were very involved in Clinton's gubernatorial elections in Arkansas.
When the Clintons get into trouble, they go to China.
There have been countless bundlers.
Charlie Tree was a bundler.
Do you remember Charlie Tree walking into the Clinton legal defense fund during the impeachment days with $250,000 worth of money orders?
Nobody knows where they came from.
There was Pauline Canchanillak.
She was from Thailand.
She fled to jurisdiction.
She fled.
Nobody's seen her since.
She was a bundler.
The Clintons, it's common practice.
It's a way to skirt campaign finance laws.
You want to get, you are a bundler.
You're somebody that wants to really contribute, like you're Norman Shu.
You have a limit on how much you can give a candidate now because of campaign finance reform.
So you go out and you find like the Paw family, lots of pets, but no money to make $45,000 a year.
And each one of those people ends up donating enough money over three years that it totals $244,000.
And of course, the Clintons have been asked about it.
And every time, every time they're asked about it, Mrs. Clinton, I'm shocked.
She didn't know her brothers were lobbying for a pardon and that they had asked her to help.
She forgot that.
She's shocked and surprised about everything.
She knows nothing, and yet she claims to be qualified to be president.
So now this guy, Shu, has disappeared.
And more to this, folks, than meets the eye.
I am here to tell you.
Just my instincts on this.
Nothing more.
We'll be right back.
All right.
Apparently, the John Roberts suggesting Harriet Myers, the Supreme Court story, was in this book about Bush that this Washington Post or some New York Times reporter, the excerpts have been leaked.
At least my brother is telling me that he thinks he read or heard a report on that.
Farmers are mulling, replacing illegal workers with robots out in California.
Thought they said they couldn't do that.
Isn't it amazing what the mother of necessity will get done?
Have a great day.
▲
Export Selection