All Episodes
Previous Next
April 7, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:49
April 7, 2009, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back, folks.
Great to have you with us, Rush Limbaugh on the cutting edge of societal evolution serving humanity simply by showing up.
Here's the telephone number if you want to be on the program today, folks.
800-282-2882 and the email address, Lrushbo at EIBNet.com.
Confidence among U.S. chief executive officers retreated in the first quarter to the lowest level in at least seven years, showing government efforts to stem the recession may take longer to renew their optimism.
How in the world does this stuff get written?
This is one of these surreal days.
Confidence among U.S. CEOs retreated in the first quarter.
It just happens to be the quarter in which President Obama was inaugurated to the lowest level in the last seven years, which would basically be the years since 9-11 showing government efforts to stem the recession may take longer to renew their optimism.
Now, I mean the knee-jerk reactionaries, how can you blame the CEOs?
But this is probably not why their confidence is down.
Their confidence is down because they're having to wear Kevlar vests.
Their confidence is down because they have been targeted by the United States government as the singular focus of evil.
I called your attention to the story in France from the first hour, over half, or at about half of the French population thinks that French bosses should be put in jail.
Or should be kidnapped.
I mean, there's a culture war, there's an economic war, a class envy war being waged, not in this country but around the world, led by President Obama.
CEOs are they are the uh are the focus of protests and bus tours at their homes if they happen to work for AIG.
This is a Bloomberg story, by the way, but I mean uh but it's actually the the survey information comes from the business round table, whose uh economic outlook index sank to minus five, the lowest level since the series began in 2002.
The gloomier outlook indicates that some chiefs, CEOs, aren't convinced the Obama administration's 787 billion dollar stimulus plan or the Fed's measures to pump trillions of dollars into the system will pay off.
No kidding.
The CEOs aren't convinced that the stimulus plan of the Fed's gonna work.
Why when this administration doesn't have anybody in it that's ever run a business, why would anybody be confident about this?
The only people who are confident in this are the people who want to see CEOs and bank presidents and whoever else punished.
Improving consumer confidence in demand, both in the U.S. and abroad, is key to jumpstarting the economy, said Harold McGraw, chairman of the group and chief executive officer of McGraw Hill Companies.
While recently implemented administration policies will take time to have an impact, they will have no imp they are a drag.
What's going to happen is the U.S. economy is going to recover despite all of this.
And then when the recovery happens, guess what's going to be given the credit?
The stimulus bill.
You wait, snurdly, don't sit there and poo-poo what I'm saying.
You know damn well better than to do that.
You know damn well you know it's gonna you yourself said the other day, the American people are industrious.
The entrepreneur spirit's still alive, and a lot of Americans are gonna find a way around this.
They always do.
They work harder, even if they have uh greater tax increases.
They'll work harder to make more money to stay even with it.
This is what happens.
And when that happens, the economy's gonna start slowing showing a slow uptick.
The the the business cycle's not over.
Obama claims that what he's done here has made sure that this what we're in now will never happen again.
Nobody can do that.
It's too big, it's too complex.
The government clearly can't do it.
Everything they get their hands on, they botch.
So the economy's gonna come back at some point.
Some sector, a couple sectors are gonna come back, and you know damn well the media is gonna credit the stimulus bill for it.
The media's gonna credit Obama policies.
Well, We can do what we can to stop it.
We can we can predict it and forewarn people, but it's not, I can't stop it.
I mean, it's gonna happen.
The media's gonna report it.
I mean, they that that's we last I were talking about the so-called good news in the housing market, which really isn't good news.
I mean, there's some good news out there, but as delinquencies continue to pile up, people don't pay their mortgage, you can't say the housing market's coming back.
You can say that some people are getting into the housing market because prices are cheaper now.
But overall, when people aren't paying their mortgages, you can't say that the industry is uh is healthy.
Yet the stories last week said the housing industry's coming back.
This is what's gonna happen.
You just need one or two little stories, pockets of uh good news from a couple sectors of the country, and the drive-by's are gonna go nuts with it.
Obama's policy is paying off.
So here comes here comes Bloomberg, CEO confidence in the first quarter, lowest in at least seven years, showing government efforts to stem the recession may take longer to we are being led to believe here that these CEOs are sitting out there twiddling their thumbs, waiting for government plans to bring the economy back.
And they're seeing eh's not happening real fast, so their confidence is not.
