All Episodes
Previous Next
May 23, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:58
May 23, 2012, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
We have a lot to do today, folks.
A lot to try to squeeze it all in.
I want to try to squeeze it all in here.
Anything can happen, but you might have to listen fast because I'm going to talk fast in order to squeeze it all in.
It happened again to Obama last night in the primaries.
Greetings.
Great to have you, Rush Lindbaugh.
We're back at the EIB Southern Command here in South Florida.
Broadcast Excellence the next three hours with a go-by linkety split.
By the time the program's over, you'll think it just started.
Telephone number 800-282-2882 and the email address, lrushbaugh at EIBNet.com.
President Obama lost again last night, roughly 40% of the vote in Democratic primaries in Arkansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia, West Virginia a couple weeks ago.
But Arkansas and Kentucky, he lost again 40% of the vote.
The Washington Post has a story.
Folks, the pretense is gone.
It's a story by Chris Saliza.
Now, Saliza doesn't write the headline, but the story gets into this.
The headline, Kentucky, Arkansas primaries, is it racism?
Obama is losing because voters are racist and no longer want a black American as president.
It's not even a pretense anymore.
They're not even holding it out as a possible.
Now it's the real thing.
Those headlines have drawn a collective eye roll from Democrats and many others who closely follow national politics who ascribe the underperformance by the incumbent to a very simple thing, racism.
They are pulling out all the cards.
They're pulling out all of it is May.
And this attack on Bain, by the way, I told you this is going to happen.
I told you this is why Obama wanted Romney.
Way back during the Republican primary.
It said Republicans are going to nominate Romney.
That's what Obama wants because of health care and because of Wall Street.
That's what Occupy Wall Street's about, going after Romney.
And Obama has now come out and admitted it.
This campaign is going to be about Bain Capital.
It's backfiring everywhere you look from Corey Booker to now fast Eddie Rindell, governor of Pennsylvania.
All these Democrats are piping, wait a minute, you know, we kind of like private equity, private equity guys.
They're all Democrat donors.
The private equity guys, the hedge fund guys, the Bain Capitals, these are the people that invest in the states these governors like in projects these governors need and want.
And these governors secretly like these guys, and these guys donate to Democrats in large part, including to Obama.
In fact, Obama is the number one recipient of campaign cash and private equity people.
Oh, yeah, he is.
And so you've got even the governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, has come out and backed up Corey Booker.
Everybody's backing up Corey Booker except Corey Booker, who was taken to the woodshed and had to do his little video.
Okay, so we have that.
Now Saliza and the Washington Post basically saying that Obama's losing in Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky because of racism.
The voters, they're just racist.
The voters, these are Democrat voters now, Democrat voters.
This is a Democrat primary, Democrat racists don't like Obama.
They argue that conservative white Democrats, particularly those in the South and Appalachia, don't want to vote for an African-American for president and therefore are willing to cast a ballot for almost anyone else up to and including an incarcerated felon.
They voted for Obama last time.
They've become racist after Obama got in the White House.
Well, what we'll probably start hearing is that they voted for Obama the first time around so people wouldn't think they were racist.
But now, after they've done that once, now they're going to go back and now they're free to be racists now, since they've already shown that they're not by voting for Obama for the first time.
This is a contortion, a series of contortions that the media is going to try to put themselves in in order to explain this.
It can't be his policy, of course.
It can't be that people can't find jobs.
It can't be that people's homes are underwater.
It can't be that nobody wants health care.
It can't be that Obama's out there promoting gay marriage.
It can't be any of that.
Oh, no, no.
It's got to be because these voters are racist.
And this is the charge Republicans are afraid of.
They don't want it said about them.
This is why not a lot of Christmas.
Here's a story.
Oh, by the way, little tech news.
It's not a big deal, but it has a relationship to something that is relevant.
Apple and Samsung are suing each other for everything.
Apple uses Samsung products in the iPads, in the iPhones, but they compete in the iPhone market, in the cell phone market, and they compete in a lot of places.
Despite their cooperation, they're suing each other for everything.
And so yesterday, the CEOs, Monday and Tuesday CEOs of Apple, Samsung, got together, try to hash it out and prevent a trial starting later in June or July.
In a surprise to almost no one following the case, Samsung and Apple are not any closer to an agreement to stop suing each other following a rare face-to-face session in San Francisco Monday and Tuesday between the two company CEOs.
There's still no resolution to the ongoing legal battle over the design of Apple and Samsung mobile products.
What happened to compromise?
What happened to getting along?
I mean, we expect it of our government.
