All Episodes
Previous Next
June 29, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:38
June 29, 2010, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back, Rush Limbaugh and the EIB Network.
The Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Study is a thrill and a delight as always to be with you and to have you here with us.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program 800, as always, 800-282-2882 and the email address, Hillrushbaugh at EIBNet.com.
All right, let's move on to Elena Kagan.
I guess probably makes sense to get into this in some detail.
I wish it were just a simple thanks to rubber stamp for Obama, and that would be enough in people's minds to say we don't want the woman on the court, but and to me, and I'm sure a number of you, that is sufficient.
She was, in the Clinton administration, a policy flack.
She was a policy flack.
She showed the opposite of judicial temperament.
We keep hearing that as a salient requirement for a justice.
Her memos, universally political and calculating, so much so, even the Washington Post and the New York Times have had to concede that she was a very political animal.
They didn't call her a judicial animal, and they didn't call her someone who has been paving the road for her future that would lead to the Supreme Court.
She is a political animal.
And, you know, everybody, oh, yeah, we're going to get another woman on the court.
I'm going to ask you women in this audience, is this you?
A woman never married, has no kids, doesn't like the U.S. military, thinks banning books is okay, and this is the now gangs, babe.
But is this a classic example of the American woman today?
I just, you know, the left puts forth the people they think are.
Oh, I know she said she reveres the military today.
We're going to get to that.
Look, this is that all you really need to know, even though you're going to know more, but all you really need to know is this woman is trying to make herself out to be John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
That's who she wants the people to think she is.
And remember, Leahy and other Democrats are saying those two guys lied during their confirmation hearings.
Elena Kagan comes before the Judiciary Committee today as somebody who has previously written the Supreme Court nominee should be more forthcoming in the confirmation process.
She wrote that the Bork hearings were ideal.
You got to dig deep because these justice nominees, they're not going to tell you everything.
You've got to bore in there, she said.
The hearings can take on an air of vacuity and farce if you don't get serious about it.
Straightforward testimony is especially important in the case of Ms. Kagan, who has zero judicial record and relatively few academic writings by which anybody can assess her likely approach to judging.
Now, I don't need to see anything she's written, although I have.
I know why she's been nominated.
I can't say it enough.
It was Harry Reid that said a John Roberts slide.
Harry Reid, not Pant Leahy, although Leahy probably thinks it.
She's a rubber stamp for Obama, just like all of his czars are rubber stamps for Obama.
In her testimony today, Elena Kagan has refused to discuss cases that may come before the court.
She has refused to discuss past cases because they may come before the court again.
She has refused to discuss Bush versus Gore, a past case that will not come before the court again.
She claimed to be unfamiliar with the progressive legal tradition, so she couldn't say whether she belonged to it.
She said she didn't know what progressivism meant.
Now, imagine you are one of these zit-faced, little irrelevant punks, idealist punks on the left-wing websites out there and blogs who want a matter.
They know their lives are irrelevant.
And they're just in Hogaven because they finally got one of their own up there.
And she denies progressivism.
And then she claims to be ignorant about what it means.
Progressive legal tradition, as in liberal legal tradition?
I don't believe she doesn't know that.
She is that.
But she won't own up to it.
She refused to discuss whether the current court is generally activist.
She refused to assess or criticize or identify herself with current justices.
She discounted her work for President Clinton as merely reflective of her attempts to implement his policy views and objectives, as she has discounted her work for Justice Marshall as mere attempts to channel the justice.
So she wants people to believe she has no thoughts of her own.
She's entirely open-minded.
She's never had a political thought in her life.
She's not going to take a political agenda or identity to the courts.
You know what progressive liberal tradition is, judicial tradition?
Why, the woman is a blank slate.
Perhaps most absurdly, when presented with two quotes about how justices should approach the law, one from Scalia championing originalism and textualism, and one from Souter disparaging originalism, Ms. Kagan was asked which she more identified with, and she dodged.
I mean, you're either an originalist or you're not.
You believe what the Constitution says, or you think it's outdated, needs to be modified to reflect current mores.
She wouldn't answer either one.
This woman's scared to death to be identified.
Elena Kagan is petrified of being pegged for who and what she is.
So much so that she will not even say on which side of the originalist aisle she sits.