These are not people who have waited on anybody to make anything happen.
That's why they've become CEOs.
They're not sitting at sitting out there twiddling their thumbs.
Their lack of confidence is due to the fact that the government's trying to take over as much of what they run as possible, and they know that the government can't do it, and the government is not going to do it responsibly, and that's why there's a lack of confidence in the CEO world.
Of course, that's not going to be reported, but nevertheless, um can't blame them for being depressed.
Here's, by the way, here's that sound mite of Obama in uh Istanbul yesterday during a town hall meeting with students.
One of the great strengths of the United States is uh, although, as I mentioned, uh you know, we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation.
Uh we consider ourselves uh a nation of citizens who are uh bound by ideals and a set of values.
Really?
Okay, now I know a lot of people think that sounds good.
Uh we're not a Christian nation, we're not a Jewish nation, we're not a Muslim nation just like you.
Uh we are a nation uh we consider ourselves a nation of citizens bound by ideals and a set of values.
Well, okay, what ideals?
You gotta ask, what ideals and set of values does this nation consider itself bound by?
I would submit to the United States.
Not Turkey, I'm asking about the United States, he's talking about the United States.
We consider ourselves just like Turkey.
You can say that Turkey's not a Muslim state, although its government is.
He's trying to say we're not Christian or Jewish or Muslim, we're just we're we're people bound by ideals and a set of values.
We are what depends if you want to call the Constitution a ideals and a set of values, then okay.
But that is um that is not how I would describe the United States.
What ideals, whose ideals are we bound by?
If you listen to Obama, the ideals that he espoused on this trip to Europe are not those that are found in the Constitution of the United States.
Whose values?
When the people of Iowa uniformly reject gay marriage, but the Supreme Court of Iowa unanimously says, screw you, we're going to make it legal.
Whose set of values triumph here?
The values of a dictatorship, i.e.
a court, or the values of the Citizens.
What are these values that bind us?
Talk to the people of California when any number of their propositions are overturned by judges on the basis that they're either unconstitutional, the judge says the people don't know what they were doing.
Too stupid.
Whose values here bind us?
What ideals?
If you want to talk about the ideal of the concept of individual liberty and freedom, okay.
But that comes from the Constitution.
That's why we are an exceptional country.
And it's the one thing Obama wanted to attack.
There's nothing exceptional about America.
We're no different than you.
And in the strict sense of DNA, he's right.
Human being is a human being, no matter where the human being's born.
We're no better as human beings.
We aren't created superior to anybody else in the world.
What is it?
You can't deny the fact that this is the greatest nation on earth in less than 300 years.
We have become the most powerful, the richest, the most prosperous, the most generous, the most organized for good group of people in the history of the planet.
How did this happen?
With the same shared ideals and values of Turkey?
No.
With the same shared and valued ideals of Cuba?
No.
With the same shared values and ideals of China, of Russia, of France.
If we shared ideals and values identical to all these other places, we wouldn't be where we are and we wouldn't be who we are, but we are for a while longer who we are.
We are for a while longer what we are.
And I really believe, I mean, I believe this in the bottom of my heart, I think it does matter how you grow up.
I think it does matter who your mentors are.
I think it does matters, it does matter who your uh uh political influences are.
And there is no question that Obama's a product of his.
And as such, he views this nation as too large as a nation that deserves to be cut down to size.
He views himself as he views much of the people the rest of the world discriminated against, stomped on, bullied by the United States of America.
And it's his objective to tell the rest of the world those days are over.
We're not going to storm around and steal the world's resources to pollute and destroy the planet as we pursue a standard of living that none of the rest of you have and that we deny you, and that we I mean, he believes all this.
So he's gonna cut us down to size.
And he's doing it in his speeches, and he's in the process of doing it in his policies.
A quick time out, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network, the Limbaugh Institute, back after this.
And back we are at 800-282-2882.
Time to go to the phones.
People have been patiently waiting.
Oh, wait, what one thing before we do?
Interesting, interesting development in the uh Ted Stevens case.
A federal judge not only dismissed the corruption conviction against Stevens, he took the rare and serious step of opening a criminal investigation into prosecutors who mishandled the case.
U.S. District Judge Emmett Sullivan said, in nearly 25 years on the bench, I have never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I've seen in this case.
Now he didn't handle the Duke LaCrosse rape case.
But I mean, that's pretty bad.
