All Episodes
Previous Next
June 15, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:26
June 15, 2011, 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 99.6% of the time.
Great to have you with us, my friends, L. Rushbo and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network of the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Happy to have you along.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882, the email address, LRushbaugh at EIBnet.com.
By the way, they just made a significant announcement in the previous hour.
The unveiling of a brand new tea made by me, 2IF by Tea.
From tea to shining tea.
We have two flavors, raspberry and regular diet and naturally sweetened and so forth.
I forgot to mention every aspect of this is American-made.
The bottle, the labels, the printing, the shrink wrap, the tea, every aspect of it is American-made.
And a portion of each sale, as you know, goes to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation.
Now, I'm checking emails, of course, and people are encountering trouble.
You can get out of the website, fine.
We go to the shop to order at 2IFBT.com is still problematic.
Folks, be patient.
It's going to be this way for a while until the original rush, if you will, has subsided.
The big voice here, combined with the size of the audience, is just too large for any internet shopping cart to handle at the same time.
So if you just be a little patient, you'll get anything.
This is like a store having the single biggest sale of their lifetime and too many people wanting to get through every possible door in the store and into the cash register at the same time.
It's just that wouldn't be possible.
It's the same way here.
So we really beg your indulgence and your patience on this.
But I just tried myself.
It took me four or five times, and I did get in.
And I did a full order for my, because I have access.
I do not have to order it.
See, I have some myself here.
As the owner of a tea, you know, I don't have to order it on the website.
I got it right here.
In fact, I'm going to pour some over ice.
This is, what is it, 87 in Manhattan, 95 today, 107 degrees in Palm Springs.
It's hot in a lot of places.
And you pour this stuff over ice and you listen.
You listen to the crackle in there.
I'm tasting right now the Diet Raspberry, which I just happen to love, but it's all.
And I slurped on purpose to make sure that you could hear it.
If I sipped quietly, you wouldn't know that I had.
So anyway, 2IFBT.com, and there's a phone number as well, 866-662-1776.
Shipping is free.
It's three-day shipping at max and sold as 12 packs.
Okay, now we're back.
And the last call we had, the guy was talking about Obama and automation and believing in ATMs are the Mike.
Do you have the soundbite with Obama making his claim about the ATM?
We just got that soundbite.
Here's Obama saying this, explaining why job losses have taken place.
There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers.
You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM.
You don't go to a bank teller.
Or you go to the airport and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.
ATMs, automation.
All of a sudden, that's why there's a job problem.
This is a neophyte.
I mean, this is, frankly, is absurd.
Listen to Obama's keys to winning the future.
Windmills.
Trains.
No automation.
Jobs that require the use of shovels.
If you listen to what Obama says, those are the keys to job creation.
Those are the keys to winning the future.
Windmills, non-existent green energy, electric cars that get 25 miles to the charge.
No coal.
No automation.
No jobs or jobs that do require the use of shovels.
It's just done.
The more the guy opens his mouth about things like this, the more shocking, ladies and gentlemen, it is in terms of what he either actually doesn't know or what he's trying to convince people.
It's just amazing.
What we know is it can't go on.
I mean, this is, I can't think of a greater example of having people ask, why in the world do we think politicians have all of our answers?
Why do we turn to them?
Why do we turn to elected officials?
Why are they automatically bestowed with this expert status?
He doesn't have the slightest clue what he's doing if he's being honest with us about his objective.
If his objective is a growing economy, creation of jobs, he doesn't have the slightest idea what he's doing.
He doesn't.
And the fact that what he's done has lost jobs and he wants to double down on it, of course, raises the question, what's he really up to?
What are his true motivations?
Here's a post from the John Locke Foundation.
There are 1.9 million fewer people employed at the end of May 2011 than there were in February 2009 when Obama's stimulus package was passed.
According to the CyberCast News Service, in February 2009, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 141.7 million people were employed.
By the end of May 2011, the last month for which data are available, that number had fallen to 139.8 million, a difference of 1.9 million.
Let's just round that up to 2 million people for the sake of discussion.
And the fact is that that outcome was completely predictable and predicted.
If I may say so myself, ladies and gentlemen, I. L. Rushboe predicted.
