All Episodes
Previous Next
June 18, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:31
June 18, 2008, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Fast as three hours in media.
We've only got an hour left here, folks.
We have some windfall profit time outbreaks in there, but we're gonna We're gonna make the most of it here.
I'm gonna speak fast.
You gotta listen fast.
Rush Limbaugh, EIB network.
I'll be off tomorrow.
Tomorrow we have uh Mark Davis in from Dallas and Jason Lewis on Friday.
I will be back Monday.
Here's the phone number.
800 282882.
The email address is L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
Here is a story that illustrates.
What is it illustrate?
It illustrates how the drive-by media, and who is this?
Well, I don't know who wrote this.
Live science, I don't know what the I don't know what the website is here.
I'm hoping it's AP, but I don't recognize the author's name.
But this is a classic example of a nature story.
A global warming story that is designed to instill fear and to promulgate the notion here that, man, we humans, we're just messing everything up.
We are causing so much damage.
Headline of the story, jellyfish outbreaks, a sign of nature out of sink.
The dramatic proliferation of jellyfish in oceans around the world, driven by overfishing and climate change is a sure sign.
Ecosystems are out of kilter, warn experts.
Jellyfish are an excellent bellwether for the environment, explains Jack Will and Goy of the Oceanographic Institute of Paris.
The more jellyfish, the stronger the signal that something is changed.
I am about, ladies and gentlemen, to share with you a profundity.
Nature.
Jelly break or jellyfish outbreaks a sign of nature out of sync.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is impossible.
It is physically, geophysically, ontologically, metaphysically, intellectually impossible for nature to be out of sync.
Nature is by definition natural.
There cannot be anything out of sync in nature.
We're talking the mother nature type.
I know I can hear you shouting at your radios, you're wrong, Rush.
You're wrong, you're wrong.
No, you are, if you're shouting at me.
Human beings can become out of sync.
But even then, who's to say who's out of sync?
Are we not measuring all this by our own observations?
And therefore our own statistical analysis.
You see, only by virtue of our perception can nature be said to be out of sync.
We observe, we see things that's whoa, I haven't seen this before, but we have.
I dare say there's probably nothing happening in the climate or within nature that has not happened before.
And therefore, how can it be out of sync?
Only by virtue of our perception can nature be said to be out of sync.
So we sp we spot a lot more jellyfish out there.
Ooh, ooh!
Global warming!
Global warming.
We're overfishing.
Nope.
Nope, that's our perception.
But Rush, but Rush, we're causing it.
We're causing no, we're we're part of nature too, folks.
And you see, this is the key.
We are not innocent bystanders.
We are not irrelevant here.
Our existence on this planet is every bit a part of nature as this stupid jellyfish.
We in South Florida are having an iguana infestation.
Little buggers are just popping up everywhere.
They're eating people's gardens.
I happen to love lizards.
I think they're cute as hell.
These things, though, they eat, they don't eat insects.
I love the little, you know, the Anolas and the geckos that their little buddies eat the insects.
But these things are running around.
People um, you know, they they stall away on ships coming up from the Caribbean.
They're sold as pets, then they get too big, and the pet Owners and I don't want this damn lizard running around.
They don't like to be petted.
And they don't like to be picked up and held very much.
So people just throw them away.
Well, they start they start reproducing out there left and right.
Is that nature out of sync?
But Rush, but Rush, there's never been this many Iguanas here before.
How do we know?
There haven't been any in our lifetime or in our recorded history.
Well, how do we know?
But what's to say them coming here is not natural?
It's a perfect climate for the damn things.
Perfectly natural for them to exist here, otherwise they couldn't exist here.
I'm not trying to make too big a deal out of this.
What I'm saying is we are not destroyers.
We are not predators.
We are not the people responsible for destroying the environment or the planet because we can't.
We are part of it.
No more than a beaver destroys a forest by chopping down trees and building a dam.
Why don't we get on a beaver?
Get mad at the beaver.
I mean, for crying out loud.