This to do to call for a special prosecutor to investigate the Department of Justice prosecutors who mishandled this case is stunning.
Sullivan appointed the prosecutor to investigate a just depart to investigate Justice Department lawyers who repeatedly mishandled witnesses and withheld evidence from defense attorneys during the trial that ended with Stevens' conviction in October.
The article goes on to note that the special prosecutor has been put into place specifically because the judge does not have confidence in the Justice Department's ability to conduct an internal review of itself.
Whoa.
Whoa.
This is big because you know, in it in America, it's just always assumed that law enforcement never lies, that they never falsely charge people, that they never falsely convict people.
It's just they got too many things there would never whenever sources close to the investigation say X, everybody believes it.
This apparently was so over the top that the judge, I've never seen anything like this kind of misconduct, special prosecutor to investigate the Justice Department prosecutors who mishandled the case because he doesn't trust the DOJ to do its own internal review.
Gretchen in Long Beach, uh Mississippi.
It's great to have you on the program.
Uh welcome.
Hey, how are you, Ross?
Fine, thanks much.
Good, I'm doing fine.
Listen, uh, I just got back from Turkey, so I really am not quite sure what the president's talking about, but it was stressed very much to us on our tour and going around.
Everyone was very nice, you know, being out in the in the eastern part of Asia there, but they're very Muslim.
And they have no problem telling you, they stress that they are a Muslim country but secular.
And they stress secular because we were Western tourists.
Now, it's not like when you go to Israel or Egypt and there's a mosque, you know, every thirty feet.
But um, they say we are a Muslim country, we are over 90% Muslim.
They tolerate, I guess, as well as, you know, they can, uh, the Eastern Orthodox Church and other churches that are there.
But they are Muslim but secular, which is very important to them, and letting Westerners know that, yes, we're Muslim, but we're secular.
So kind of um disqualification, I don't know, they're trying to tone down their Muslim part of who they are in a way so that they don't scare us.
And I wasn't afraid.
I mean, it's a it's a beautiful country.
It's it's different.
I mean, when you travel, you expect to be it's gonna be different.
But they are very Muslim, and they let you know they're a Muslim.
And they're not really ashamed of it.
That's who they are.
I mean, they have a very long and rich history.
What are you reacting to here?
You said Obama's role.
Well, when Obama's stressing making a big deal how America isn't anything.
I mean, we're just all this uh not anything, but we don't have Judeo, we're not Christian, we're not this, we're not that.
Um he's wrong, number one, and I'm not sure.
Well, he may be wrong, but that's what he's founding father.
He may be wrong, but that's what he hopes to achieve.
Well, he can do that.
I'm surprised when he said citizen, he didn't say comrade.
I mean, I thought that might flip out.
I just thought that off the cuff.
But um the Turkish are very proud of their Muslim heritage.
And there's nothing wrong with it, but you know, they let you know that they're secular Muslims, which they want to let the West know that's different than the Iranians, the Iraqis, etc.
etc.
They uh the the you know the Turks they're in NATO.
They are uh ostensibly allies.
However, in the early days of the Iraq War, the uh the government of Turkey refused to allow U.S. special forces or any military deployments through Turkey into Northern Iraq, because they didn't want to choose sides in that way, even though they're uh they're members of NATO.
So they are uh they they they are an ally, but the this you know, Obama speaking to the you have to understand that his audience when he's making these speeches is to the people in that part of the world where he's speaking.
He knows the words are gonna be played back here in the United States of America.
But remember, he's around he's going around apologizing.
I think I don't care what the words he uses are.
He is going around, he's he says, I'm sorry for what the United States has done, I'm sorry for what it's been, I'm sorry for what the United States has said.
He is clearly going around the world with the assumption the United States is guilty and he's trying to buy goodwill for himself with all of these people by saying he understands that and agrees with them.
This is all about Obama.
This is not about Turkey.
It's not about France, it's not about the European Union.
It's not about any, or it's not about NATO.
It's not about the G twenty.
It's about Obama.
And Obama is a liberal, and liberals do think the United States is guilty By definition.
And they want to be respected by Europeans and others around the world who are considered more worldly because they have accents and they've been around longer than we have.
They have cultures older than ours.
This is all about Obama.
So he goes in and rips the United States.
All he's doing is trying to relate to what he thinks a majority of opinion wherever he's speaking is.
Now the job of the U.S. President on trips like this is to represent United States interests.