We expect Republicans and Democrats to compromise.
We got an entire business industry, the political consultant industries based on the notion they can get their candidates elected among independents who it is said demand compromise.
This compromise business, all these demands that are placed on the American political system never happened anywhere else either.
Apple and Samsung both believe they're right.
They got together, they hashed it out.
They had dialogue.
They talked.
They did everything we're supposed to do.
We're supposed to sit down with our enemies and we're supposed to hash it out.
Apple and Samsung CEOs did it.
Guess what?
Still hate each other, still threaten to wipe each other out.
They're going to go to court.
They're suing each other for everything.
Bye-bye compromise.
I just, I just, by the way, over the weekend, I was out in California and yesterday, it was Tuesday, right?
Yesterday, we played our group, the U.S. Open Course, Olympic Club, San Francisco.
Every other year, a bunch of friends of mine who have adopted the Boys and Girls Clubs of America as their number one charity, among them Tom Fazio, premier golf course designer.
But there are a lot of them and really good friends, and they set this all up.
They make this possible for the donors who pay a certain amount of money to be able to play the open course as it's set up for the open.
And this year it's in San Francisco at the Olympic Club.
And I'm just going to tell you, folks, if every golf course, if every day on the golf course was like this, I'd quit.
I would not play the game.
It's impossible.
The Fairways were 20, 25 yards wide.
You lose the ball in the first cut of rough.
Well, second cut.
This course is like trying to climb Mount Everest in parts.
It's that hilly.
It's just, I'm going to be watching this U.S. Open with profound interest.
We played 6,500 yards.
We played the white tees.
The tips, this thing is going to be 72, 7,300 yards.
I don't see how it's going to be possible to come in for the champion to come in under par on this golf course.
Now, they did not have the greens rolling fast yesterday, which kind of screwed a lot of us up.
We thought the greens would have been 12 or 13, 14 on the stimp meter, and they weren't.
They were running rather slow.
So that's the only thing that wasn't set up as it will be for the open.
But the rest of the course, yeah, just cut the grass real short and they roll them.
They get these giant rollers out there and they make them like glass.
That's what they do to the greens.
They just make them like glass and you can't stop the ball on them.
It just reminds me when I played Beth Page Black in this same charity outing some years ago.
Beth played Beth Page Black with the longest golf course I'd ever played.
They'd never been 205-yard carries just to carry the rough to get to the first cut of rough 205-yard carry off the tee.
Now, you got to say, a lot of us, well, I can carry it 205 yards, but not if I miss hit it.
I mean, anyway, it's going to be fascinating to watch, but it was a great time.
But man, man, oh man, if every golf course was set up like a U.
This golf course thing could be impossible whether playing an open on it or not.
This course is so hilly, my golf cart stopped on it on me twice going up a hill.
Just refused anymore.
Just started wheezing and just puttered out.
Caddy had to get behind and push the golf cart up the hill.
Straight up.
Politico has a story.
What did I tell you last fall?
What did I tell you last fall?
The Republican establishment doesn't even believe Obama can lose, right?
Republican establishment, during the arguments, during the primary, should it be Newt?
Should it be Santorum?
Should it be Rick Perry?
Should it be Michelle Bachman?
Should it be Romney?
Of course, the argument often came down on electability.
Who has the best chance of beating Obama?
Was one criteria that primary voters and analysts look to.
And I said all along, dirty little secret is in the Republican establishment, they don't think Obama can lose.
They don't think we can beat him.
All they want is the Senate.
I'm sure I know many of you are new to the program and don't remember me saying it because you weren't here, but those of you who were here last year, you remember this discussion going on and on and on and how frustrated we all were because you and I are sitting here thinking this guy's not only not unbeatable, he's landslidable beatable.
Here's another thing.
Unfortunately, I can't avoid it.
Wherever I go, hey, Rush, what's really going on with the election?
What's really going to happen?
As though everything I say on the radio is a lie or made up.
What's really going on, Rush?
Do we have a chance, Rush?
I can't to everybody.
Do we really have a chance?
Do we have a chance?
And I say, let me tell you, I think not only do we have a chance, I think that it's possible we could blow Obama out in a record landslide.
And you know what they all say?
Good, that's what I think too, but I just have to, I don't afraid to say, everybody thinks it.
They all think it, but they're afraid to say it, even to their own friends and to other people.
So they're being cautious.
Anyway, the Politico has a story.
It's by Jonathan Martin, our old buddy Jonathan Martin.
GOP discovers that Mitt could win.
And the story's from today.