Not to keep rehashing this, but why I said I hope he fails because I knew this would be the result of his policies.
This is liberalism/slash socialism.
It doesn't work.
It destroys private sector job creation.
It destroys incentive.
It destroys happiness.
It destroys good moods.
It destroys contentedness.
It makes people universally apathetic or depressed.
And they end up, what happened to my country?
What in the world happened here?
Believe all this rhetoric they hear during the campaign is going to get better.
They bought the notion that Bush had destroyed everything.
The Bush ears are the golden age.
The Bush years are the good old days now.
A net loss of employment opportunities is the only logical outcome from a policy based on wealth transfers rather than wealth creation.
Simple mathematics.
It's also simple physics.
You have, let's say you have $100.
And the $100 is divvied up among four people.
And they each have 25.
They say, that's not fair.
So you're going to take some from one of the persons at 25 and give it to somebody else so that their 25 becomes 45.
So they've got 45.
The other three have what's left over, 55.
They're dipping it up.
You haven't grown anything.
Somebody else, you know, one of the three has done better, but there has been no growth.
All you've done is rearrange the money.
All you've done is redistribute it.
You haven't created anything new.
There's no growth.
Brian Rydel at the Heritage Foundation uses the swimming pool analogy.
You know, swimming pool.
You can take water from the deep end and put it in the shallow end, hoping the shallow end gets deeper, but it doesn't happen, does it?
The volume of water in the pool doesn't change.
All you've done is rearrange the water for a while, but the volume of water hadn't increased.
The pool's not gotten bigger.
So this is just plain old common sense.
The redistribution of wealth does not cause wealth creation.
In January of 2009, right before the stimulus plan was passed, an article was published by Ray Cordato of the Locker Room John Locke Foundation explaining why, no matter how the money was raised, taxes, borrowing, printing, no net job creation from the stimulus was possible or should even be expected.
And it was not innovative thinking.
It was a straightforward application of basic economic reasoning.
The problem is not with the details, but with the idea that government can spend an economy out of recession.
And these people are thinking of doubling down and continuing this failed policy under the belief they simply haven't spent enough yet.
Every dollar the government funnels into the ailing economy ultimately has to be diverted from some other area of the economy.
Even if you borrow it, if you borrow it, it means you're eliminating the opportunity for somebody else to borrow.
If government's the number one borrower in the country, little Joe Schmuel, who wants to borrow for a real estate development, build a shopping center or a home site or what have you, he's going to have a much tougher time getting the money because the government's using it all.
But there's no new growth.
There's no new money.
There's a reason why all this is appealing to politicians.
Those who are employed as a result of this largesse, i.e. the political winners, are obvious and everybody sees them.
News cameras can show up at the site of the government-funded project and talk about people being put back to work.
Politicians can claim credit for these jobs at election time, but there's nothing new that's happening and there's no new growth taking place.
It's a bunch of photo ops, a bunch of illusions.
Consider the sub-headline on the front page of today's News and Observer in Raleigh.
The president uses visit to Triangle LED maker Cree to highlight economy.
But as any student who understands the most important lesson in economics can tell you, it's not just about the seen, but about the unseen.
What do you not see when they start making moves like this?
They're not creating anything.
They can't.
Government can only confiscate wealth and destroy it.
They certainly can't create it, even by printing new money, as we all know that.
It doesn't work either.
So none of what they're doing is working, and they're prepared to double down on it.
One of the, if I may go back to two if by tea for a moment, because I've had a lot of people ask, there's been a really few, small number of people who've known about this.
I haven't told even my best friends about this, simply because I know human nature.
And this has been in the works for nine months.
And if some giant corporate outfits found out we were doing this, they could have gotten one of these things up and running inside of a month or two.
Took us nine months because it's, you know, we're ground floor with this.
Did it all ourselves?
And people say, well, why did you do it?
You don't need to do this.
Well, you're not a tea expert.
He said, well, I happen to love tea.
Tea is relevant.
It was fun.
But there's another reason, folks.
And it's called, if I may be so bold, leadership.
You know, I've always said, if they give a recession, I don't participate.
And I've had people respond to me in ways that are unfavorable.
Oh, yeah, well, easy for you to say.
Well, yeah, it is easy.
It used to not be.