It's the job of the Secretary of State.
It's the job of any official emissary to any nation or group of nations where there is an organization in which we are a member, such as United Nations or NATO, or the G twenty or the G eight, or the G five, or whoever, whatever the hell these organizations are.
I would maintain to you that U.S. interests have not been represented here, that the President has not made the case for U.S. interests, but just the opposite.
For his own benefit, he has sought to tell the people wherever he's speaking that he agrees with them that their country, his country, the United States.
I don't think he's talking Kenya here.
United States is responsible for most of the problems in the world.
Back to the phones.
As we engage in more fun than a human being should be allowed to have, Rush Limbaugh to Auburn, Alabama.
Justin, I'm glad you called, sir.
Great to have you here.
Thank you, sir.
Major 24-7, dittos.
Thank you, sir.
That's uh means he's a uh a member at good standing at Rush Limbaugh.com, ladies and gentlemen, as you could be too.
Yes, sir.
What's up, Justin?
Well, um, I found I kind of found myself surprised that I disagree with you a little bit on the self-driving vehicles.
Um I I've I have a vision disability and was born with it, and and I was on Social Security disability for a while, and uh I decided to go back to work.
I wanted to contribute something, and I think the self-driving vehicles is a great idea in getting people like that back into the capitalist system.
I think it's a great capitalist idea getting people back into uh society and and and defending for the Well, it remains to be seen if it's a great capitalist idea, because we don't know if anybody's gonna buy them.
Well, you know, if if it comes out, I've I I might at least look into it, but you know, it from the perspective that the government would be watching.
You're gonna have to have you're gonna have to have a driver's license for this thing.
Okay.
And I don't know uh uh how severely impaired is your vision.
Well, I'm legally blind, it's effectively twenty two hundred.
Uh I you know, I I could kind of drive the seeing the signs and stuff that I have difficulty with, but you know, it would it would help in in and giving me reassurance to be able to get out on my own.
Yeah, I understand that you're you're now I want where have you well what have I missed?
Where have you read that somebody like you will be able to legally drive one of these things?
Well, you know, i there's been talk um via some of the vocational rehab that something like this has been being worked on.
You know, granted they they they have uh some of that via state and federal, but um they they've been talking that that's been in the works for a while.
I've been waiting for it for years, kind of curious to see you know if they actually are able to be successful.
Yeah, but I mean the the the practical reality is here, you are legally blind.
You're gonna have to rely on the promises that this thing is going to be able to avoid anything in its path.
Well, yes, you're basically going to rely on it to take you where you don't know you're going, where you can't see where you're going.
And you're going to have to rely on the fact that a speeding car somehow will miraculously miss this thing if it runs through an intersection or red light or what have you.
Now, where have you seen?
Because if they've got that technology, why don't they put it in the existing automobiles instead of waiting for this little wheelchair thing to come out?
Well, right.
And that's what I've been hoping for is more of that sort of line.
You know, if it came out for a suburban, yeah, I'd love to, I'd love to be able to use something like that, but you know, it's it's one of those elements.
I mean, I don't know I'm not a cold water kind of guy, but my inherent intelligence, guided by experience, says that any claim that any vehicle is going to, with foolproof performance, never get hit or will not hit anything else in a crowded urban setting, or anywhere for that.
I I uh I think I don't know where this comes from, but that's that's um that that technology does not exist.
If it did, it would already be in vehicles.
And by the way, I'll tell you let's just assume this is true.
Let's let's I I hate to be a pessimist, you know I'm not a pessimist, but I really I I really have a problem with people getting false hopes about things at the same time, like John Edwards saying, if only we elect John Kerry, then Christopher Reeve will walk again.
I mean, that was cruel.
There was no truth to it, and it was it was giving people false hope.
And that happened to be stem cell tech.
Oh, speaking of which, last week, I don't know that this has made it beyond the Oprah network.
But there was a guy on the Oprah show named Dr. Memet Oz, Memet, I don't know how he pronounces it, M-E-H-M-E-T is a regular guest on the Oprah show.
And apparently he's highly decorated, he's a cardiothoracic surgeon.
He's rated the 44th most influential scientist in the world by Time magazine.
He has advised McCain and Obama on American health care problems.
He's a very respected and accomplished physician.
And he was on the Oprah show last week with uh Michael J. Fox, and he was talking about stem cells, embryonic stem cells.
And he was holding a real live, well, not live, but he was holding a human brain.