This it's just, it's so simple, it yet it sounds so profound.
And it is.
Nature, by definition, is natural.
So if there are more jellyfish running around out there, tell these Jacques Cousteau types just to be quiet.
I folks, I don't know about you.
As a human being, I'm getting fed up being blamed for every damn thing that's good in the country and everything, damn thing in the world, too, and everything that's bad.
You realize we humans are the only ones that destroy things?
We're the only ones that destroy the planet and the climate.
Everything else is pristine and lovely and wonderful, but we're just debris.
We're human debris, soiling the pristine nature of the planet.
I want to play an audio soundbite from bin Laden, the last uh soundbite from bin Laden on his campaign plane yesterday.
Uh, he's addressing remarks that he had previously made about Club Gitmo.
Let's talk specifically about my statement around Guantanamo.
The question is whether or not, as the Supreme Court said, people who are being held have a chance to at least suggest that, hey, you've got the wrong guy, or I shouldn't be here.
It's not a question of whether or not they're freed.
And the simple point that I was making, which I will continue to make throughout this campaign, is that we can abide by due process and abide by basic concepts of rule of law and still crack down on terrorists.
The fact that you are allowing habeas does not necessitate that you are suddenly putting terrorists in a full U.S. trial court.
That's not those two things aren't equivalent.
Does anybody have any idea what he said there?
Again, illustrating my point, get this guy off the teleprompter or without some prepared notes, and he just he's wandering aimlessly for syllabic uh combinations that'll equal a cogent salient thought.
I think the last thing that he said here is really what he was angling at trying to say.
Just because you're allowing habeas corpus doesn't necessitate that you're suddenly putting terrorists in a full U.S. trail court.
Oh, it doesn't?
Well, then why are we gonna have to take him out of club gitmo, sir?
And why are we gonna have to bring him to the U.S. court system and grant them lawyers?
You don't think those lawyers are going to go straight to court?
And when they go straight to court with habeas corpus, doesn't it mean, Senator, that they are presumed innocent?
I often don't say these kinds of things to you people, but I'm really proud of this point.
This thing that just popped into my I I really do think this is a good point.
How in the world can everybody in the world in our country, the Democrats, Republicans, have been, you know, dumping on Bush because we haven't killed Obama.
We haven't found him, we haven't wiped him out, we haven't gotten him yet.
War on terror is a failure.
Same people now want him to have habeas corpus bring him into the U.S. court system, bring him into a courtroom where he's presumed innocent.
Somebody needs to ask Obama.
If he if he is brought to a court, is he presumed innocent, Senator?
And then what if some slick lawyer gets him off?
What if he's found innocent by a jury have his peers New York?
Which wouldn't be too hard to find.
Then what do we do?
We gotta release him.
And then comes the civil suit, Senator Obama.
Can you then see Obama?
I'm sorry, Osama suing the United States at a civil trial for damage to his reputation.
We have indicted him since 1998.
We haven't stopped engaging in terrorist acts.
Claire McCaskill, Obama supporter on uh Joe Scarborough's show today on MSNBC.
The question came from uh Mika uh Zuzinski.
I've been so outnumbered this morning in one of these things on your checklist, and that's restore America's credibility in the world.
You know, the idea that a simple civil habeas corpus is somehow gonna open up our national security or make us unsafe is so counterintuitive as an American.
It's almost offensive to me.
But the credibility issue.
The credibility issues.
That's why we have to restore.
That's why the Supreme Court did the right thing.
Credibility issue.
Okay, then the the question what if he's found innocent?
This habeas corpus business, both Senator McCaskill and Senator Obama, I'm telling you, they're gonna be freed from Club Gittman.
We're gonna close it down.
I mean, they're gonna have to brought to the U.S. If they've got constitutional rights for crying out loud, they've got U.S. constitutional rights, and they can go get a lawyer and they can go to a U.S. court and they can do so under the presumption of innocence.
Shall we allow that?
Is that what we want?
Is that what you want?