What I wanted to demonstrate was that even with the obstacles that we face, like Obama out there, that jobs can be created and that growth or jobs can be saved, to use his vernacular, and a new product can be brought to market.
Not everybody wants to take the risks involved, given the economic climate that exists right now.
I fully understand that.
And this is a, of course, there's a lot of risk associated with this, but it was fun.
Plus, we have a great charitable beneficiary here, the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation.
And I've always told you, what I love sharing my passions with people.
And my life has been blessed.
And I wish everybody could learn at age eight what they want to do in their life like I did.
I wish everybody could find that thing in life about which they're most passionate and be paid for it rather than have it be their hobby.
I've been very blessed.
And at the same time, it's been fun to put actual political and economic policy beliefs into action, put them into play here, despite the obstacles.
And those of you who are small businessmen, you know, I'm not going to bother you with all the regulation hoops we had to go through, DWFD, all of this stuff.
It's the legals.
It was unreal.
The option, just to bring this to market.
But we did it.
We did it for the fun of it because we believed in it and to see how it flies.
To ifbytea.com.
And there's a phone number, 866-662-1776.
And that's all I'm going to say about it for a while.
We'll be back.
Your phone calls are next.
Don't quote.
I'm a cutting-edge Rush Limbaugh.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
I lied.
I want to say one more thing about the tea.
It is just damn good.
Snurdley is in there drinking some raspberry.
And he has made it a point to tell me three or four times.
Genuinely, so how good?
It is.
It is the best tea I've ever tasted.
And that's it.
Otherwise, why do it?
No corners were cut.
Janet in Cleveland, I'm glad you waited.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Oh, hello, Rush.
This is a real privilege.
I'm concerned in the 208 campaign.
And when I tuned in today, I'm concerned again because I know the Democrat campaign strategists listen to hear what you have to say.
And sometimes, do you think you might make it too easy for them to know which, exactly which points they can counter, twist, deny, and lie about?
What do you mean?
You say I'm giving away secrets?
Well, no, you don't have a disingenuous bone in your body.
But sometimes by saying what the campaign is doing wrong, they'll just jump in and do it right.
Just if they do something wrong, let them fall on their face.
Oh, you mean when I analyze a Democrat campaign?
Oh, yes, yes, yes.
Oh, when did I do that today?
What did I do that you think I should have done?
No wrong answer here.
I'm just, I'm curious.
What did I say today or recently that well, I guess when you were talking about, you know, Barack and Puerto Rico, I can't put my finger on it exactly.
But I know I sent you an email once because it just struck me that you make it, well, hopefully, if they are listening in, they'll wise up and actually think, do you really think they would listen to me and take advice and think, you know, this Lindbaugh guy, he's offering good criticism.
I would hope they would realize that you are making sense, but they might be listening in.
I think their egos and their hubris, I think they are so arrogant and condescending.
There is no way that they're going to think anybody knows anything more than they do.
They're not going to think anybody is smarter than they are.
They're not going to think that I have a better idea how they ought to do something than they have.
Well, I just.
But I'll tell you what, I'll put it to the test.
The next time they do something, the next time Obama does something that I think is a screw-up, I'll praise it.
There you go.
I guess I think that might work.
All right, I'll do that.
Next time Obama really screws up royalty, I'll praise him for making a brilliant political move.
It's going to be hard.
It's going to be hard to do, but look at, here's the thing.
That's a good point.
That's a good point.
I've already tried this, Janet.
Remember the day after Obama killed Osama, I said, thank God for Barack Obama.
They believed it.
They thought that I meant it.
Oh, wow.
Obama must have really done something good here because Limbaugh's praise.
It can work for a while.
It took them two hours to figure out.
And I think it was the people from theHill.com finally got on to it, figured out that maybe I was putting them on.
David in Hinkley, Ohio, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Rush, this is a big pleasure from me.
Thank you, sir, very much.
Hey, I'm going to get to this real quick.
I'm not going to mention any names.
I have received a letter from a lender, a very large lender in the United States.
And what they are proposing to me in this letter is that they would refinance my house, even with zero equity, at 125% of the value of the home.
Now, I think everybody understands, even if the interest rate went down, you've got to understand that would put a person underwater.
Yeah, but you know what they're doing, don't you?
