All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 18, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:49
November 18, 2009, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program documented to be almost always right 99.3% of the time.
I don't think anybody in media ever has had such an astronomically, unbelievably high percentage of opinion accuracy as my most recent accuracy and audit from the Sullivan Group in California.
Great to have you here, Rush Limbaugh at 800-282-2882.
The email address, lrushbaugh at EIBNet.com.
The comedy of errors.
That is the decision to try the 9-11 mastermind and his cohorts in a civilian court in Manhattan continues.
This morning on NBC's The Today Show, the chief White House correspondent F. Chuck Todd interviewed President Obama in Beijing, China.
And F. Chuck Todd said, can you understand why it's so offensive to some for this terrorist to get all the legal privileges of an American citizen?
I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.
But having that kind of confidence in the conviction, I mean, one of the purposes of doing the justice system, going with justice, going with the legal, and not the military court, is to show off to the world our fairness of our courts.
But you've also now just said he's going to be convicted and given the death sentence.
Look, what I said was that people will not be offended if that's the outcome.
I'm not prejudging it.
I'm not going to be in that courtroom.
That's the job of the prosecutors, the judge, and the jury.
He's already poisoned the case.
He says from Beijing that he is going to be convicted and he's going to be put to death.
And so the KSM's lawyers can say, hey, this case had been prejudged by the president who also admitted my client was tortured.
There is something diabolical about this.
And it is not about showing the world the fairness of the United States of America.
The world doesn't doubt that.
The world that we care about doesn't doubt that.
We do not have a rotten image in the world.
It is manufactured by the left in this country and around the world, and it's supported by people like Obama.
We do not have a rotten image.
We're on the way to acquiring one, however, because we are going to willingly give away what it was and is that makes this country exceptional and makes this country the place that everybody in this planet wants to come and wishes they lived.
So here's, you know, we've chronicled on this program all of the pitfalls of this trial.
Miranda writes, he didn't get any.
The president admitting that the client was tortured, thereby jeopardizing the validity of the confession and so forth.
The circus soap opera aspect, the opportunity for these terrorists to just launch and make their case against the United States in a courtroom in our country that will be broadcast all over the world.
But here's another aspect I think that is worth considering in a sort of a generic overall way.
What rules are they going to use in this courtroom?
What rules?
What precedent?
For example, if they apply existing rules and precedent to these cases, which includes Miranda and all the rest, then the case has to get thrown out, does it not?
And who determines what rules and precedent applies?
The judge?
And if not, where are these rules written?
We don't have rules for what's going to happen here.
The argument goes, if they should be tried as criminals, then that would seem to require the application of the usual rules of evidence and the usual defenses.
If that's not the case, why bring them to a civilian court in the first place?
And how are they going to be tried here?
And I'm reading, you know, there's a bit of conventional wisdom that is evolving out there, and it is this.
Rush, rush, rush, rush.
Don't worry about this.
There's no judge in the world that's going to let these guys go.
There's no judge in the world that's going to let these guys get off.
And if that happens, there's no appellate judge that's going to let these guys get off.
Oh, really?
Now, that seems to be conventional wisdom because no judge wants to become that kind of a target.
Folks, they just confirmed one of the most radical leftist judges in the history of this country yesterday, a guy named Hamilton.
You don't think there's some ACLU types that are judges who would love to let these guys go, who think the United States is the guilty party here?
I'm not at all convinced that some judge.
The left is so perverted, they've got plenty of judges who would probably consider themselves heroes to find the United States guilty here.
As opposed to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Remember all the conventional wisdom.
Hey, Rush, don't worry about Bush signing a campaign finance reform.
The Supreme Court never, never will find it constitutional.
Today we've got campaign finance reform.
So all of this conventional wisdom, when it forms, you'll find old old Rushmore running the opposite direction.
I don't know if these questions are being asked of Eric Holder today about what rules.
What rules?
Are you using standard criminal rules, precedent?
What rules are going to be using to try these cases here?
All the legal defenses, the usual legal defenses would apply.
If not, then what does apply?
Who decides and how?
And what's the point of all this if the same rules don't apply?
But what this is, is chaos.
And don't forget, one of the ancillary objectives here is to have some international court issue indictments or charges against Bush, Cheney, members of that administration for war crimes and all this.