You know, this Supreme Court ruling was not all that definitive is a lot of area for expansion interpretation.
So all you Obama supporters and Senator Obama yourself, you need to ask your question.
Ask yourselves the question.
What if Obama's found innocent?
He's brought in and presumed innocent, is he not?
Innocent until proved guilty.
If there's a trial.
What if he gets off on some technicality?
The evidence is not sufficient to meet the criminal standard in a U.S. court with an ACLU type lawyer.
He's presumed innocent in court, right?
Has to be.
I mean, he got constitutional rights.
He's presumed innocent.
So somebody needs to ask Obama two questions.
Senator, if we capture Osama and we put him on trial, do you believe he should be assumed after he's been indicted, Senator?
Don't give me this rigmarole that habeas corpus does not mean jury trials.
He is under U.S. indictment.
Ergo get brought to trial.
If he is brought to trial, do you believe, Senator Obama, that Osama bin Laden should be assumed innocent?
That is a damn good question.
And then Senator Obama, if you think he is presumed innocent, then why in hell are you and your party defining victory in the war on terror by saying it isn't overhidden one until Obama is killed?
Well, the Barack Obama campaign is denying that Michelle My Bell Obama has gone or will undergo a makeover.
They're now denying this.
We have pretty well shut down pretty quickly.
Uh we and probably by Michelle My Bell Obama herself.
But we'll have uh audio soundbites from Michelle My Bell Obama on the view here coming up.
But I still have a lot of people who've been waiting for almost the whole program.
One of them is uh Robert in Hickory, North Carolina.
Robert, thank you for waiting and welcome to the program.
Hey, thank you, Rush.
Dittoes, you're the best.
Appreciate that, sir.
Thank you.
Well, I am just mad as I could be when I was listening to Bush's press conference this morning.
He waited for the entire eight years of his term until the election cycle started to do what was right.
He put the party above what was right for the people.
Just another reason that I'm just ticked off at the Republicans.
Uh better late than never, though, and it's right in the middle of a presidential campaign.
I mean, the timing's not bad.
Well, by the way, he has an election.
He's been pushing for and war his whole term.
He's been pushing for drilling in and war his whole term.
Outer continental shelf, no.
But and war, yes.
But he's trying to hold Congress's feet to the fire now.
Why didn't he do this two years ago?
He knows Congress isn't gonna do it.
This is the introduction of the issue as a campaign issue.
Saying he should have done it a year ago is like me saying I started a diet yesterday.
Started a diet two months ago and I've lost 30 pounds.
I should have done this a year ago.
I didn't do it a year ago.
I did it then.
Well, that's just another reason I'm mad at him.
There's no leadership.
Well, you ha y there hasn't been any conservative leadership.
Yes, there hasn't been any elected conservative leadership.
There have been plenty of leadership on the war on terror.
There's been leadership on such things as the Plan B uh Medicare new entitlement.
Well, you can wrap this oil thing right around security.
There's been leadership on national security, but on this one look at he's leaving Congress out of this.
This this is about McCain Obama.
And it's about the Democrats versus Republicans.
Bringing it up now, and remember, look at every there's there's a reason for things.
I know you're you're a lot of people disappointed in Bush, but there's a tipping point here, and that tipping point is four dollar a gallon gasoline and an outraged public.
So there there are there are a lot of factors here that have changed since uh all this term.
I agree with you, if we would have had somebody that had been pushing these buttons for all of these years, just like we did in tax cuts, fine, but we didn't, but we got it now.
We've got it in the presidential campaign.
It is a tremendous way to contrast today's Democrats versus the rest of America.
It's it's better late than never, I always believe.
Here's Kirk.
Kirk in San Diego.
Nice to have you, sir, on the EIB network.
Second time called Ditto's, Rush.
Thank you, sir.
You said earlier that it it sounds so profound and yet it's so simple.
And the reason why it's so profound is first because you're right, and second because it's so rarely said.
You hit a home run earlier, Rush.
You did something that McCain campaign could not do.