She said, I don't really think that this is an either-or choice.
I think that there are some circumstances in which looking to the original intent is the determinative thing in a case, and other circumstances in which it is likely not to be.
Well, what are those?
Well, since they may come before the court, I don't know, but just look at me as Lady Justice.
I'm the Scales, and I'm going to say whatever I have to do to make sure they balance at the end of these hearings so that you don't know anything about how I want to tear up this document and rewrite it and make sure this country is not what it has always been.
That's what her objective is, and she doesn't dare say that.
Just like Obama doesn't dare say during the campaign, what this country needs is about 14 million people unemployed so they find out what it's like the rest of the world.
We have made unemployment around the world record how we got to find out what people here have got to find out what it's like, and I'm going to do it.
After all of this, Elena Kagan said she hoped that when the hearings are over, the American people, quote, should have a pretty good idea of what her judicial philosophy is.
That's impossible.
Nobody's going to know a thing about her when this is over if this doesn't change.
So the audio sound bites.
This is September 9th, 2009, Washington, D.C. Supreme Court during oral arguments in the Citizens United versus FEC case.
Now, we, on previous broadcasts, read you the transcript of what you're now going to hear, in which justices cannot believe what they are hearing from Elena Kagan, who is the Solicitor General arguing for her client, Barack Obama, before the Supreme Court.
Citizens United, of course, the controversial case to the left, which allows corporations to participate in the political system.
So, she answered questions from the justices about her case.
Justice Ginsburg says, if Congress could say no TV and radio ads, could it also say no newspaper ads, no campaign biographies?
You also hear Scalia here in this answer.
There would be a quite good as applied challenge to any attempt to apply for 41B in that context.
And I should say that the FEC has never applied for 41B in that context.
So for 60 years, a book has never been at issue.
The FEC has never applied this statute to a book.
To say that it doesn't apply to books is to take off, you know, essentially nothing.
We don't put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats.
That's Scalia.
And he's, of course, exactly right.
Obama, by the way, is no different than Kagan.
I mean, he thought original intent was an either-or choice.
He voted present on it.
He came down the side of a living document.
So the FEC, this is about banning books.
She said it's fine if government bans books because it really isn't going to happen.
The government can do it, but it really isn't going to happen.
And she's focusing on the Federal Election Commission deciding who can say what, when, where, and why.
And Scalia says it's not up to the FEC to determine First Amendment rights.
That's the Constitution.
So Roberts then says, what if the particular movie involved here had not been distributed by video on demand?
Suppose that people could view it for free on Netflix over the internet.
Suppose that free DVDs were passed out.
Suppose people could attend the movie for free in a movie theater.
Suppose the exact text of this was distributed in a printed form.
Now, in light of your retraction, I have no idea where the government would draw the line with respect to the medium that could be prohibitious.
Nobody in the administrative apparatus has ever suggested that books pose any kind of corruption problem.
So I think that there would be a good as-applied challenge with respect to that.
So you're a lawyer advising somebody who's about to come up with a book and you say, don't worry.
The FEC has never tried to send somebody to prison for this.
The statute covers it, but don't worry.
The FEC has never done it.
That going to comfort your client?
I don't think so.
That's Anthony Scalia saying, look, look, Gordon write the book.
The FEC has never banned a book before.
Don't worry about it.
They have the right to, she says.
Your client is going to be covered.
They can't believe what they're hearing out of this woman.
They literally can't believe.
This morning on Capitol Hill during the hearings.
Pat Leahy, everything you read about the founders, they knew that this would not cover every foreseeable thing.
How could they possibly foresee what the country is today?
They wrote in broad terms.
They couldn't foresee every challenge.
What's your response to the criticism of you that was made because you agreed with Justice Marshall?
How would you describe the way the Constitution's been amended since it was originally drafted?
It says to be a senator, you have to be 30 years old.
And that just means you have to be 30 years old.
And it doesn't matter if people mature earlier.
It doesn't matter if people's lifespans changed.
You just have to be 30 years old because that's what they wrote.
There are a range of other provisions in the Constitution of a much more general kind.
And those provisions were meant to be interpreted over time, to be applied to new situations and new factual contexts.
Sometimes they laid down very specific rules.
Sometimes they laid down broad principles.
Either way, we apply what they say, what they meant to do.