I'm holding it right here, my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
You remember last fall I told GOP, the establishment I said, well, then why Romney?
Well, because Romney will give us the best chance of holding the House and winning the Senate.
Romney will do the best job down the ballot.
Bachman's not going to help us down the ballot.
Perry's not going to help us down the ballot.
Newt's going to no conservative.
They said no conservative is going to help us anywhere down the ballot.
Can't have a conservative.
Got to have Mitt, got to have a moderate, got to have a centrist, got to have a middle of the road guy that'll help us win this.
That was the Republican establishment.
Lo and behold, here we are.
Top Republicans, long privately skeptical about their presidential prospects, are coming around to a surprising new view that Mitt Romney may well win the White House this November.
This is earth-shattering news.
It really is.
I mean, the Politico makes this a big story.
And apparently the Republican establishment has just now been able to get their arms around the idea that Romney might actually win or better stated, that Obama could actually lose.
So my question, now that they think Obama can lose, are they going to want another candidate?
I'm just kidding, folks.
I'm just trying to stir it up a little bit here.
Margin of error polling, fundraising parity last month, conservative consolidation around Romney, and a still sluggish economy has senior Republican officials increasingly bullish about a nominee many winced over during a difficult primary process.
Well, the establishment wasn't wincing over Romney.
Romney has always been the establishment's guy, but they never thought he could win.
They just thought he would help them take the Senate and hold on to the House.
They want their Senate chairmanships.
They want to be able to write the regulations.
They want to be in charge of the money.
Figured that'd be the way to stop Obama.
Now all of a sudden, this is not pathetic.
Now all of a sudden, the Republican establishment's got to totally change the way they're thinking.
Oh, my God, we could actually win this?
Oh, now what do we do?
And who is it, ladies and gentlemen, that's been confident for months that Obama could be beaten, could lose.
And I think that's only becoming more likely each and every day.
I don't want to cause overconfidence here.
Anything can change on a dime.
Unpredictable things.
But I mean, as we sit here, the bottom's falling out for the regime.
I mean, now, just this Bain thing, we've come to find out that this Bain attack was a central, it was one of the top three Obama reelection efforts, and it's backfiring on the regime because it is Democrats who are coming out and defending the whole notion of private equity and Bain specifically.
And you've noticed there's talk about maybe Hillary being on a ticket.
Let me tell you, Democrats, the problem is not Biden.
I mean, he is a problem, but he's not your re-election problem in 2012.
Obama's your problem.
If you're thinking about changing a ticket, look to the top of it.
That's your problem.
Let's take a brief obscene profit timeout here.
You know, all of the Rush Babes for America babes, and there have been some men too, by the way, who have signed up on our Facebook page, facebook.com slash rushbabes for America.
Literally thousands of emails.
Well, how can we show that we're members?
I mean, it's great that they're on the Rush Babes page.
What can we do?
Well, we're adding some t-shirts and stuff to the EIB store.
So I'll tell you about that when we get back.
And other, we're just, I mean, literally here, just scratching the surface as we get started.
As you're the Facebook IPO.
Oh, somebody's going to have to pay for this.
These are Obama's buddies.
Face, well, because the bottom's falling out.
They can't maintain the initial price of $38.
Right?
Well, okay, so somebody's going to have to pay the price for this.
Somebody's going to get the blame for this.
You can't just have these Obama people losing money like this.
That can't happen.
So, and you can't blame Goldman Sachs.
They're underwriters.
They were in for $500 million at the outset.
But before the IPO, but you can't blame Goldman Sachs because they're Obama buddies.
And you can't blame J.P. Morgan, Chaser, Obama, but Morgan Stanley.
Aha, we have our target.
Morgan Stanley is soon, if not already, going to be under investigation by the SEC for not being truly forthcoming about changes Facebook made in its prospectus.
See, Facebook made a profound admission.
It's another thing I told you last week.
In fact, might have been Monday.
When you asked about Facebook, I said, of all the stuff that's been said about Facebook, oh, I got to take a, oh, gee.
I'll tell you, poor Facebook people, I think they need to change the name of the company from Facebook to FaceDown.
It's not pretty, folks.
It really isn't pretty.
And I tell you, only 25% of the shares are made available to public.
The majority of shares are being bought by the institutions, the hedge funds, the mutual funds, the repositories for pension funds and all this kind of, it's, oh, I'll tell you, the way the regime is looking at this, they're looking at this and they're saying, we got to find a Wall Street bank to blame.
It's right.
It's just, it's made the order for the campaign.