Make no mistake, that's what Eric Holder and Obama have in mind here.
Now, here's something else.
And some people are talking about this, but not loudly enough.
Eric Holder has, in my opinion anyway, a huge conflict of interest and should have recused himself from these decisions.
You know why?
Eric Holder's law firm has had a significant role already in defending over a dozen of these terrorists.
And that law firm did so when Holder was a senior partner there.
No one is asking this question or any of the others I asked today.
I know that they own the media and so forth and so on, but to not even question Eric Holder's conflict or to question how the cases will actually be tried is incompetence of the worst kind.
This is deadly serious stuff.
Now, some of what Holder has said today, he called the shooting at Fort Hood tragic.
No, it was a jihadist massacre.
It was a terrorist act.
It was not a tragedy.
He also said that the civilian justice system has been handling terrorism cases successfully for years.
He doesn't mention the case of Madhu Salim, the al-Qaeda founder, never brought to trial for 1998 U.S. embassy bombings because he maimed a Bureau of Prisons Guard in an escape attempt during which he attempted to kidnap his taxpayer-funded defense lawyers.
Eric Holder said we can protect classified material because of the Classified Information Procedures Act.
But folks, it's not just classified information that's helpful to terrorist organizations.
The list of people who might be identified as unindicted co-conspirators that Andy McCarthy had to turn over in 1995 in his trial of Obar Abdel-Rahman wasn't classified, but it told al-Qaeda who was on the government's investigative radar screen.
This is a disaster.
He says, we're going to be able to protect classified information just as we do in a Military Commissions Act, in the military tribunals, because they're based on the same set of rules.
Well, they might be based on the same set of rules, but they're not the same set of rules.
A civilian trial is no more a platform for a Khalid Sheikh Mohammed than a military commission would have been, which is ridiculous.
This guy was ready to plead guilty and be executed 11 months ago.
Whatever soapbox he's going to have, he largely already had.
And while we'd have had to let him speak before sentence was imposed, that would have been the end of it.
Now he's going to get a full-blown trial after combing through the discovery for a couple years, after putting the Bush administration under the spotlight.
And then Dick Durbin got into the act.
Durbin claims that no one complained about the Masawi trial being in a civilian court.
Not true.
A lot of people did complain, Senator Turbin.
And that trial, if you've forgotten, folks, that trial was a circus.
The Masawi trial was exactly what we're going to get here.
Durbin forgets it.
Holder forgets it.
The district judge in this case, look at me.
The district judge in the Masawi trial actually tried to dismiss the indictment.
People may have forgotten that, but I haven't.
And that's why I'm not convinced at all that the judge in this trial is going to bend over backwards to make sure these guys don't get off.
I know the left.
I know how much they have people who despise this country and would love to acquit these guys and have it all blamed on the corrupt, unjust, immoral systems of intelligence gathering, torturous punishment, and so forth that has become the United States of America.
The district judge in the Masawi trial, Zakarius Masawi, actually tried to dismiss the indictment.
We don't know what would have happened had Masawi not surprised everybody by pleading guilty, and he did defend himself.
So the judge tried to dismiss the indictment.
The Court of Appeals had to reinstate the Masawi indictment.
It also said it was sensitive to the trial judges' concerns, would look very carefully to ensure the government made available to Masawi all the information he needed to present his defense.
What would have happened if Masawi had continued to press his demand for access instead of pleading guilty?
We don't know.
But if this case, if Masawi is their shining example of how well the civilian courts handle international terrorism cases during wartime, then they're in trouble.
And Andy McCarthy reports that a reader at National Review Online remembered some other things too.
Masawi was arrested in Minnesota at a time when the military commission system did not yet exist.
Unlike Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his boys, Masawi wasn't captured in wartime outside the U.S. and detained outside the U.S. at a time when a military commission system had been implemented.
So there are enough similarities here, but a significant number of differences too, but enough similarities here to really, I mean, give us great pause over this.
And I, I, folks, I refuse to believe that this is being done as Holder says, because it's the right thing to do.
We've looked at it.
I think it was a fair thing we're going to bring these guys to trial in our system and prove all this.
Lindsey Gramnesty has accused Holter of making bad history with this decision.
A top Senate Republican on Wednesday accused General Holder of making bad history in his decision to send Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York for trial in a civilian court.
