All Episodes
Previous Next
April 4, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:48
April 4, 2012, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, welcome back, folks.
Great to have you here, Rush Limbaugh with more to do that can be done.
There's more to squeeze in than can be squeezed in.
But we do our best.
Great to have you back here on the fastest three hours in media.
Rush Limbaugh at 800-282-2882.
Email address L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
I ought to be dragging.
But I'm not.
Well, at 5 30 this morning, my cat starts headbutting me.
You know, and I w what when I when I am asleep, uh uh, ladies and gentlemen, I'm deaf.
And I wear my implant.
And I get this the cat is biting my nose and headbutting me.
I mean hard.
The point that I I wake up and I'm I'm looking at punk and I mean I'm three inches away.
I look, what are you doing?
I'm thinking there's got to be some emergency.
Something's happening and I can't hear.
So I jump out, I look at the phone, is something going on.
Uh I look, is the alarm been triggered, and the dog's barking, nothing going on.
The cat just woke me up.
And if there's a reason behind it, since I don't speak cat, I don't know, even now what it was.
No, it wasn't time to eat.
I did that.
I went in, fed the cat, cat wouldn't eat.
Either that or didn't want what I put in the bowl.
Anyway, folks, as I say, a lot to squeeze in here, and I want to I want to keep going just for a while here, uh, not much longer, and we'll get to other subjects because there's a lot here in our proverbial stacks of stuff.
This is Jan Crawford.
She's at CBS News.
She was on television this morning, CBS this morning, and reporting about the reaction to Obama's remarks that the court, Supreme Court should not overturn the health care reform law.
The President appears to be laying the groundwork to take on the court if it strikes down that law.
For the second straight day, President Obama gave his take on what the Supreme Court should do.
Uphold his signature domestic achievement.
Monday he seemed to suggest the court didn't even have the power to strike down the law.
On Obama's comments, Republicans pounced.
What is this?
The court must understand.
That is a threat.
It went beyond talk radio.
Senate Republican leader Ms. McConnell released a statement saying the president lacked fundamental respect for the separation of powers.
Yesterday afternoon, the judges struck back.
A federal appeals court in Houston issued an order to the Justice Department to explain whether the president really met the court had no power to strike down the law.
And that's the key.
And I just saw uh Attorney General Holder on television.
Well, of course we're gonna respond.
And of course it'll be an appropriate response.
And of course we understand Marbury versus Madison.
Of course, we understand the court's final say so on uh whether laws are constitutional.
But we must remember that the court has always practiced deference, said Holder.
The court's always been deferential to so he's trying to have it both ways.
Oh, yeah, we understand that court strikes down laws of Congress.
They better not strike this one down.
But again, the risk of uh being redundant.
Obama knows that there's judicial review.
He knows that the court does this.
He's not ignorant or stupid or uneducated.
This that he did yesterday has nothing to do with the court, actually, and not purposely.
The unintended consequence is that he has shown a profound disrespect for the court, and he is relegating them to a status in his mind of uh being inconsequential.
They're simply there to rubber stamp him.
And if they don't rubber stamp him, they are in the crosshairs, and that's his message to them.
They had better rubber stamp his health care bill, and if they don't, then they're targets.
And the way they're targets is he's telling the American people, those guys, those judges, they're taking away your health care.
They are the ones that are gonna make it so that you have financial ruin if you get sick.
They are taking away what I gave you.
It it really ladies and gentlemen, it is so beneath the dignity of the uh of the office of the presidency.
It's just striking.
It really is.
It defies description.
And I must be honest with you here.
We've faced this countless Times before, during the Clinton years, with the uh the Democrat Party and people at the highest levels of their leadership, showing total disregard and disrespect for traditions, ethics, uh general just being polite, good manners, showing respect.
And I don't know about anybody else.
I've always struggled with how to react to it and how to explain it to people in a way that is persuasive.
I've always struggled with a way to explain people to pierce the partisanship.
Because I don't need to persuade you.
You all know how atrocious this is.
You know how shameful, how embarrassing this is, but his audience doesn't.
People he's speaking to.
You'd like to be able to get to them.
I'd like to be able to get to shake their shoulders, wake up and understand what's what's happening here.
And I I don't know that I've ever successfully been able to do that.
Not consistently.
I know that converts happen.
But I'm into my 24th year hosting this program, and I am still struggling, as I think a lot of conservatives slash Republicans are, with the best way to react to this.