And he was pricking it with a needle to show where various diseases in the brain are.
And he said something that caused the Oprah to react in sheer horror.
He said, Oprah, the stem cell debate, I think, is dead.
Because we cannot control stem cells.
He's meaning embryonic here.
And the reason Oprah got this horrified look on her face is because she understood the political ramifications of what her regular guest was saying.
He said, I think the stem cell debate is dead.
Yes, we can inject stem cells, but after that we can't control them.
They can become anything, including cancer.
And Oprah had her mouth open and this horrified look on her face.
She covered it up by saying he had a I forget the terminology that he used, but he had an alternative for stem cells.
And he said, we we might be looking at a cure for Parkinson's in single-digit years, nine years.
But it's not with stem cells.
And you can see Michael J. Fox sitting there going a little bit of disbelief, but Oprah's face was genuinely filled with horror.
As as she realized the political possibilities here, if uh, and this one of her favored constant guests.
So look, I I as you know, I don't like to be a pessimist about things, but this this notion that this new vehicle, this is what's wrong with all this.
Okay, so we've got this essentially you've got a wheelchair.
Here's a guy who's legally blind, is looking forward to this based on how it's been reported.
Now, folks, this is so tough for me.
Do any of you foresee the day when this thing's supposed to hit what, two or three years?
Do we foresee the day when a tiny little vehicle like this is introduced to normal everyday American state traffic, that there is technology that will prevent it from running into anything or prevent anything else running into it.
So much so that somebody legally blind could drive one.
Sorry, I I find that uh very difficult to believe.
But let's let's assume, for example, can we get real?
Let's assume that such technology exists.
And let us assume that people who make the technology, let's assume that it's in every car, say in New York City, in Manhattan.
And let us assume that this GPS technology will guide every car Without the driver having to drive it, it will drive itself.
That's what's being said here about the wheelchair with a motor.
And as it drives itself, it will miss pedestrians, it will miss other cars.
Everyone, every vehicle has this now.
Do you realize the chain reaction?
If just one car with such a device in it swerved to miss a pedestrian or a car, think of the chain reaction.
Whatever in downtown Manhattan, the car that swerved obviously is now in the path of another car.
That car would also have to swerve.
That car would have to swerve.
That car would have to do a U for there to be no collision would be impossible.
There would be a boomerang collision involving all these vehicles for six blocks.
This simply sometimes a single collision is preferred over a chain reaction collision.
The idea that there is a vehicle that's going to never ever get hit or won't hit anything.
All it takes is one vehicle to have this thing, and it's going to cause a chain reaction accident like you've never seen.
It'll make these interstate pile-ups look like sandboxes in a romper room.
And then and then imagine the lawsuits when the device doesn't work.
It may not again hit, but 13,000 other cars just did.
And pedestrians.
Mm-hmm.
I know people are trying people are trying to think I'm trying to throw cold water on the parade.
So let me again explain for those of you new to the program why and how these things happen.
I am a traditional literalist.
I don't dream about the impossible.
possible.
And I don't allow myself to live in a world where the impossible will be possible.
The earthly impossible will be possible.
I love and am devoted to the concept of individual freedom and liberty, which requires every individual to...
I'll use a liberal word, celebrate his or her individuality.
You cannot possibly be celebrating your individuality if you are going to buy into the notion that one of these little wheelchairs with a motor on it is the solution to anything.
Now, you may want one, and and it it may serve you well where you live, uh taking the dog for a walk.
You don't have to walk.
The dog can walk behind you, you can get in this thing, and you can go to the store and pick up a carton of milk, that's all it'll hold.
I mean, I get it if you want to, but please don't become a militant vegetarian like a veganazi and start forcing everybody else into these things.
Under some false premise that it's going to save the world or save the planet or reorder our energy usage and so forth.
And I don't think this car has come up on the drawing board because of popular demand.
Has it?
This car is on the drawing board because some central planner has a dream that they're all as many people as possible are going to be packing ourselves into these things.
This is just the latest attempt here to tug popular sentiment into a into a into a certain uh in a certain direction.
The automobile is quintessentially American, and for people to start sacrificing who they are, what they are, what they want in a reasonable way here to the notions of a bunch of people who are trying to take away everybody's individuality is what upsets me about this.
And these false promises that liberals are famous for, elect John Kerry and Christopher Reeve will walk.