Senator Lindsey Gramnesty raised concerns that Holder was imperiling national security by determining that wartime combatants, potentially even Osama bin Laden, might be sent in a criminal system.
We're making bad history here, Gramnesty said.
The big problem I have is you're criminalizing the war.
I think you made a fundamental mistake here.
Holder said, I know that we're in a war.
Little side note, Lindsey Gramnesty voted to confirm Eric Holder as Attorney General.
Now, let me give you a couple of other things to think about here based on the salient, and I might add brilliant questions I asked moments ago.
What rules are going to be used in this trial?
Standard criminal justice rules like Miranda, rules of evidence, rules of discovery?
If not, what rules will be used and who's going to make them?
Let's assume here that standard rules that have been established over time in our legal system are used.
Remember something here.
And I know this statement is going to be controversial to some who don't know it.
The ACLU's original goal was to bring down the U.S. legal system.
Now think about something here.
There are going to be a lot of precedents set in this trial.
For example, let's just look at Miranda.
Right now, every suspect has to be read his rights and is told he doesn't have to say a word that he can get a lawyer.
But if he says something, it can be used against him.
Now, if these clowns, if these terrorists are convicted without having been mirandized, what does that precedent set?
If he can be convicted without being mirandized, if he didn't get his habeas corpus rights, can't they then be denied to us in the future under this precedent?
Well, but they're being given every constitutional protection as though they were citizens.
See, this is the point.
They get mirandized, or they don't get mirandized, and they get convicted.
So a precedent is set that suspects do not need to be mirandized and they can still be found guilty.
Okay, so then you end up in the court system, and they don't mirandize you.
And you say, wait a minute, I wasn't Miranda.
Well, the rules are different now.
The terrorist trials said that, well, wait a minute.
Those guys weren't citizens.
It doesn't matter.
were still tried in a U.S. civilian court, criminal court in New York.
Let me go to an extreme.
If the president of the United States can tell the world that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was tortured, and then did not get mirandized and was convicted, does that mean that the rest of us can then be waterboarded?
If we're going to convict anybody, despite being waterboarded and they got their confession after that waterboarding, then is torture, as they define it, now permitted by officials, even though these are military people that did it.
This is why this doesn't belong anywhere near a U.S. civilian court.
Ladies and gentlemen, habeas corpus writes the same thing.
Can't they then be denied to us in the future under the precedent that's going to be set here?
And a friend of mine sends another brilliant point.
He says, if the goal of the civilian trials is to showcase to the world the fairness of our system, it's going to have exactly the opposite effect.
Holder's explicit promise is that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is so clearly guilty that he can never be acquitted.
And even if he were, the government won't let him walk away anyway, sends what message?
That our judicial system is rigged, that the result of the trial is fixed in advance.
And that's how the Islamic world is going to interpret it.
So this is a disaster.
It's insane.
It is diabolical and it is insidious.
And I refuse to believe these people are that stupid.
But it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter if they're diabolical or if they're stupid.
The result is still the same.
Rotten.
So here we got this big no-ho.
We know the world hates us because of George Bush.
The world hates America.
We have destroyed our image of being a beacon of freedom and fairness and morality.
And here we tortured Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bey.
Oh, it's horrible what we did.
Oh, we flushed a Koran down the toilet, even though we didn't at Guantanamo Bay.
But we've got to do this.
We have got to show the world that our values are back and that we are fair.
So we're going to put these guys on trial.
We're not going to hang them.
We're not going to execute them at dawn in front of a firing squad.
We're going to give them a fair trial.
Except the president has already convicted them.
He's already said they're going to get the death penalty.
Holder has said they're so clearly guilty that there's no way they're going to get acquitted.
And even if they are, we're not letting them go.
And the rest of the world is supposed to see this as the new reborn United States of fairness, justice, and equality.
What an abomination this administration is.
Now, more on the Masawi trial, ladies and gentlemen, because here we've got the president, the president in China, being land-based by the Chikoms, by the way, on our death, the president says, oh, he's going to be convicted.
He's going to get the death penalty.
People will like it then.
So he's already prejudged case.
Holder has said the same thing.
Oh, he's so clearly guilty.
This guy's going to fry.
And if he doesn't, we're not going to let him go anyway.