Because see, the problem is I live in Realville.
I have a profound respect for the intelligence of my audience.
I can't relate to what Obama's doing.
I would no more do what he was doing.
I wouldn't, I wouldn't lie to you to try to advance my own fortunes.
I couldn't.
My conscience wouldn't permit it, number one.
Number two, it's not who I'm.
I could not do what he's doing.
And as such, I can't relate to it.
I can understand it, but I can't relate to it.
And we're up against people who don't care if he's lying.
All they care about is the food stamp check going to get there is the am I going to keep my health care?
Will abortion still be legal?
That's all.
And he's counting, he's counting on that.
He's counting on his audience to be dumb.
He has no problem disrespecting them or the vast majority of the American people.
I'll give you a reminder, an example to illustrate what I'm talking about here.
Shortly after Obama was immaculated, there was a an incident in Detroit where the federal government was giving away vouchers for cheap rentals.
I I think this is what it was.
It doesn't really matter for the purposes of this story.
And what happened was that wherever people were told to go in Detroit, they were flooded with people.
Don't, cookie, don't need the sound bites from the archives.
Don't go get them.
I don't want to spend that much time on it.
And all these people showed up, and our affiliate in Detroit, WJR, sent a reporter out to talk to people.
And why are you here?
And their answers to me as an American citizen were depressing.
And if I had been president, I would have been shamed.
I would have been really bothered that people voted for me based on this.
But this is exactly what he wanted.
These people showed up and they said, Well, I'm here to get my free place to live.
Well, who's paying for it?
I don't care.
Well, no, really, where's the money coming from?
It's coming from Obama's stash.
Well, where'd Obama get it?
Well, I don't care.
He's got it, and that's why we love Obama, and he's given it to us.
I would have cringed.
I if if if if if I had been president and people came and showed up and thought that's what my presidency meant, I would have cringed.
I would have flown to Detroit and I would have had a meeting and I would have done a speech, and I would have said, let me tell you What this country is all about and how you prosper in it.
Instead, Obama exploits that ignorance, exploits that stupidity, exploits the and I don't mean stupidity in a pejorative sense.
I'm just trying to be descriptive.
But he exploits people who have nothing and whose only hope of getting something they think is if a president gives it to him.
I can't relate to that.
I understand it.
He's a welfare state guy.
He's a redistribution of wealth guy.
He wants people love him because he wants them to think that he's the only reason they've got anything.
We've got to peel off some of those people somehow.
Everybody talks about the independence to heck with them.
Not to heck.
We're gonna have to peel off some of the ignorant here.
We're gonna have to, I don't know what percent.
Well, I don't know because I'm not ignorant and I don't know how to relate to him.
But I do know that it's possible for the ignorant to learn.
It happens every day in this country.
It's possible for the ignorant to become educated.
It can happen.
So this is the problem I've got here, is that is that uh try to refute what the president's saying in a way that's persuasive to people.
They just don't hear it as criticism because then they chalk that up into well, that's just usual.
You just you you're just criticizing Obama because you don't like it.
No, I'm criticizing him because I seriously sincerely in my depths of my heart believe that this man is harming the foundations of this country.
I don't think there's any question about the fact that he does not like this country is sounded.
Anyway, that's just a little personal struggle.
Not all is lost here.
Judge Napolitano was on Fox this morning.
America's newsroom, that's the show with Martha McCallum and uh and Bill Hammer.
And Martha McCallum did this segment.
She had she had Napolitano on, and she played a clip of me defining judicial activism, as I did on this program yesterday.
I said, judicial activism does not happen when you follow the law.
Judicial activism is when you don't follow the law.
Obama is trying to redefine that too.
And after playing a couple of sound bites of me, Martha turned to the judge and said, Judge, I know you have a lot to say about this.
Nobody could say it quite as directly and poignantly as our good friend and colleague Rush.
When the court rules the way you don't want it to rule, you accuse them of being judicial activists.
That's a bit of a snarky definition.
What Rush said is true.
It is profoundly the job of the court to enforce the Constitution, whether it's popular or not.
That's why they are life tenured, so they don't have to concern themselves with the popularity of their decision.
In that respect, Rush is correct, and he's wise to make this comment as poignantly as he made it.
In terms of the president saying the court must understand Rush is also right on the mark.
The court does not have to listen to the president.
He should not be threatening or admonishing them.