Defeat George Bush or defeat Jim Talant and Michael J. Fox will get rid of his Parkinson.
None of this was true.
It was all false hope.
It was all false promise.
as this car is, if there are people thinking that the legally blind will be able to legally drive this thing safely.
I don't know who's putting that out.
I don't want to make too big a deal about this.
I probably already have, but it's just part and parcel of the next thing down the line that is designed to eagerly get you to sacrifice some of your freedom under some false premise that you're doing something for the common good that is an improvement, when it's not.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
Yeah, this this new segue, this this this thing's not even a golf cart.
You realize a golf cart makes more sense as a vehicle than this stupid thing does.
Okay, so they're now touting the segue, motorized segue, 35 miles an hour tops, 35 mile range, all electric.
They're saying that it has GPS anti-collision insurance.
Not only will you not hit anything when you're driving it, nothing will hit you.
Uh what?
It could be romantic?
The segue could be romantic.
Let me tell you something.
How is this going to stop you being mugged?
How is it you're not going to be able to outrun anybody?
Stop that.
I think instead of this GPS stuff, everybody knows this isn't going to work.
There's nothing around that can prevent you from hitting something, or more importantly, prevent something else from hitting you.
We ought to just use military technology for this.
We already have a solution to this.
If you're in an F-16 and there's a plane coming right at you, the technology is a missile.
You launch the missile and it takes out the engine of the thing coming at you.
So if this thing, if this wheelchair with wheels senses something in the way, it just fire a small missile which disables the offending vehicle's engine and the front wheels.
And just get it out of the way.
Military technology, you don't need to worry about this GPS stuff.
And what happens?
You know, there's two tires on this thing, plus four training wheels.
What happens if you get a flat?
What's the spare tire in this thing?
I've heard that it's a walker.
I've heard that it's a walker.
If you get a spare tire, somehow the roof assembly turns into a walker, and you can shuffle on down to the to the to the gas station if you can still find one and get your spare tire repaired.
Brad in Atlanta, great to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Thank you, Rosh Megaditos.
Um going back to Cavuto yesterday.
Yeah.
Uh it was pointed out that uh Trump was a big supporter of Obama.
My question is, why are all these uh, I guess uh people with such business acumen, why are they such uh supporters of Obama?
Well, I don't know about Trump and Obama, but this the conversation he had yesterday with Neil Cavuto was about the uh the governor of New York who's going to be raising.
They've defined a millionaire tax as anybody who makes over 300 grand in New York.
And Trump was simply talking about people in New York, 40 or 50,000 of them that pay over half the bills for the city to operate, and then they might start leaving.
I I I think uh the support for Obama uh in a lot of cases was was a lot of people choosing the path of least resistance.
It was easier to support Obama than to oppose him.
You got more accolades, you got more, you got treated better, you were thought of to be nicer and more enlightened if you supported Obama publicly than if you opposed him.
If you oppose, I mean, hell, even the people on our side who opposed him didn't want to say they opposed him.
But Trump isn't really one to care who what other people think.
Well, no, I think it's just the opposite.
I think I think Donald cares a lot what people think.
I mean, he gets anywhere from a half million to a million telling people how to make money.
He cares very much that people think he knows how to do it.
Uh he cares very much that that people be aware of of his uh of his achievements.
He's he's he's uh uh I I think a lot of people who are as in public profile as Trump have a very big concern.
I mean, it's a publicly traded company.
Well, it doesn't run it much anymore, but he has had a publicly traded company.
You've got to be current concerned about what people think.
Uh that's a luxury that few people really have.
I am one who really I don't care a rat's rear end what people think of me, and it is amazingly free.
I mean, it is amazingly liberating, but it's it's not the easiest thing in the world to master.
Most people haven't mastered it.
Most people care.
Most people care desperately what they're thought of.
Now, as far as Trump supporting Obama, uh, well, I I can tell you this, and and Trump was not bashful about saying this.
He hated Bush.
He thought Bush was the worst president ever, and he was out there saying this long before the 08 campaign came around.
He thought Bush was a disaster.
With all the government spending and uh and and the entitlements and so forth, he made no bones about that.
So it was perfectly natural that he would support what he would think to be the opposite, which would be Obama.
Look, folks, here's all you need to know about the wheelchair car.
It was really not designed to help the disabled.
It was designed to handicap the rest of us.
It's designed to handicap the able-bodied.
▲
Export Selection