So in that sense, we are all originalists.
And she is not an originalist.
And this is typical liberalism.
She calls herself what she's not while expressing the exact opposite viewpoint.
She's sitting here saying they meant for it to be interpreted.
That's not originalism.
Interpretation is not originalism.
They meant for it to be, well, it's, you know, it says to be 30, but then other things are kind of vague.
They meant for it to be.
And of course, the leading question, Leahy, they couldn't possibly have known what the country is going to be.
That's what's so miraculous about the document, the Constitution, is how it has worked over time throughout all the transformations that have occurred in this country until now.
Now we finally have elected a group that doesn't like it and is in the systematic process of doing away with it or as much of it as they can, however they can.
Look at how it's been infringed.
What is vague about shall not be infringed upon?
The people's right to blah, blah, blah, assemble the free speech shall not be infringed upon.
What is vague or ambiguous about that?
What is open to interpretation about shall not be infringed?
Well, I know it.
It depends on the meaning of the word shall or infringed or what have you.
And don't forget, Ms. Kagan compares the NRA to the KKK.
Back with much more in a moment.
Elena Kagan, we're all originalists here.
Yeah, we're all professionals here.
We're all originalists.
You know, the thing about liberals is, and I have observed this over countless, many broadcast years, isn't it fascinating how they look at the Constitution?
They see things that aren't there, such as a right to an abortion.
I mean, it isn't there.
There's no way you can look at the Constitution.
There's no way you can find an explicit right to an abortion there.
They had to go out and create a right to privacy.
Right to privacy is actually not there.
It is not enumerated.
It's implied in the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment searches and seizures, but it's really not.
They had to create it.
And after they created the right to privacy, then, now it is in some state constitutions, but it's not in the U.S. Constitution.
And after that, then they say the right to privacy, you can do with your body whatever you want.
Yet, they'll look at what is in the Constitution and say it shouldn't be there, as in the Second Amendment.
Oh, by the way, the libs are happy as hell, it is said.
I think it's politico.
One of my numerous stacks of stuff here today.
Some outlet reports that Democrats are ecstatic with this gun control decision that came down yesterday because it takes the issue off the table for the campaign.
They don't have to stick their necks out opposing it because it's a losing issue for them.
So they're, I know Chicago's daily is going nuts about it, but I mean, the National Democrats, it is said, at least in this news account, are happy about it.
So the Constitution's meant to be interpreted.
We're all originalists here.
Here's Jeff Sessions.
Let's get started with him.
He said, when you became dean, you personally opposed the don't ask, don't tell policy.
You felt strongly about it.
In 2003, not long after you became president, you said, I abhor the military's discrimination recruit policy.
I consider it a profound wrong, a moral injustice of the first order.
And you said that within six months or so becoming dean.
That was in an email you sent to the entire law school.
Senator Sessions, I have repeatedly said that I believe that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is unwise and unjust.
We were trying to make sure that military recruiters had full and complete access to our students, but we were also trying to protect our own anti-discrimination policy and to protect the students whom it is whom the policy is supposed to protect, which in this case were our gay and lesbian students.
And we tried to do both of those things.
Well, you couldn't do both, as it became clear as time went on.
So she's trying to say here she respects the military.
She's trying to protect the military's rights.
Sessions won't have anything of it because that's not what happened at all.
He then says, well, they were appearing to recruit on your campus.
They were simply following the policy of the U.S. Congress effectuated by law, not their idea.
And that you were taking steps to treat them in a second-class way, not give them the same equal access because you deeply oppose the policy.
Why wouldn't you complain to Congress and not to the dutiful men and women who put their lives on the line for America every day?
All that I was trying to do was to ensure that Harvard Law School could also comply with its anti-discrimination policy, a policy that was meant to protect all the students of our campus, including the gay and lesbian students who might very much want to serve in the military, who might very much want to do that most honorable kind of service that a person can do for her country.
Here's Sessions summing all this up.
I'm just a little taken aback by the tone of your remarks because it's unconnected to reality.
I know what happened at Harvard.
I know you were an outspoken leader against the military policy.
I know you acted without legal authority to reverse Harvard's policy and deny those military equal access to campus until you were threatened by the United States government of loss of federal funds.
This is what happened.