You convinced me to vote for McCain because of the convoluted logic coming out of Obama and Obama's campaign.
This is the man who said that he would drop a nuclear bomb on Pakistan, our ally, if it turned out that Osama bin Laden was hiding there.
But now his campaign is saying that just because of a Supreme Court ruling, which frankly I think is wrong, that if we had Osama bin Laden, we brought him here for trial, that they that he would be entitled to the same rights as as American citizens.
And the brilliant point that you made that he has to be presumed innocent.
This is so asinine, and you've now energized me with this brilliant observation that nobody else is doing.
You've energized me now where I I was gonna wait until election day to decide whether or not I was too busy to vote, and now I'm going to vote, and it's going to be for McCain.
Well, that's fabulous.
I that's nice of you to say, and I I I really appreciate it, but I and I'm not trying to be a spoil sport here.
I just want you to be honest.
Are you gonna vote against Obama or for McCain?
I I gotta be honest with you.
I'm voting against Obama.
I I have felt that this man is a danger to the country, and I mean this in all sincerity.
I when when it was the Democratic primary and the brilliance of Operation Chaos, I I I was like, you know what?
I almost hoped that Hillary would be the nominee, because to be honest with you, I was kind of wanting to vote for Hillary because I felt that the Clintons was the evil that we knew.
I do not trust McCain.
I don't like him on a lot of issues.
But there's one issue that I absolutely trust them on, and it's this issue of the war on terror.
And I want issue that Barack Obama is totally dangerous on.
I think he would ruin our economy, but I'm I'm convinced that he would be very, very bad for our national defense.
Yes.
Regardless of the reason, uh whether it's actually his thoughts or the thoughts of others that he has been told to articulate.
I'm sure he probably doesn't disagree with many Democrats and liberals on this stuff anyway, but um I know that's that's the thing.
Plus, you know, tax cuts in the economy, uh those are those are things we know Obama's gonna raise taxes.
We know he's gonna cut back on energy supplies.
We know that he is gonna expand the federal government's entitlement.
We know he's gonna raise the capital gains tax.
We know he's gonna raise social security taxes.
We know he's gonna take policies that are gonna result in people losing jobs and income.
Uh it just but the the other the other the two questions.
Okay, if he's brought to court, if if Osama bin Laden's brought to court and got to be presumed innocent, and what if he you know what what if he pleads insanity?
And a New York jury says he'd have to be insane to do what he did.
Yes, not guilty by reason of insanity, still go to prison, perhaps.
So he won't do that, but Okay, so he gets the presumption of innocence, and yet at the same time, you're right, Obama was th threatening a nuke Pakistan if they didn't give us uh bin Laden when we found him.
So how do you juxtapose the two?
What it illustrates is the folly of trying to impose the U.S. criminal justice system on top of the prosecution of a war against enemies trying to kill us.
A man, a living legend, a way of life, an American institution, a national treasure, a prophet, a Nobel Peace Prize nominee.
They can never take that away from me.
The man who runs the country, you know it, and I know it, Rush Limbaugh.
And now back to uh Frank in Richmond, Virginia on the phones.
Frank, welcome, sir.
Rush megadiddos.
Uh in the process of comparing the military approach to Mr. Bin Laden and friends with the civilian, you're missing all of the other constitutional rights that the Supreme Court might be expected to give, such as not only the presumption of innocence, but freedom from pretrial publicity and an impartial jury and an impartial judge.
Where are you going to find an impartial judge in the federal or state legal system in New York?
Where are you going to find a jury?
Now wait a second.
What wait, wait a second.
I what do you mean an impartial judge?
Do you mean all the judges in New York are going to see him as a victim and uh be predisposed to his acquittal?
The problem is that the judges in New York are tainted by personal exposure.
They're bound, every one of them is bound to know somebody who was killed on 911.
Yeah, but they all blame Bush.
Well, they can blame Bush on one hand and they can they can make the connection on the other.