Well, here, let me continue one more thing.
What they're doing is they're doing this in conjunction with the Home Affordable Refinance Program, which is HAARP.
Now, when you lose that home, here's my question.
Who owns it?
The lender or the government?
One and the same, but the lender, what they're trying to do with this.
I got a note from a friend of mine at banking business after listening to yesterday's program.
We're talking about this Wall Street Journal piece in which the focus was, hey, it's not what we don't know policy-wise that's retarding growth.
It's what we already do know.
It's not so much uncertainty over what's coming.
It's a problem with what already exists in terms of Obama policy.
And the point that he made to me was that you can do everything in the world you want.
Until there is consumer demand for anything, you're not going to have any kind of economic growth.
So offering you that deal, they're trying to get you and any number of people to take it so they can illustrate that there's some demand going on.
No, no, don't get me wrong.
There's demand in the marketplace.
There's demand for iPads.
There is demand for iPhones.
There is demand for two if by T, but there is not a demand for borrowing money.
And when we're talking about investment in business growth, large or small, but primarily small business growth.
Remember now, we had the piece in the Wall Street Journal, gosh, the days are running together here.
It was either yesterday or the day before.
And it was a brilliant point.
And everybody says that businesses are waiting to hire people or to invest in growth in other ways because they don't know what's coming down the pike policy-wise.
Healthcare, taxes, there's uncertainty.
And this guy's point was, yeah, that's true, but there's also a lot of certainty over how rotten current policies are.
It's a double whammy.
The uncertainty over what's down the pike, but the devastating reality that the policies we currently have that this administration has put into place are not conducive to growth of any kind.
So my good friend, still dabbles in a banking business, but that was primary business, sends me this note and says, I think that too many pundits forget the intelligence of the American consumer.
Business is not going to expand, invest, or grow without demand.
Demand was slowed down by the consumers starting in 2007 as they saw the absurdities of the mortgage market.
And this friend of mine has two sons.
He said they played the refinance game constantly.
And the mortgage brokers discounted their fees because they were repeat customers.
And although only 3% defaulted, my sons began thinking of selling and monetizing their gains as they realized this ever-increasing valuation couldn't continue.
And they just mere examples of a larger sample of Americans who with each refinance of their home took on more debt at a slightly lower interest rate, but usually with a slightly, very slightly increase in monthly payments.
Suddenly, they took stock and they started to stop spending on other things.
Bamo Obama is elected.
This same category of American smart consumer really pulled the plug on spending and withdrew from the consuming market, even though some of them voted for him.
But even then, it was not really a vote for Obama in 08 as it was so much a vote against Bush.
You know, just a vote for change.
Coupled with the empty canvas Obama was, you could paint him to be whatever you wanted him to be.
So now, you know, even you hear the left-wing pundits from Paul Krugman to Robert B. Reich get on businesses.
Why don't you start loaning money?
It's sitting on all this cash.
Why don't you do something?
Hire people.
As though, yeah, okay, that's all it takes.
But the point is, there isn't any demand.
Before a business is going to go borrow money, there has to be consumer demand for the product.
Likewise, before somebody is going to ask for a loan to grow a business, there has to be a demand for the product or service provided that business.
And if there isn't, then all the rest of it's academic.
And that has been the problem.
And there is disdain for the American consumer throughout all levels of elite politics, Republican, Democrat, and of course in Washington.
The elite look at flyover country as flyover country in every aspect of their lives.
And they do not understand the, or they do not factor the real sophistication and intelligence of the American consumer when it comes to demand.
You can sit there and demand that the banks start loaning money or demand that businesses start hiring people, but if there isn't any demand on the part of the consumer, and a consumer will tell you when there's a recovery going on, and the reason I know that there's no recovery going on is there isn't any demand.
There's demand for a few items, as I say, iPhones, iPods, and now two if by T, but there is not a demand for growing businesses.
You have to, well, there's pent up, frustrated desire for demand.
So all this relates to the last caller we had.
So he gets this note from a lending institution offering 125% value of foreign blah, blah, blah, just at no interest rate or whatever.
They're just trying to create activity, make it look like there's consumer demand because they do know that with the illusion of consumer demand, and they can then do stories on the illusion of an economic recovery taking place.