And if he shows up at their doorstep and tries to talk to them about this case or play nice, nice to them in public, they should lock the door and not see him.
They can socialize with him after they take their summer break.
He's responding, you know, when I mentioned yesterday, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama goes up there to see him.
And everybody, oh, come on, even Snerdley.
Come on, Rush, they know that's not gonna.
While this sound bite was airing, I was watching Fox and they had a picture of Obama at the court.
I don't know when he was not, it's not recent, but he's been there.
And it was a picture of him and Kagan and Sotomayor.
Now he's been on well, it might not have been at the court, but the the judges were, I don't know where the picture was uh taken.
I didn't have the sound up, obviously, so I shouldn't say that I know where the president was.
But he talks to him.
And I threw it, it's a wild, very remote possibility he would go up there.
But I also mentioned don't be surprised.
If it isn't long before little school kids start writing letters to the justices, saying, Please don't take away my mommy's health care, because then you're taking away mine.
Don't.
There's the picture.
He's with the chief judge, his Kagan.
He's been up there.
He's it's not out of the realm.
That's Robertson there.
There's another picture.
Well, we don't know that that's at the court.
It looks like it's at the court.
They're all wearing their uniforms.
Their uh their their robes.
There's a scalia.
Um it's a long shot.
All I was saying was I wouldn't be surprised if he takes a trip up there.
I gotta take a break.
We'll come back, get to your phone calls after this.
Don't go away.
Back to the phone screen.
Not back.
We haven't been there yet, so we'll start.
Where are we starting?
I just saw the green bar.
Well, okay.
Uh Frank in Salt Lake City, you're up first.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Hello, Rush.
How are you?
Very well, sir.
Thank you.
Good.
I've been listening to you since mid-80s when I used to take my kids fishing on the Sacramento River.
Wow.
No, you are a lifer.
Well, listen, um, here here's my here's my comment.
I believe that what Obama has done here is light the fuse to question the Constitution.
He's done it through the mechanism of going after the Supreme Court and questioning the Supreme Court's authority on uh on setting the law of the land.
And I think whether or not his Obamacare gets uh approved or not, he's already laying the groundwork for questioning the authority of the Supreme Court, and I think in the long run, he's going after trying to undermine the Constitution.
Now, last night um I take a couple of courses in uh computer programming at our community college, and our teacher didn't show up.
So a couple of the students left, but a lot of us sat around, we we were talking about what Obama did yesterday.
And a lot of these kids, left their heart, feel that there may be some movement going on here that may end up affecting their careers, and that is censorship of the internet.
And if the Constitution's gonna be attacked, I think the freedom of speech is probably gonna be one of the first things to go.
So I just want to share that with you because there was a consensus among kids that were a third of my age believing that what Obama's doing is wrong.
And my hope, my hope, my sense is that that is a fairly sizable majority of everybody in this country.
I we don't see that reflected uh uh in the media, of course, because the media's not gonna find instances of this.
They still want to portray uh the country is at least 50-50 or even sympathetically still pro-Obama because he's personally likable and popular uh and all that.
I now as as to your notion of the uh attack here on the Constitution itself, I don't doubt that that's true.
Uh it's it's been established by Obama himself and others that uh have attended the same law schools that he has and have been influenced by the same scholars, that the Constitution is a bad document.
They call it the charter of negative liberties.
They don't like it because it limits government.
They think it's flawed.
They want a constitution rewritten or amended that spells out what government can do.
Right now the Constitution is a totally negative in terms of what government can do.
It tells them what it can't do, but it doesn't spell out what they can do, and that they don't like.
Now, as to your theory that Obama's lit the fuse to get people all fired up that the court itself is unconstitutional, or ought to be pared down in size, he got, if that's what he's striving for, he got a column in the Daily Beast today from a guy named Dow who said, if these justices overturn Obamacare, impeach him.
And that's the kind of stuff that he wanted, and that's the kind of stuff that he wants from these comments that he's making about no court has ever overturned a duly constituted law and so forth, which is patently false, and he knows it.
But I wouldn't throw out your theory in any way.
Um if the law is unfair, why should people obey it?
If the law's wrong, that I do you do you think if they overturn the mandate, if they strike it down, let's let's say hypothetically stroll the whole thing out.
What's Obama gonna do?
Do you think he's just gonna say, oh, well, we tried and we lost, and the rules of the game are that we go back to the drawing board and try to do think that's what he's gonna do?
Of course not.