But they can recuse themselves, and then the judges outside the area could go even farther and say, I can't hear this case, I'm afraid to.
I mean, that was one of the one of the exciting problems they had in Columbia during the drug business when they first started trying to get a handle on it.
The judges were murdered systematically, and and and new judges had to step up to hear the case.
Well, here they the judges would be rightly concerned about their security for the rest of their lives.
And you know, how about the jurors?
Would you sit on the jury and let your name be leaked or uh not just you know whether your name was leaked to the press or not, but this is sure.
Look, it you're making some great points here.
I understand that, but this has happened.
We did have judges, we did have lawyers, prosecutors, and defense counsel.
We had juries in the 1990s what would the trial of the 1993 gang, uh Sheikh uh Omar Abdel Rahman who blew up the World Trade Center.
So he was convicted.
He was convicted, he's in jail right now.
So it's been done.
It's been done, but Omar, you know, what are Mr. Rachman, the blind sheikh, is hardly the worldwide notorious most wanted man in the world.
He's just another Islamic fascist thug.
Osama bin Laden is the kingpin of the whole scene.
Now, I understand this, and I'm I'm I'm just playing devil's advocate here with you for I know one of the lawyers that prosecuted uh Rahman, and he got countless death threats.
Uh as did Pat Fitzgerald, who was the uh the U.S. attorney lead lead, not the U.S. attorney, but he was the lead prosecutor in the case.
Judge did too.
Uh but look, I I I get your point.
Let's go back to the beginning here because all of that is it's not known whether it'll go that far, but if it does, your points are are well taken and very and very wise.
I also I went to law school thirty years ago to find out about that.
All right.
Then well, then since you went to law school, then you you'll know this better than I. The ruling of the Supreme Court right now is vague.
All it says is that these people who have been held without being charged have a right to know with what they're being charged.
That was the only issue before them at that point.
Yes, but I know they're not.
The way they rule today on that issue gives guidance to prospective appeals in the future on the other rules.
Well I know they would be very happy, you know, all they've got to I mean they've given cert on on every issue that's been brought to them on the war on terror.
They had the authority to say we don't want to hear it and it would have passed.
But they have they have not denied Sir Surari or or or a hearing on any issue that's been brought to them on the war on terror.
They have systematically defined the Constitution far broader than than than anybody not in the Supreme Court could imagine.
And they put us you know in great harm no question about it.
This could lead to the memandizing of these terror suspects.
And if they're not mirandized then any any uh any information that's obtained from them is inadmissible if you don't have admissible evidence to present to an impartial jury by a competent prosecutor with a competent defense you can't have a valid conviction.
Precisely it's also possible it's also possible the uh quote unquote arresting soldiers would have to be brought to trial to remember under what circumstances did you capture this prisoner and on a what basis did you deny him the rights of innocence as presumed by the U.S. Constable it could be a total circus and how do you keep him available as a witness for ten years while you get the case to trial in the first place well you probably start the draft and then you because you got to replace the soldiers
you're gonna have in court it's absurd the whole thing's absurd and and and this is this is why you asked the basic question all this stems from the presumption of innocence that they would have as as uh being in possession of U.S. constitutional rights and yet the same is in the case of bin Laden at the same time we have people who say yeah let's capture him bring him here and give him the same ruling of habeas corpus that the Supreme Court decided then that brings in the presumption of innocence at the same time we are having uh we've got military teams trying to kill
a guy and then what does it do to other people who are not citizens of the United States illegal aliens now have every constitutional right or or stand to have every constitutional right that that that a valid citizen has you mean if we if wait wait wait wait if we grant these rights as the Supreme Court has to a an unlawful enemy combatant a terrorist.
Yeah.
Are you saying the illegal immigration population say hey what about us?
That's right because they are less obnoxious they are less of a threat they are less offensive to the to the people who are legally here than the terrorists.
The terrorists are trying to kill everybody they don't care who they kill.
But an illegal alien allegedly is just here to try to find a better life and you know they're there's good things and bad things to be said about them.
