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
Fastest 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 going to make the most of it here.
I'm going to speak fast.
You've got to listen fast.
Rush Limbaugh, EIB Network.
I'll be off tomorrow.
Tomorrow we have Mark Davis in from Dallas and Jason Lewis on Friday.
I will be back Monday.
Here's the phone number: 800-282-2882.
The email address is El Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
Here is a story that illustrates.
What does 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 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 sync.
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 Jacqueline Goy of the Oceanographic Institute of Paris.
The more jellyfish, the stronger the signal that something has changed.
I am about, ladies and gentlemen, to share with you a profundity.
Nature.
Jellybreak, 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, 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 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.
No, 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, is 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 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, you know, they stow away on ships coming up from the Caribbean.
They're sold as pets.
Then they get too big, and the pet owners says, I don't want this damn lizard running around.
They don't like to be petted.
They don't like to be picked up and held very much.
So people just throw them away.
Well, 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?
They haven't been any in our lifetime or in our recorded history.
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, 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 Jacousteau types just to be quiet.
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 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, we, 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 soundbite from bin Laden, on his campaign plane yesterday.
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 without some prepared notes, and he just wandering aimlessly for syllabic 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. trial.
Oh, it doesn't?
Well, then why are we going to have to take him out of Club Gitmo, sir?
And why are we going to 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 really do think this is a good point.
How in the world can everybody in the world in our country, Democrats, Republicans, have been 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 is brought to a court, is he presumed innocent, Senator?
And what if some slick lawyer gets him off?
What if he's found innocent by a jury of his peers in New York?
Which wouldn't be too hard to find.
Then what do we do?
We've got to 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've indicted him since 1998.
We haven't stopped engaging in terrorist acts.
Claire McCaskill, Obama supporter on Joe Scarborough's show today on MSNBC, the question came from Mika Bzezinski.
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 going to 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 question, what if he's found innocent?
This habeas corpus business, both Senator McCaskill and Senator Obama, I'm telling you, they're going to be freed from Club Gittman.
We're going to close them down.
I mean, they're going to have to be 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 you want?
Is that what you want?
You know, this Supreme Court ruling was not all that definitive.
There's a lot of area for expansion interpretation.
So all you Obama supporters and Senator Obama yourself, you need to ask your question.
Ask yourselves a question.
What if Obama is 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's 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?
He's been indicted, Senator.
Don't give me this rhythm or roll 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 Mybel Obama has gone or will undergo a makeover.
They're now denying this.
We have pretty well shut down pretty quickly, probably by Michelle Mybel Obama herself.
But we'll have audio sound by Michelle Mybel Obama on the view here coming up.
But I still have a lot of people who have been waiting for almost the whole program.
One of them is Robert in Hickory, North Carolina.
Robert, thank you for waiting, and welcome to the program.
Hey, thank you, Rush.
Dittos, 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.
Better late than ever, 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?
No, he knows Congress isn't going to 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.
I 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, 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 Medicare new entitlement.
Well, you can wrap this oil thing right around national security.
There's been leadership on national security, but on this one, look at he's leaving Congress out of this.
This is about McCain Obama.
It's about the Democrats versus Republicans.
Bringing it up now.
And remember, look at every, there's a reason for things.
I know you're a lot of people disappointed in Bush, but there's a tipping point here.
And that tipping point is $4 a gallon gasoline and an outraged public.
So there are a lot of factors here that have changed since all this.
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 fight, 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 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 caller dittos, Rush.
Thank you, sir.
You said earlier that 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 he would be entitled to the same rights 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 was going to 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, fabulous.
That's nice of you to say, and I really appreciate it.
And I'm not trying to be a spoil sport here.
I just want you to be honest.
Are you going to vote against Obama or for McCain?
I've got to be honest with you.
I'm voting against Obama.
I have felt that this man is a danger to the country.
And I mean this in all sincerity.
When it was the Democratic primary and the brilliance of Operation Chaos, 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 him on, and it's this issue of the war on terror.
And one issue that Barack Obama is totally dangerous on.
I think he would ruin our economy, but I'm convinced that he would be very, very bad for our national defense.
Yes, regardless of the reason, 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 I know that's the thing.
Plus, tax cuts and the economy, those are things.
We know Obama's going to raise taxes.
We know he's going to cut back on energy supplies.
We know that he is going to expand the federal government's entitlement.
We know he's going to raise the capital gains tax.
We know he's going to raise social security taxes.
We know he's going to take policies that are going to result in people losing jobs and income.
But the two questions, okay, if he's brought to court, if Osama bin Laden's brought to court and got to be presumed innocent, 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.
Okay, so he gets the presumption of innocence.
And yet at the same time, you're right.
Obama was threatening a new Pakistan if they didn't give us 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 Frank in Richmond, Virginia, on the phones.
Frank, welcome, sir.
Rush, mega dittos.
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.
Wait, wait a second.
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 be predisposed to his acquittal?
The problem is that the judges in New York are tainted by personal exposure.
Every one of them is bound to know somebody who was killed on 9-11.
Yeah, but they all blame Bush.
Well, they can blame Bush on one hand, and 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 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 new judges had to step up to hear the case.