He's not gonna accept it.
It's gonna become a huge campaign issue, and he's going to be running against the court, and the way that that might manifest itself, who knows, but it's going to be brutal.
You remember what the Clinton people did to uh Ken Starr, and that was not quite unprecedented, but in the modern era, when a special prosecutor is uh impaneled, it was the first time that the target attempted to win the case by going out and attacking the prosecutor.
Personally, every day from every angle possible, with as many people in the administration doing it.
Discredit the office of the special prosecutor and the special prosecutor himself.
And Ken Star, God bless, had no clue what to do.
Had no clue.
Nobody did.
It never had been done before.
Nobody knew how to deal with this.
Everybody that sat around with their mouths open and said, My God, you believe this.
I can't believe this.
And that's about all that happened.
And they kept tarring and fettering star.
So that is a bit of an indication of what's going to come.
They're just not going to sit there and take this if they lose it.
Obama might just say, I'm not, you know what?
I don't accept this.
We're just going to keep doing the law.
Just like the drilling moratorium.
A judge shut him down and they said the heck with it.
Sturdley, have you ever heard of the concept of critical legal studies.
My friends, have you ever heard of the concept of critical legal studies?
Critical legal studies is taught at Harvard, and it basically argues that law is politics, that all law is politics.
And there's an offshoot of it, and that's what Derek Bell taught critical race theory.
And what Derek Bell did was take the notion of critical legal studies that all law is politics and a racial component to it.
Obama learned law at Harvard.
Critical legal studies.
All law is politics.
The law is just a tool to protect the wealthy.
This is what they believe.
It's what it's taught.
The law and the Constitution are simply there to keep the man down.
That all roads lead back to Marx.
All roads lead back to socialism, communism, Marxism, one degree or another.
And so Obama sees the law as a tool to power.
Nothing more, nothing less.
It's nothing special.
It deserves no special respect or reverence.
It's just another aspect of the entire political spectrum to be competed in and to win.
And it has really no special place.
The rule of law is viewed as oppression.
Remember, to understand these people, folks, you have to understand how they view the founding.
They view the founding of this country as a document or a series of documents written by rich white guys who protected slavery.
That's how they view it.
And they view the Constitution as a mechanism for rich white guys to always hold on to all of the power.
This is what they are taught.
And so their objective is to take that apart, strike that down.
And this is where critical legal studies comes into play.
This is where the whole notion of calling the uh the Bill of Rights a charter of negative liberties comes into play.
These are people that don't have a love and adulation or a respect for the miracle that was the founding of this country.
They look at it as an abject mistake that has to be fixed.
Now let's I asked you to think hypothetically a moment ago, if the court strikes this down, what do you think Obama would do?
What do we do?
When we lose a case at the court, we accept it, and we say we'll go back to the drawing board, we'll try again and try to overcome the objections.
We might have some words about the idiot liberal justices and so forth, but we don't go on a war path to tear down the institution that made the ruling.
I know, I know the Republicans are timid anyway, but uh but aside from that, there is a respect for the system.
There is a respect for the structure of the country.
There is a profound respect for it that our side really holds dear.
The people we're up against.
It's nothing special.
This the Constitution and uh the legal structure is it's a plantation to them in one way of looking at it.
So let's say that the court strikes, not just for the hypothetical fun of it, they strike down everything.
They decide that the whole law can't survive without the mandate.
They strike the mandate down and say, you know what?
Go back to the drawing board.
What do Obama's gonna do?
Obama's gonna make tracks for the first microphone and camera.
And he's going to say something like this.
For 60 to 75 years, we have been struggling to achieve fairness and justice for all people in this country, not just the privileged few.
We have recognized that the way health care exists in this country is emblematic of the injustice and the discrimination that has defined this country since its beginning.
And look what happened.
Republican judges just took away your health care.
Republican judges just decided you were about to get too big a piece of the pie.
Republican judges determined that you're not important enough to have health care.
And then he'll throw in, we've seen similar struggles since the days of Jim Crow, or throw in some identifier, throw in some code word.
And then he'll relate the loss of health care to civil rights battles that have occurred.
And he'll do this in his best professorial voice.
And he in the process will be lighting another fuse.
And after he finishes, then the sycophants will hit the trail, and we will hear slogans like, We shall overcome the court.
We will overcome the then his buddies at the Daily Beast will start writing columns that the judges who voted to overturn it need to be impeached.