But there are no good things to be said about the terrorists and yet they're getting the best treatment you can give.
So why not give the same treatment to other illegal people or I mean you know not even illegal aliens.
That is to say that that a citizen of another country for some reason is charged with a crime in the United States he's he he's just become a U.S. citizen for all purposes united no it's worse it's worse than that it's worse than that he doesn't have to be charged in order to have these rights.
That's right he all is he's he's he's he has a he has a right to be charged but he doesn't have to be that's all he gets the full package you know just by sitting there just by killing Americans he gets the full package.
Uh-huh I know it's uh it's terribly perverted and most people are puzzled here Frank they don't know what they can do about it they don't know what constitutional recourse there is.
Constitutional recourse is very simple replace the Democrats in Congress and change the, you know, make the Constitution very clear.
Congress controls the jurisdiction of the entire federal court system.
I know that the that but but they had a law and the Supreme Court just overruled the congressional law signed by the president.
They made Congress can turn around and overruled the Supreme Court the same way they try they they they they literally packed the court back during Roosevelt's term because the Supreme Court wouldn't play ball in in in the New Deal business.
Roosevelt offered to uh raise the number of Supreme Court judges to fifteen in order to over outnumber the judges that were standing in his way.
And and you know, there's no constitutional limit on nine judges.
It's just how many more do you negotiate nomination and confirmation.
Okay, but since we have a Democrat majority Congress, that remedy isn't gonna happen.
They are not gonna go back and try to overrule this court.
They love the ruling.
So the constitutional remedy, quote unquote, that's most available is a Republican majority in the Senate with a Republican president conservative who is going to appoint proper people when there are vacancies.
I mean, your your your your prescription is is valid, don't misunderstand.
I'm just saying the circumstances now with the Democrats in charge of everything.
Uh it's uh it's not gonna happen.
Uh Frank, I could talk to you for the rest of the program, but I gotta go, and I've got a got a couple things here to do before I before I get out here, but thank you uh so much for the call.
I keep getting emails from people who keep saying, Rush, when is the next Renee tankless water heater mention gonna come up?
What is it happening?
People love these mentions of the Renee Tankless Water Heater.
So I I I've got one for you, in fact.
Uh as you know, the North Carolina mistress was highly persuaded by my brilliant references and commercials for Renee Tankless Water Heaters.
She had his big giant tank and it was standing in the way of a kitchen remodel project that she wanted.
And of course, the thing was old and it was uh it was unreliable.
If she had the dishwasher going uh and a washing machine, uh she couldn't possibly take a shower.
So she decided to look into it.
And they brought it out and they put it in, and it's done everything as advertised.
And she sent me a note, I think it was last night or the day before.
It's always somebody's testimony, because she likes my mentioning her.
So she sends me this note saying it worked, it worked.
I came in from the garden, I was hot and sweaty, it's been really hot here.
I went out and walked.
I was listening to my books on my iPhone, and I kind of wanted to take a shower, but the dishwasher was going and a washing machine, and I thought I gotta wait because I was so accustomed to my old days with the worthless tank.
She said, I'm gonna try it.
I'm gonna see if it really works.
Got in the shower, turned it on hot water instantly, while a washing machine and the dishwasher were going at the same time.
If you have a regular water heater that's older than seven years old, it's on its last legs, and you're wasting a lot of money heating water that you're never gonna use.
That'll never happen with a Renee tankless water heater.
Not only saves energy and money, it can't burst, it can't blow up on you, and it'll last over twenty years, and it'll never ever run out of hot water.
See how it works at A. Uh uh uh uh forever hotwater.com.
Getting it confused with Allen Brothers.
Forever hotwater dot com.
See how it works, see how much you can save every month.
Okay, let me let me clarify here after after the call uh we just hung up with Frank the uh the lawyer.
What I'm what I'm trying to do here on this uh Osama bin Laden and and the Obama camp and the whole interpretation of the Supreme Court decision.