Well, here, 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 not just whether your name was leaked to the press or not?
Look, you're making some great points here.
I understand it, but this has happened.
We did have judges.
We did have lawyers, prosecutors, and defense counsel.
We had juries in the 1990 trial of the 1993 gang, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, who blew up the World Trade Center.
And he was convicted.
He's convicted.
He's in jail right now.
So it's been done.
It's been done, but Omar Ahmad, you know, whatever, Mr. Rahman, 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 just playing devil's advocate here with you.
I know one of the lawyers that prosecuted Rahman, and he got countless death threats, as did Pat Fitzgerald, who was the U.S. Attorney's, not the U.S. Attorney, but he was the lead prosecutor in the case.
Judge did too.
But look, I get your point.
Let's go back to the beginning here because all of that is not known whether it'll go that far.
But if it does, your points are well taken and very wise.
Also, I went to law school 30 years ago to find out about that.
All right.
Well, then, since you went to law school, then 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 the way they rule today on that issue gives guidance to prospective appeals in the future on the other rules.
They would be very happy.
You know, all they've got to, I mean, they've given cert 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 not denied certiari 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 anybody not in the Supreme Court could imagine.
And they put us in great harm.
No question about it.
This could lead to the mirandizing of these terror suspects.
And if they're not mirandized, then 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 the quote-unquote arresting soldiers would have to be brought to trial to remember.
Under what circumstances did you capture this prisoner?
And under what basis did you deny him the rights of innocence as presumed by the U.S. Constitution?
It could be a total circus.
And how do you keep him available as a witness for 10 years while you get the case to trial in the first place?
Well, you probably start the draft because you've got to replace the soldiers you're going to have in court.
It's absurd.
The whole thing's absurd.
And this is why you ask the basic question.
All this stems from the presumption of innocence that they would have as being in possession of U.S. constitutional rights.
And yet 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 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 stand to have every constitutional right that a valid citizen has.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
If we grant these rights, as the Supreme Court has, to an unlawful enemy combatant, a terrorist.
Yeah.
Are you saying the illegal immigration population says, hey, what about us?
That's right, because they are less obnoxious.
They are less of a threat.
They are less offensive 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, 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 a citizen of another country, for some reason, is charged with a crime in the United States.
He's just become a U.S. citizen for all the purposes of the country.
No, 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 has a right to be charged.
He doesn't have to be.
He gets the full package just by sitting there.
Just by killing Americans.
He gets the full package.
Uh-huh.
I know 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, but they had a law, and the Supreme Court just overruled the congressional law signed by the president.
And Congress can turn over the Supreme Court the same way they literally packed the court back during Roosevelt's term because the Supreme Court wouldn't play ball in the New Deal business.
Roosevelt offered to raise the number of Supreme Court judges to 15 in order to over outnumber the judges that were standing in his way.
And, you know, there's no constitutional limit on nine judges.
It's just how many more do you go through nomination and confirmation.
Okay, but since we have a Democrat-majority Congress, that remedy isn't going to happen.
They are not going to 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 prescription is valid.
Don't misunderstand.
I'm just saying the circumstances now with the Democrats in charge of everything, it's not going to happen.
Frank, I can talk to you for the rest of the program, but I got to go.
And I've got a couple of things here to do before I get out of here.
But thank you so much for the call.
I keep getting emails from people.
Keep saying, Rush, when is the next Renai tankless water heater mention going to come up?
When is it happening?
People love these mentions of the Renaissance tankless water heater.
So I've got one for you, in fact.
As you know, the North Carolina mistress was highly persuaded by my brilliant references and commercials for Renai Tankless Water Heaters.
She had this 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 unreliable.
And if she had the dishwasher going and a washing machine, 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 is advertised.
And she sent me a note, I think it was last night or the day before.
It's always sending these testimonies 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 in the washing machine.
And I thought I got to wait because I was so accustomed to my old days with the worthless tank.
She said, I'm going to try it.
I'm going to see if it really works.
Got in the shower, turned it hot water instantly while the 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 going to use.
That'll never happen with a Renaissance 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 20 years, and it'll never, ever run out of hot water.
See how it works at AforeHotWater.com.
Getting confused with Allen Brothers.
Foreverhotwater.com.
See how it works.
See how much you could save every month.
Okay, let me clarify here.
After the call, we just hung up on Frank, the lawyer.
What I'm trying to do here on this Osama bin Laden 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 all those who insist that fighting a war in the courtrooms is logical or even acceptable.
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.
He's 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, you do get special treatment.
VIP.
Come on, Senator.
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, 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 call a CEO of a bank, but 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 Shalala did.
And the point is, all of you people have enough money.
This should not.
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, it's just what they learn.
It's just 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.
You're told what the rate is.
And I guarantee I'm telling you, the bank is going to say, by the way, we're going to knock a little off of this here for you, Mr. Limboy, because we enjoy your business.
Really?
Yeah, we're going to waive closing costs.
We're going to waive 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 Shalala.
And the culture of greed piece in the American Spectator today by the columnist called The Prowler quotes an ethics aide.
You have to keep in mind that for folks like Shalala 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.
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 shouldn't object to a tax increase.
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.
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