There's Jeff Sessions telling the truth.
She lied.
She misrepresented her entire behavior regarding recruiters on campus at Harvard.
I wonder if she believes that openly gay soldiers must be allowed to serve in Muslim countries.
Wouldn't it be a better recruiting tool on Muslim terrorists than Club Gitmo?
I wonder what she thinks about all that.
Let's look at foreign law to determine some of these things.
All that's going to come up, too, by the way.
And she's going to agree with Breyer on that because she's previously said she sides with him on a number of other things as well.
If they take over the courts, if the left gets their 5-4 majority, they won't with Kagan.
But if they do eventually down the road during Obama's term, where do we go?
Where do we go then to protect our freedoms and liberty?
There's nowhere to go.
We're hanging by a thread here.
That decision yesterday on the Second Amendment, five to four.
That should have been nine to nothing.
And the Mayor of Chicago now daily going nuts about that, rewrite a law to make sure the gun ban in Chicago is somehow legal.
Sonia Sotomayor.
You know, there's a game being played here.
Sonia Sotomayor.
She did the same.
In fact, Mike, I erred here.
Grab Soundbite 11, Dick Turbin.
Sonia Sotomayor, same approach that Kagan is taking.
She's rewriting her own history.
She's a moderate.
She doesn't know what liberalism is.
She doesn't know what the progressive legal tradition is.
Oh, of course not.
She just is only the Harvard law school dean.
And if she's so willing to rewrite her own history on the military recruitment ban on the campus at Harvard, of course he would rewrite the Constitution if given a chance.
You're looking at a pure 100 full-fledged liberal lioness in Sotomayor in the court after professing to be a centrist and a moderate.
See, the left is a minority.
They are 20% of this country's thinking.
They have the media on their side and academia.
It makes it appear as though they're the majority, but they aren't.
And the proof is they have to hide their reality.
They have to hide who they are in order to get what they want during campaigns such as this or during Obama's presidential campaign.
They can't, they don't dare be honest about what they're going to do.
But now when they get into power unchecked with their once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, why?
And then they're confronted with the abject failure of their ideas.
Not only are they confronted with that, they are confronted with the fact that it's their implementation of their ideas that is not making their vaunted ideas work.
Back on March 27, 2009, Dingy Harry said, John Roberts didn't tell the truth.
At least Alito told us who he was, Reed said, referring to Sam Alito, the second justice nominated by Bush.
So, Dingy Harry, are you going to insist that Ms. Kagan tell us who she is?
Dick Turbin yesterday called Alito and Roberts both liars.
We have heard repeatedly from the other side of the aisle their loyalty to the concept of traditionalism, their opposition to judicial activism.
I have two words for them, citizens united.
If that isn't judicial activism, what is?
And it was espoused and sponsored by men who had stood before us under oath and swore they would never engage in judicial activism.
That is the reality.
This is fascinating because judicial activism to the left is the original interpretation of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment.
There's no law that says, just because you're a corporation, you cannot contribute to political campaigns.
It was judicial activism to come along and say, no, you can't because we hate corporations because you're corporations, and we hate corporations.
You can't participate.
You have too much money.
But unions can, and all of our left-wing special interest groups can, and all of our nonprofits can.
But you big business people, you can't because we don't like you.
You're big business.
The Supreme Court comes along and there's no constitutional justification for preventing them, they're American citizens, they're citizens of the country, their vote.
There's no legal prohibition against them involving themselves in campaigns.
That's what Dick Durbin calls activism, Israel versus Wade.
Activism is telling us the Second Amendment should not be in the Constitution, or it really isn't, or that it doesn't mean what it says.
Activism is saying it's a living, breathing document.
It needs to adjust to the adjusting moral codes and mores of the day.
Those idiot founders could not possibly have known what the country would be like 220 years later.
No, no, no, no.
We smart people have to be the ones to, that's activism.
Dingy Harry and Dick Durbin are just angry that Alito and Roberts are on the court and that they are originalists.
The leftists have to hide.
They are always, at best, a blank slate like Kagan is attempting to present herself today.
What is vague or ambiguous about Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech.
Where is the ambiguity there?
Where is the nuance?
Where is the need for interpretation?
Where?
Where do you say, well, you know, they couldn't have known that there would be people like Rush Limbaugh 220 years from now.