The consumers starting to now overcome the fear and beginning to take the risk when it really isn't happening.
So it's, you know, it's just, it's reality is what it is.
And there are a lot of people who wish to ignore it because the consumer is not the smartest guy in the room.
The consumer is always the dupe.
The consumer is always the guy in the eyes of the elite.
The consumer is who you trick with your advertising plan.
The consumer is who you trick with your marketing plan.
The consumer is who you trick into voting for you or what have you.
There's a disdain that's looked at or that is present in looking at the consumer.
That's why all this pressure on business hire people.
Things don't happen in a vacuum.
Anyway, Dawson in Waterville, Maine.
Great to have you on the EIB.
Hi.
Hey, thanks for taking my call.
Yeah.
I wanted to talk about, I'm reading on the Fox website today that Pakistan has gone out and arrested five of its citizens who are working with the United States in regards to this whole bin Laden thing.
And I don't know what this war on terrorism is coming to, but this is just ridiculous.
These guys were saying they were pissed off that somebody was covering this up, this bin Laden thing and hiding them.
And they said they were going to go after these people that were hiding bin Laden.
And they're going after the exact opposite people.
They're going after the people that were helping us find bin Laden.
And it's time we cut those billions off that we're giving these people.
They're not working with us.
I don't know how much more clear they can make it.
And yeah, but as far as I'm concerned, we should let them know we're taking our money.
We're taking our military.
We're going over to India.
And we're going to still do the attacks over your borders, whether you like it or not.
And India would be more than delighted to work with us because they're still pissed off about that whole thing.
Let me tell you something.
The problem with our relationship with Pakistan, as it's pronounced in the White House, is not Pakistan.
The problem is Obama and Hillary and a bunch of incompetence in dealing with this.
If we had some responsible people in the Intellivision, we had some responsible people at the Department of State, it'd be a little bit, I think, a whole, it'd be a much different scenario, a much different situation.
The reason why I don't think we can just tell Pakistan to go pack it in is nukes.
They have nukes.
You know, the Pakistani leaders over there have to play a little bit of a double game with their own people.
Protecting people, protecting bin Laden and so forth, doing the exact opposite of what they told us that they were going to do.
I don't know.
That to me is not that surprising.
We're not talking all that much money anyway here.
In terms of pulling out of the Pakistani with the money, we're not going to make a dent in our deficit or what have you.
I just, I think this is largely due to who we have running the country right now.
I think it's just the wrong people who are not qualified, who have the entire just an incorrect worldview that has informed them forever about the United States' role in the world.
And it is willing for us to get stomped on because they think we deserve it.
They think we deserve to get screwed because they think we've screwed the rest of the world since our founding.
Got to take a brief time out.
We'll be back before you know it.
El Rushbo and the Limbaugh Institute.
I think Pakistan needs to remember they're either with us or with the terrorists.
There is no third choice, but with Obama, even if he would say that, are they going to believe it?
I think they'd laugh at Obama.
If Obama were to say, okay, Pakistan, you're either with us or you're with the terrorists.
And if you choose the terrorists, then you get the drones.
Now, Obama did threaten to bomb Pakistan's nukes back in 2004.
And during the 2008 campaign, he went off the reservation.
He went wrong and he started talking about nuking or bombing Pakistan then.
What is he talking about, this neophyte?
If Pakistan went wrong, I mean, he was pretty pointed about this.
But this is well, part of it's, I don't really know if it's a result of Mishar being thrown out.
I'm sure that's a factor.
Bottom line here is: when somebody explained to me, when we have all of the sign, all the evidence of incompetence, everything this administration touches domestically, why do we assume they know what they're doing in foreign policy?
Well, Russia's got people there.
He's appointed people.
Really, Hillary Clinton knows what she's doing as Secretary.
What is her track record?
Honest to God, folks.
What is her historically successful track record in anything?
She's living in Bosnia.
Whoopee-doo?
She's living off a reputation that she doesn't deserve, created by the left-wing media out of sympathy.
I just, I don't see where we've got any adults with any competence making any of these decisions.
And I don't know why we should assume that they know what they're doing.
We'd like to for our own sense of comfort and so forth.
I want to go back to some numbers here when it comes to the economy.