Washington Post, May 12th, 2006.
One juror between terrorist and death.
Masawi Foreman recalls frustration.
Only one juror stood between the death penalty and Zakarius Masawi, and that juror frustrated his colleagues because he never explained his vote, according to the foreman of the jury that sentenced the al-Qaeda operative to life in prison last week.
The foreman, a Northern Virginia math teacher, said in an interview that the panel voted 11 to 1, 10 to 2, and 10 to 2 in favor of the death penalty on three terrorism charges for which Masawi was eligible for execution.
A unanimous vote on any one of them would have resulted in the death penalty or sentence.
The foreman said deliberations reached a critical point on the third day when the process nearly broke down.
Then, on April 6th of 2006, Richard Cohen, a column, let Masawi live.
The Libs, they didn't want to execute Masawi.
You think we're not going to be able to find a couple of wacko jurors and a judge?
Let's go to audio soundbite number three.
Mike, I'm going to take you out of order here.
Three and four.
This is Holder today swearing in his opening statement that justice is why he decided to try these terrorists in New York City.
For eight years, justice has been delayed for the victims of the 9-11 attacks.
It has been delayed even further for the victims of the attack.
Stop the tape.
Stop the tape.
That's another slam at Bush.
And it was the Libs that caused these delays.
It was Libs and lawyers who were getting in the way trying to stop the military tribunals.
They did everything they could to delay this.
And recue that, Mike.
Here's Holder now.
Once again, dumping on Bush.
It's time.
It's time.
Eight years, justice has been delayed.
Listen to the rest.
Eight years, justice has been delayed for the victims of the 9-11 attacks.
It has been delayed even further for the victims of the attack on the USS Cole.
No longer.
No more delay.
It is time.
It is past time to finally act.
By bringing prosecutions in both our courts and military commissions, by seeking the death penalty, by holding these terrorists responsible for their actions, we are finally taking ultimate steps toward justice.
That is why I made the decision.
That is an outrage.
Only now with Obama in are we actually going to take some action on these guys.
Only now.
Bush didn't care.
Well, which was it?
You guys cannot have it both ways.
You can't say that Bush was out there torturing these guys and masterminding all the torture and making sure these guys paid the price and now say he had nothing to do with it.
He was lackadaisical, lazy, and wasn't moving on this.
And about punctuality, how many years before we even get to opening statements in this stupid trial?
Do you realize how many years it's going to take with the discovery process and all the motions that the defense will file to delay this?
Jeff Sessions had an exchange with Holder.
I don't think the American people are overreacting.
I don't think they're acting fearfully.
I think they think that this is war and that the decision you've made to try these cases in federal court represents a policy or a political decision.
Wouldn't you agree?
No.
Well, it's a policy decision, at least, is it not?
It was a policy decision.
It was a decision that was case-driven.
It's a decision based on the evidence that I know that, frankly, some of the people who have criticized the decision do not have access to.
Oh, there's secret stuff, huh, that we don't know.
How about the secret stuff that your law firm, where you were a senior partner, defended 18 of these same kinds of guys, defended them?
Anybody else would recuse themselves, and anybody else, the pressure would be on to recuse.
Now, here's the now we move on to Subite 22, and this is the exchange between Lindsey Gramnesty and Eric Holder.
Gramnesty says, Let's say we capture bin Laden tomorrow.
When does custodial interrogation begin in his case?
If we capture bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?
Again, I'm not, that all depends.
I mean, well, it does not depend.
If you're going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs, the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent.
The big problem I have is that you're criminalizing the war.
That if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we have mixed theories and we couldn't turn him over to the CIA, the FBI, or military intelligence for an interrogation on the battlefield because now we're saying that he is subject to criminal court in the United States, and you're confusing the people fighting this war.
Exactly right.
And who in the world is going to want to join the intelligence committee or the intelligence agencies now with the possibility their work is going to be made public and brought into court in trials of these people?
On this one, I mean, got to say, Gramnesty is right.
This is why I was asking: what rules?
What rules?
He says our law is clear.
The moment custodial interrogation occurs, the defendant is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent.
And that didn't happen to Khalid Jake Mohammed or any of these other clowns.
And if they're convicted without having been mirandized, don't they have an automatic appeal to get the thing thrown out?