Where they live will be discovered and publicized.
And just as the Democrats sent Occupy people and union people up to the homes of the executives at AGI or AIG, so too might they do this to various judges, justices, and so forth.
I getting pretty specific here, some of this stuff might not happen, but I guarantee you that there will be with all the rest of this, a defiance.
Why do we have to listen to them anyway?
remember this is what critical legal studies is all about.
Why do we have to listen to these?
These guys appointed by Republicans just took away our health care.
Why do we have to listen?
Why do we have to just again shut up and go home quietly and accept this insult and this discriminant?
Why?
They keep their health care.
They didn't get rid of their own, but they just got rid of yours.
And it's off to the races for the 2012 presidential election.
That's what's going to happen.
No, Critical Legal Studies says that legal decisions are basically political decisions.
There's no difference in the two.
That a legal decision is no different than a political act or a political decision that it's impossible to tell the two apart.
Which, if you stop and think, is what Obama's saying about the court and and which is what intellectually liberal judges use as justification for writing law on the bench.
It's no different.
If if the law if Congress doesn't give you the law you want, you go ahead and appoint a bunch of judges who'll write it there.
You take your politics to the court.
If you can't if you can't win it in Congress, take your politics to the court.
That's all critical legal studies is, and that's what Obama believes, it's what he was taught.
And if you couple that with the notion the Constitution, this big oppression document that has to be fixed, because it's essentially unfair, unjust, immoral, all of that, lacking in social justice.
I mean, listen to what Ruth Bader Ginsburg said about it in Egypt.
There's not nothing in our constitution about civil rights and human rights and uh social justice and so on.
I would you students here in Egypt, don't use the U.S. Constitution as your model.
It's way behind the times.
It's way antiquated.
Back to the phones.
Marsha in uh in Bath, Michigan.
I'm glad you waited.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi.
How are you?
Good.
Thank you.
Um I'm you, I'm still a student, so uh, you know, uh learning here from you, but when I was speaking to, I guess a producer of the person on the phone, I was telling him that I grew up on welfare.
I was a um product of a mother who collected welfare all her life and ended up on welfare as an adult.
And my whole life growing up, it was you've got to get a Democrat in office.
If there's a Republican, they're gonna take all the benefits away.
Yeah, you got to be able to do that.
The richer, you know, always wanting to get richer and the poor.
Right, and now the new welfare is health care.
Yeah, and so now um things to a gentleman I met like twelve years ago who has helped me change my ways and start, you know, I've been listening to your show for four years.
Really, when did we meet?
What was that?
When did we meet?
You said you met me twelve years a gentleman change your life.
No, I said luckily I met a gentleman.
Oh, it wasn't me.
Oh, oh, I my ego got away with me like Obama's.
I thought you meant it me.
Oh, okay, I'm sorry.
No, and he totally changed my perception, which was hard to do.
He said it's like pushing me up a mountain snows first.
But he helped me understand that it it's not how, you know, if I want things to be better, I have to do better.
But my whole life, I didn't, you know, I grew up thinking I'm I can't get out of the situation.
I'm I'm being held a hostage to welfare, and that's kind of how they keep it for you.
You know, if you try and work, they take away your benefits.
You don't have enough to survive.
Right.
Or you kind of feel broken and you get yourself into this rot where you just want to keep collecting and keep collecting.
When I was younger, I started working when I was sixteen, and my mom said, You're gonna have to give me half your paycheck because they're taking my funds away.
Okay, no.
Now, excuse me here just a second, Marcia.
When last half hour, when I said these are the people we've got to this is what I'm in, this is exactly what I'm talking about.
Yep, exactly.
I can't tell you how happy I am that you've called because you you represent exactly what has to happen in this country for this country to get out of this vicious cycle that it's in.
Because we need for the country to be great, everybody in it Who's capable must be striving to be better than they think they can be?
You wanted more out of life than welfare was offering you.
I didn't realize that though until I met this gentleman who was saying, you know, you you're old enough to know better and you have to start making better choices.
You know, regardless of how you grew up or what things were, you're gonna have to make things better for yourself.
You're gonna have to work harder, you're gonna have to, you know, because otherwise nothing's gonna change.
You're gonna sit here and you're still gonna be angry, you're gonna be upset, you're still gonna be voting for the Democrats, and let me tell you a little story uh here, Marsha, while I have you.
Yesterday, the president, in talking about Paul Ryan's budget and the Republicans in general, criticize them for social Darwinism.