They didn't know that there would be a Fox News 220 years from now that needs to be shut up.
They didn't know that there would be a Sarah Palin running around.
And so that's why, if they had known that there'd been a Rush Limbaugh or Fox News, that's why they would not have written the First Amendment.
But there's no ambiguity in it.
And remember the upshot, and this is the single best way to understand Elena Kagan.
Because she, Obama, and the author of this kind of thinking, says this dork named Cass Sunstein, they believe that the First Amendment, well, the whole Bill of Rights is a set of negative liberties.
Now, you and I look at this and we say, what in the world is negative about Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech?
What's negative?
To us, that's a big positive.
The Bill of Rights says what government cannot do to us.
But leftists like Kagan Obama don't like that.
They want a positive.
I may have this turned around.
I often give the terminology backwards.
But what they want is for a constitution to say what the government can do to you.
Now, they say for you, but what they really mean is they want a constitution which proscribes what the government can do.
They look at the Bill of Rights as being too restrictive on the great God of government.
And of course, the founders did know.
The founders knew there would be.
In fact, the founders weren't worried about a Rush Limbaugh.
The founders that have celebrated me, the founders would have celebrated Fox News, Sarah Palin.
The founders would be appalled that people like Sonia Sotomayor or Arlena Kagan even considered to be on the U.S. Supreme Court.
They'd be appalled at it.
They did know.
They had opposition media back in their day.
They knew what opposition media was all about.
Back then, both sides or all three sides or all four sides of the media declared who they were.
That's different than today.
We have the so-called mainstreamers, the drive-by media, claiming to be, whoa, disinterested.
We have no passion about this.
We're just objective observers.
We're just reporting what we see.
Hey, we have a media today that will not be honest about who they are, what they are, or on what side they fall.
Back in the Founders' Day, they had all kinds of opposition media, and everybody knew.
Go look up James Callendar.
C-A-L-L-E-N-D-E-R.
William Sapphire wrote a book about James Callendar.
Fictionalized a bit of it in terms of calendar having an affair with a beautiful woman.
That would have never happened.
But think of Calendar as an Al Gore kind of guy.
But nevertheless, go look up James Callender.
I mean, the opposition meet the pamphleteers, it was vicious back then.
It's as worse.
It was in many cases worse back then than it was today.
And yet they wrote a constitution that protected it.
They weren't afraid to defend their ideas.
Not only were they not afraid to defend their ideas, they wrote them down and they pledged their lives and sacred fortunes and honor in the Declaration of Independence for all this.
What was it Obama told a radio station Chicago 2001?
Generally, he said the Constitution's a charter of negative liberties.
It says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do for you, but it doesn't say what the federal government, state government must do on your behalf.
That's what he said.
And that's on your behalf is really misleading.
How many of you think healthcare reform is on your behalf?
How many of you think the stimulus was on your behalf?
Yeah.
How many of you think that the moratorium on drilling in the guff is on your behalf?
That's how they couch it.
But, ladies and gentlemen, that's not what they are.
They are strictly a bunch of people who want to have a set of laws, Bill of Rights, new Constitution that spells out what they can do to us.
And I'll be right back.
Don't go away.
The state-controlled media, folks, is in a dizzy today.
They report on consumer confidence at an all-time low.
They're just devastated.
And the story is about more and more people feeling disconnected from their own president.
And this is the guy they put there.
This is the guy that we've all been waiting for.
This regime was going to make us utopianists.
And we were going to live in Pandora.
We were going to have a panacea.
And there's nothing but misery, depression.
Look at the number of suicides taking place out there.
Who was it?
Some other person swallowed a bottle of pills out there, some famous person.
Forget who it was.
Yeah, Jennifer Gapriotti out there.
Lives right up there in Singer Island, swallowed a bunch of pills.
I'm not saying anything to do with Obama, but who can say it wasn't?
I mean, that's what the left would say.
Anyway, they're just beside themselves.
How can this be?
How can there be such plummeting consumer confidence and a disconnect?
And then, to add injury to insult, Bush's general is undergoing his confirmation hearings today.
Bush's general.
This is the guy that Hillary, Harry Reid, movon.org, Barack, Hussein Obama, all called a liar.
All said this war has lost.
That the surge would not work.