Oh, this is sick stuff.
By the way, you want to hear something funny.
Chuck U. Schumer, moments ago, I was reading it on the closed captioning here on the TV, is asking Attorney General Holder if he, meaning the federal government, will reimburse New York City for the cost of security during these trials.
Now, wait a second.
You know what's funny about this?
We just yesterday were told by Dick Turbin and a number of other Democrats all the jobs that are going to be created by bringing terrorists to the United States.
Oh, yeah, we could bring 200 of these clowns from Gitmo, put them in an Illinois prison, and Durbin's out there talking about, whoa, look at all the jobs created.
Schools, roads, bridges, all the jobs.
So we made the joke yesterday that seems to me the Democrat job creation theory is to bring every terrorist we can find into this country and we'll create jobs like we've never seen before and yet the next day here is Chuck U. Schumer asking to be reimbursed for the costs of security I thought bringing terrorists here was going to create All kinds of jobs.
Apparently, that's not the case.
Quick call before we go to this break.
And we're in Williamsport.
Wait a minute now.
Is this Virginia or Pennsylvania?
Steve, are you in Virginia or Pennsylvania?
Rush, I'm in Williamsburg, Virginia.
Williamsburg.
Okay, that's what I thought.
Great to have you here.
24-7 Ditto's Rush.
Thanks for the role you play in American politics.
Thank you, sir.
You know, you look at what Obama is doing.
I mean, we've got destroying the economy.
There's no recovery in sight anywhere.
Punitive tax policies.
He's making a mockery of the war on terror, running us down around the world, gutting the Constitution.
And meanwhile, he owns the media and has a trillion-dollar slash fund.
So my question for you is, how can you call him a man-child when he is kicking our ass?
Well, that's sort of a leftist tweak, just to tweak them.
I'm simply saying he's immature.
He has no governing experience, no actual experience at anything.
But he's arrogant and narcissistic to the point that he thinks he's the best that's ever been at what he does, just because he's alive and breathing and so forth.
He's kicking our ass.
What exactly, how do you exactly mean that?
Do you mean, well, you tell me.
Well, Rush, you know, I mean, he's forcing people onto the government doll.
I mean, people got their hands out that previously would never have had their hands out before.
You know, he's got to speak down.
I mean, every day it's something different.
I feel like I've got a knife on my back and he's twisting it.
The latest thing is amnesty for illegals.
I mean, every day, he's beating us.
Yeah, I know.
Every day you get up and you feel like you're in the trenches of a war.
No bullets being fired, but you feel like you're in the trenches of a war.
Well, here's the thing.
That's why I established caveat.
Whether he is this diabolical, deceitful, whatever, or just plainly incompetent, doesn't matter.
The end result is the same.
Now, I do not believe he's naive.
I don't believe he doesn't know what he's doing.
I'm with you.
He's a Saulinskyite.
He knows exactly what he's doing here.
That's what's so insidious about it.
But it's kicking our ass maybe now, but he's not getting away with it with everybody not knowing what's happening.
There is opposition building up all over this country, and his poll numbers are down, and the independents are abandoning the Democrat Party, and they're worried about it.
And for that to be reported in the politico, it's got to be even worse than what it really is.
By the way, folks, this audio soundbite we played, soundbite number three, grab that real quick.
I just want the first couple sentences here.
Let's see.
One, two.
Yeah.
Eric Holder, number three, talking about the delays.
It's just been too long.
It is time to finally act.
For eight years, justice has been delayed for the victims of the 9-11 attacks.
It has been delayed even further for the victims of the attack on the USS Cole.
No longer.
Stop the tape.
Attorney General Holder, we've got you.
It's been delayed even further for the victims of the attack on the USS Coal.
The USS Coal was bombed in Yemen in the year 2000.
You know who was Deputy Attorney General?
Eric Holder.
The current Attorney General was the deputy AG in 2000 when the coal was bombed, and the Clinton Justice Department never even filed an indictment.
That didn't happen until the Bush Department of Justice filed one after 9-11.
Have you no shame, Mr. Holder?
These Republicans that voted for this guy to be confirmed, some of them are backtracking now.
Byron York had that story yesterday.
That's a little too late now because all this was known about this guy.
It was known who he is, just as it was known who Obama is.