I'm going to move back to that for just a second.
Let's take some of these figures, add them up.
TARP, $787 billion.
No, $800, $700 billion was TARP.
$787 billion was stimulus, which went to $827.
So $826, $787.
What are we talking here?
$1.5 trillion, a little over $1.5 trillion Borrowed or printed, and then QE2, quantitative easing, which was another printing, and that was $630 billion.
All of it was borrowed or printed or what have you.
So $800, and see there $1.4, we're looking at $2 trillion here that was borrowed.
All ostensibly to create jobs and private sector economic growth.
$2 trillion.
This alone should suffice as the final nail in the coffin that buries liberalism forever as an economic solution to any problem.
It won't, but it should.
How about if something else had been done instead?
Either waive for one full year all income taxes.
That's a trillion dollars.
That would be new money in the private sector, not borrowed, not printed.
Money that is earned, not sent to Washington.
If Washington's going to go $2 trillion in debt by borrowing or printing for TARP for stimulus and QE2.
So if they're going to go $2 trillion in the red, why not do this?
Waive all income taxes for one year, a trillion dollars, or give every adult in the country the money.
150 million adults, that'd be about $15,000 each.
And let's see what happens in terms of the economy.
I will guarantee you.
Now, the starting point here, you may think this sounds ridiculous.
The starting point is that our wizards of SMART and the Obama regime have made the decision that however you divvy it up, we're going to borrow $2 trillion.
And that's going to cause job growth and economic growth, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
TARP, stimulus, QE2.
Why don't we just do half of that in the form of a sunset of income taxes for a year, have that money stay in people's back pockets, and let's see what happens.
It's kind of like I had this alternative proposal in the Wall Street Journal to Obama's ideas contrasted with mine.
It was very bipartisan.
I said, okay, he won by 53%, so we're talking a trillion dollars.
So he gets $530 billion spent his way.
I got the balance to spend my way on tax cuts.
We'll compare which way does best in creating jobs and economic growth.
Of course, it was a brilliant column.
It was exceedingly well written.
It was totally ignored.
But this is the same thinking here.
Keep the money in the private sector or go into debt.
You're going to go into debt anyway.
Keep the money in the private sector and see what happens.
This $2 trillion, no, TARP, TARP went to banks.
It didn't go to consumers, folks.
And there's still $150 billion of TARP that's unspent.
Stimulus, we know, did not go to people.
Well, it did not go to private sector.
It went to state union employees in large part, for the most part, and unemployment.
And the sole reason was to keep them employed during the recession so that they would continue to pay union dues, which end up back in Democrat Party coffers, a giant money laundering operation.
It was a slush fund.
If you're going to go $2 trillion in debt, all I'm saying is I have a better way of putting that money to use that would really create jobs, it would cause economic activity and growth out the wazoo.
Who's next?
Dan Raleigh, North Carolina.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Great to have you with us, sir.
Thank you, sir.
And when I use a housing scenario, it's just a microcosm of the overall problem.
Regardless of the mortgage company or the bank and the regulation allowing no verification for qualification, regardless of all that, it came down to an individual at some point had to write his, sign his name on the contract stating that he made money.
And regardless of the mortgage guy saying, You have to come up with 10% down if you want this $250,000 house because you only make X, if you made Y, you wouldn't have to come up with any money.
Well, that individual had to make the choice at that point to lie about it to get the house that he couldn't afford.
So a $200,000 house, and this is broad strokes, becomes worth $300,000, then $400,000.
But the houses never should have been that $400,000 because the income was never there.
Now there's exceptions to people.
Okay, I'm running out of time, but what is the point?
Well, the point is the problem isn't the government.
Hold on for a second.
The government's just a symptom of the people.
I was considering running for Congress in the ARC.
I know philosophically what you're saying.
People get what they want, so forth.
In this case, yeah, they lied, taking lessons from the government.
But even philosophically, and with all due respect, I disagree with you.
They showed up in the first place to lie because they were lured in there with a promise they'd get money knowing full well they had no ability to pay it back Another exciting hour of broadcast excellence is in the can.
It's zipping by today, folks.
But many exciting moments remain.
A full hour, busy broadcast hour remains, and we'll get to it.
▲
Export Selection