From John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, to you name it.
And now, who has brought him to save Obama's bacon but Bush's war?
And the left cannot possibly like what they heard from General Petraeus today.
This is a general, and I told you, there's two kinds of them: there's corporate generals, the politically correct generals, the one that'll care about what people think, they'll say and do whatever necessary to rise the chain of command civilian-wise, or the warrior generals who know that the job is to kill people, the bad guys, and break things.
Petraeus is a general who's there to kill people and break things.
Bush's general.
Obama stuck with him now.
And you know that the left believes that having rules of engagement where we restrain ourselves so as not to possibly kill innocent civilians, where we respect the traditions of others, this is going to make the world like us.
The world respect us.
This is going to change all the hatred for America that was brought about by George W. Bush.
Those rules of engagement and fighting fair and basically tying an arm behind our back so that it take away our big superpower advantage.
The world will respect us.
Bush's general had a different take in his opening statement today.
What impresses the Taliban is not the rules of engagement, it's the precise targeted operations that are designed to give them no rest.
The idea is if you can get your teeth into the jugular of the enemy, you don't let go.
This word relentless is an important word to describe the campaign against the Taliban.
It might have been answering a question.
I'm not sure.
It doesn't sound like it's an opening statement, but Taliban's not impressed by our rules of engagement.
He could have said they laugh at our rules of engagement.
What they're impressed by is when we put our boot on their necks, not BPs, and squeeze the life out of them.
And we don't let go.
That word relentless, that's important.
That's why I use it, relentless, pursuit of perfection, the truth.
You're at the EIB network.
Susie in Spokane, Washington.
This is the right side of the state.
Great to have you on the program.
Boy, you got that right, Rush.
As I do most things.
A couple sweet things.
First of all, Mr. Snerdley's the sweetest guy.
Love him.
And secondly, congratulations on your marriage.
Thank you very much, President.
I like that a lot.
Thank you.
Okay, I'm calling because how come nobody has compared the recovery after 9-11 and the dot-com bubble burst and how good a job George Bush did compared to today?
Because Bush is responsible for the depression that we're in.
Well, and I want you to know, I checked a few statistics.
And as of, I think it was February 2002, this would have been, let's see, what, seven months after 9-11?
Yep.
Bush created 850,000 jobs that month.
That's right.
And I just find it ludicrous that nobody seems to remember that, and all because of the tax cut.
Precisely because the template is the tax cuts led to where we are now.
Yeah.
And the economic disparity, the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer.
They only have three TV sets and one air-conditioned car now, so and all the other tumult and chaos.
The oil spill, hurricane country, it's all Bush's fault.
You can't go back and look at the economic, you can't go back and look at Reagan's success.
You can't go back and look at the success of Reagan's main means of coming out of that recession in 1980 and 82.
Yeah.
Well, that and the oil thing, I mean, this whole oil spill is so mismanaged.
I'm just, I'm beside myself.
It's just too much.
It is, I said criminal neglect the other day.
That may be a straw, but this is outrageous.
And they think we're going to be mollified by sending Vice President Bitmey down there to hang around a command center and look at TV monitors.
Well, he's got all the plugs, Rush.
Well, I know, but despite all the thousands of plugs Biden has, all of them together would not plug the leak.
Yeah.
Well, hey, that's all.
Shut up, Chuck.
Let him see you, man.
Get out of that wheelchair.
Oh, God, love you.
What did I?
Oh, gee, bite me, Chuck.
Yeah, Senator Bitene down there in the command center in New Orleans, looking at monitors and so forth.
As experts explain, yes, what's happening, Mr. Bitney, is there's a hole, and there's oil in the hole.
There's a lot of pressure, natural gas, and oil is coming out of the hole, and it's getting into the Gulf of Mexico.
That's water.
And the Gulf of Mexico's water, and the oil's getting in there.
And it's really been going on for 60 days.
You don't have to be a smart ass about it, Bitney said.
You know, if you want to plug the hole, send gore, folks.
Apparently, that may be the trick.
No country has ever been able to grow out of a recession through tax increases or deficit spending.
The Germans told that to Obama the other day.
I think the Germans also said, you know, Obama, you're really the first American president.
You got two wars going.
And normally people with wars have expanding economies.
▲
Export Selection