And what about justice for the Cobar Towers bombing in 1996?
That was investigated on Holder's watch.
He was deputy AG then.
No indictment ever filed by the Clinton administration.
Charges again finally brought by the Bush administration years later.
You know, Clinton never paid a dime's worth of attention to terrorism because Clinton didn't take on tough issues.
He was obsessed in the second term with Lewinsky, a semen staying blue dress and keeping the approval numbers up while sending Carville and the forehead out to destroy Ken Starr.
And that's when terrorism was a criminal matter to boot.
That's when J. McErellic and Reno had made it a criminal matter and they weren't even pursuing it at all.
Well, I know he had a terrorism summit.
I know he fired a bomb into an Iraqi building on a Saturday night that killed a custodian.
And he bombed an aspirin factory somewhere in Africa, Tylenol factory or whatever it was.
But Clinton refused to intervene with the Saudis to let the FBI conduct the investigation at Cobar Towers and interview the witnesses.
Do you remember that?
See, Clinton was trying to engage the Mullahs and strike the grand deal with Iran, but somehow seeking justice and applying the rule of law wasn't all that important back then.
When Eric Holder was deputy AG, they weren't paying a dime's worth of attention to terrorism.
Holder goes out there today.
Well, it's been too long.
It's been too long.
We're going to get in gear and we're going to fry these guys.
John in Hotchkiss, Colorado.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello, Rush Limbaugh.
Greetings from Weston Slope Conservative, Weston Slope of Colorado.
Thank you.
Honored to speak to you.
Rush, I wanted to comment on the prospect of the inflation that our country faces here coming up with the massive debt that we've occurred over here the last year.
But anyway, it's in my opinion, and I want to let you know I'm not college educated.
I'm also kind of nervous in talking to you.
This is quite the honor.
But when we're looking at inflation prospects of, I don't know, 10% for the next few years, why would a bank want to loan money to anybody when they know the value of the money that they've lent is going to be whatever the inflation rate is less as to what they've loaned over the...
Well, that's a good point.
If the inflation happens, I actually read something.
Might have been on the New York Post website.
I can't recall it, but somebody said for a multitude of reasons, multitude of reasons, they're worried about deflation.
This particular economist worried about deflation more than inflation now.
But I don't remember why.
But at any rate, there are many reasons why the banks aren't lending.
A, the only people being lent money are people who knowingly can't pay it back.
That is what gave us a subprime mortgage problem.
The banks aren't going to be lending to people that don't have jobs.
That's me.
That's you.
How long have you been out of work?
Since February 27th.
February 27th.
Are you still seeking gainful employment or have you chucked it?
Yes, sir, but it's a little depressed here on the western slope of Colorado.
Our machinists, and they're really, it's amazing that our government isn't doing anything to help the manufacturing sector.
There's just nothing going on as far as machinists.
Yeah, isn't it amazing?
Obama was going to fix all this, a stimulus package.
I mean, there should have been plenty of shovel-ready stuff to do for a machinist like you.
Even on the western slope of Colorado?
Quite honestly.
Well, it's all so frustrating to me because all of it is just so unnecessary.
Well, you know, I'm 49 years old, and in my time, I've actually, I regret to admit, I actually voted for Jimmy Carter and his.
Well, this may be your payback.
Oh, yeah, but then I, goddamn, or excuse my language, but I also voted for Bill Clinton in his first term.
I didn't in the second term.
Oh, well.
Payback, but you didn't vote for Obama, did you?
Well, no, I didn't, sir.
All right.
And I couldn't imagine voting for him.
Just kind of, you know, it's more of a gut feeling.
Look at something.
I want to give you something.
I can hear the stress.
I can hear the nervousness.
I am going to give you a bunch of Homedics massagers.
I am going to send you, they're one of our best sponsors here.
They're Snerdley's favorite sponsor.
And they are fabulous.
And the price is not that expensive.
It all started at $29.99.
Hold on for Snerdley to get your address.
At least while you're looking for a job, you can get a massage at the same time on us.
Actually, about inflation, inflation actually makes debt easier to service with cheaper money.
It is deflation that causes debt problems, makes debt harder to pay off with real money.
So six of one half dozen the others to which way this is going to go.
But everybody, you would seem to think all this debt would lead to inflation.
▲
Export Selection