Just trying to point out the illogic of Obama's position, of the Supreme Court's position, and of the position of uh of all those who insist that fighting a war in the courtrooms is logical or even acceptable.
Uh the the concept is simple.
Out of one side of his mouth, Obama says we need to kill Osama because for this war to be won, that's the definition.
Out of the other side of his mouth, he says if we capture Obama, he needs to be treated as innocent until proven guilty.
Obama gets away with applying military and civilian standards to the same thing, and people go, Oh, he's so brilliant.
So, so smart.
Countrywide six.
Christopher Dodd said he and his wife knew that countrywide Inc.
was treating them as VIP customers When they refinanced mortgages on two homes in 2003, but that it didn't cross his mind he was getting a perk from the country.
What does VIP mean?
VIP is a perk.
Here is Senator Dodd on Capitol Hill yesterday.
I would never, ever, ever be a part of that.
That there was a VIP section we were in, but we assumption was no one ever said to us you're going to get some special treatment.
That was a courtesy.
VIP, it's you do get special treatment.
VIP.
Come on, Senator.
This is this is like Bob Torricelli.
Never in my life.
Never.
Three watches, $10,000 in cash, have ever accepted anything.
Two trips to the Bahamas.
I resent this allegation of my character.
Blah, blah.
What is VIP?
These guys.
And then to come back with legislation that benefits and bails out countrywide and other people.
Here's more Dodd.
I never talked to him about my mortgages.
No, I never would.
I mean, the idea you'd call a CEO of a bank when you got a mortgage to try and work something out, I just wouldn't do.
Why not?
A lot of other people do.
Kent Conrad did.
Richard Holbrook did.
There are six of you that did.
Donna Shalela did.
And the point is, all of you people have enough money.
This should not.
Aren't you all don't we always hear that we can raise taxes on the rich because they have more than they need?
And they got taxes, didn't Clinton's like say they got tax cuts they didn't even ask for.
These people were looking for a deal.
The people that get freebies in their lives are the most greedy people you have ever met.
Folks, trust me on this.
I've seen it.
The people who've grown up and have been given things, stars, athletes, or whatever, they expect everything is going to be given to them.
That's how business was done.
That's just what they learn.
It's what they know.
This is a very powerful position.
Of course you call a CEO.
And maybe he didn't call CEO.
Maybe a CEO called him.
He's chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.
You telling me, I'm going to tell you, if I went out to get a mortgage and I was getting a deal, I would know it.
I'm you're told what the rate is.
And I guarantee them to you, the bank is going to tell.
By the way, we're going to knock a little off of this here for you, Mr. Limbaugh, because we enjoy your business.
Really?
Yeah, we're going to wave closing costs, so we're going to wave a point here off the interest.
Really?
And then you walk out of there and you just don't even know it.
Culture of corruption.
But really, the funny thing is here that these are people that are independently wealthy.
Well, they may not be independently wealthy, but Richard Holbrook.
He's one of these guys that got one of these things, and so did Donna Shalela.
And uh the culture of greed piece in the American Spectator today by the columnist called the Prowler.
Quotes an ethics aid.
You have to keep in mind that for folks like Shaleila and Holbrook, there's nothing wrong with what they did.
They just got a sweet deal that the great unwashed probably couldn't get.
It's just interesting to see all these people who financially are well off by any standard getting caught up in something totally unnecessary.
Nuts and it's not.
This is my whole point.
The rich and the powerful always demand a deal.
That's what rich and power is all about.
They always want something that's cut off.
They want a better deal than the great unwashed.
They think they're entitled to it for crying out loud.
This makes total sense.
They're all Democrats, phony baloney, plastic banana, good time rock and rollers, who tell us, everybody else, you don't, you you shouldn't object to a tax increase.
You don't, you've got more than you need.
Seems like they never do, do they?
Okay, folks, great being with you today.
It's always a fun pleasure.
Uh we've got Mark Davis tomorrow, Jason Lewis on Friday.
I'll be back on Monday.
And I look forward to it, even now.
▲
Export Selection