Uh the president believes that Republican policies are you're on your own, and if you fail, it's fine.
If you don't, it's fine, we don't care about you, you're on your own.
The country's never gotten anywhere with people being on their own.
Social Darwinism.
Have you ever been to a national park in this country?
Have you ever been to Yosemite uh or or a Grand Canyon or any place that's a that's a national park?
No, I have not.
Let me tell you, if you go, let me tell you what you'll encounter.
You will encounter signs everywhere telling you not to feed the animals.
And the reason that you are not to feed the animals, this is the U.S. Park Service.
The animals must learn to fend for themselves if they are to survive and thrive.
When you feed animals, they become dependent and no longer function as nature intends.
They lose their capacity to make their own way.
They fill up on foods that are harmful.
There is a dulling of the instincts that help wildlife avoid danger.
They lose the fear of humans and cars, leading many of them to be killed while expecting to be fed.
Some signs are downright mean a a fed animal is a dead animal is one such sign.
So the very government, the very bureaucracy that wants you kept on welfare, which you learned was the case, right?
They wanted you to stay on welfare.
Yeah, exactly.
Okay, same people who, if you go to a state park will not let you feed the animals because they will become dependent just like you were.
Mm-hmm.
And they won't be able to survive, just like you couldn't.
And they won't be able to fend for themselves, just like you couldn't.
And they won't be able to feed themselves, and they won't be able to thrive, and they will not be able to uh uh uh uh uh detect danger and so forth.
So they know, but they want you to stay dependent.
They wanted you to stay on.
They want it to keep you fearful because you know, unfortunately, I made I had two children, and you know, how am I gonna take care of 'em?
You know, I didn't think about that at the time.
So it's like, you know, what am I gonna do?
The exact same thing that my mom did, expect the state to take care of it.
And then you you have a choice.
You can stand and get the money so you can feed your kids or you can get a job.
So what are you doing now, Marsha?
Luckily, I luckily I was hired by this gentleman that owns his own company, and I work for him, and I have to work long hours.
I work um twelve to thirteen hours a day.
I work six days a week.
And you know what?
My and I just started this job in September, and I'm not taking any assistance from the government now.
My taxes last year, I claimed this under $15,000 is what I lived on.
How do you spend it?
How do you feel now?
What is your attitude each day just about yourself and life?
I feel better about things, but I'm really worried that due to um the unemployment and a higher number of people being on welfare that Obama's gonna get in because people are fearful they're gonna want these benefits because how else are they gonna survive?
And I'm telling you, once you get on it, your mentality it breaks you down as an individual.
It you know, you just feel helpless and hopeless, and the more you try and do better or try and better yourself, it's like they're constantly against you.
You get a job, you have to report your finances.
You get a a monetary gift for Christmas.
You have to report this stuff because your former friends.
Do you have friends you know who are still in the welfare system?
Um, you know what, I don't really because I don't really have much of a social life.
I I work.
I work, and then I have to go home and still take care of my children and still do laundry, and like I said, sometimes I don't get home until seven, seven thirty, still have to cook dinner and take care of things.
So I don't I don't really um hang out with anybody except for the people that I work with, which is mainly my boss.
Well you know, you uh you you are perfect.
You are a perfect illustration of just the last half hour what I was telling this audience, the people in this audience that I think needs to happen in order to combat and overcome the forces that wanted to keep you a little noisy.
Marcia, I want you to hang out.
Don't Marsha, don't hang up.
Snurdly pick up the phone.
Because Marsha, I'm gonna send you an iPad.
If anybody deserves an iPad, it's you.
And and this uh you will uh you'll love it.
And if you if you're not familiar with the computers, don't worry about it.
This is one of the most intuitive computers that you could ever use.
You'll have fun with it.
You'll learn with it.
It's uh it's fabulous.
So sit tight.
We'll FedEx it out to you as soon as uh Snerdley gets the address from you.
We'll take a brief time out, be back and continue after this.
Don't go away.
Yeah, we're gonna throw in a subscription and a limball letter for Marcia as well.
And folks, that call from Marcia.
There's so much in her call.
That is really why Obama needs this recession.
It is why Obama is not interested in this recession ending.
He needs as many people as possible dependent on the government.
He needs as many people as possible, thinking all is lost without the government.
Make as many people possible as dependent.
It's a re-election strategy and tool.
▲
Export Selection