Got to blame a Wall Street bank for this, and it's going to be Morgan Stanley, even though J.P. Morgan and Goldman did the exact same thing that Morgan Stanley did.
They revised their views on Facebook's IPO the day before, but it's Morgan Stanley, which is not a Democrat-oriented firm, is going to take the hit.
Is Facebook too big to fail?
Is it too big to succeed?
Who knows?
Facebook's problem is advertising.
I mentioned it on Monday when Snardly asked me about it right at the end of the program.
Here's what happened.
Oh, first, first, folks.
Pakistani doctor who helped in the Osama bin Laden raid, helped us, a Pakistani doctor.
The Pakistanis say they didn't know that Obama or Osama was where he was.
They didn't know bin Laden was in that luxurious hideout, mere meters from a military installation.
They had no idea he was there for all those years.
So a Pakistani doctor who helped us find bin Laden has been convicted of treason.
This guy, this doctor, I don't know who his lawyer was, but he obviously wasn't very good, should have called Obama as a witness.
This doctor's lawyer had a perfect argument, could have said, Your Honor, this man, my client, a doctor, is clearly innocent, had nothing to do with capturing Brother Osama bin Laden.
The infidel American president Barack Obama single-handedly found and captured Brother Osama, peace be upon him.
The president of the United States, Barack Obama, is taking credit for finding and getting rid of bin Laden.
How can you convict my client?
Would have been the perfect defense.
So what happened Thursday of last week, I think it was Thursday of last week, maybe it might have been Wednesday.
Facebook changed their prospectus.
And when they make a change to the prospectus, the public is supposed to be informed of it.
And all the underwriters were told of the change to the prospectus.
And the change to the prospectus was a very important change because the Facebook guys admitted that many of their users are now mobile users.
They're accessing Facebook not from the web, or not from their desktop computers and their laptops, but from their mobile devices, such as their iPads or telephones.
And then they said, mobile advertising, Facebook mobile advertising has not shown strong results.
This should have resulted in a lower share price and at least a warning to people that there was a problem here, that this was not the golden IPO that everybody let it up to be.
And not just this mobile advertising business.
I feel like a lone wolf on this because everybody's trying to blame a Wall Street bank and Morgan Stanley here for a number of things.
But Facebook had a bigger problem than all that when General Motors pulled their advertising saying it didn't work.
Folks, that's all Facebook has.
They've got 900 million users, but how do they generate revenue?
They sell advertising.
If General Motors pulls back and then publicly says, our advertising didn't work and that's why we're, I mean, that's the biggest red flag in the world.
And it was out there for everybody to hear.
And I've noted that the really smart people in the financial community are saying that, well, yeah, that might have been a little factor, but really, there are more formulaic problems here with the IPO, the share price, the number of shares.
I think all that's academic.
When your number one fundraising tool is said publicly not to work by a major advertiser, I think that's all the problem you need.
And then Facebook doubled down.
Well, they did double down.
They had to admit it when they changed, amended the prospectus to say that more and more of their users are using mobile platforms and that advertising on the mobile platforms is really not showing any results.
And I guess the underwriters being looked at, investigated here for not making public the change to the Facebook prospectus.
Facebook did what it was supposed to do, even though their chief financial officer is also under investigation.
AP has it, regulators examining whether Morgan Stanley, the investment bank that chef herded Facebook through its highly publicized IPO, selectively informed clients of an analyst negative report about the company before the stock started trading.
Rick Ketchum, the head of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, which is the self-policing body for the securities industry, said yesterday, the question is a matter of regulatory concern for his organization and the SEC.
The top securities regulator for Massachusetts, William Galvin, said that he had subpoenaed Morgan Stanley.
Galvin's at his office investigating whether Morgan Stanley divulged to only some clients that one of its analysts had cut his revenue estimates for Facebook before the stock hit the market on Friday.
And that's because of the mobile advertising claim.
So, as far as the regime is concerned, the SEC is the regime.
As far as they're concerned, a Wall Street bank has to be to blame.
Now, Morgan Stanley did the same thing that J.P. Morgan and Goldman did, Goldman Sachs.
All three did the same thing.
Now, Morgan Stanley was a primary underwriter, there's no question.
They all three revised their views on Facebook's IPO, just like Morgan Stanley did.
But the claim is that Morgan Stanley didn't tell everybody, just a select few.
So they're being looked at.
It's also worthy of note that Morgan Stanley, among Wall Street banks, is among the least supportive of Obama in terms of donations.
Now, did you know that last week, when the Obama campaign was attacking Bain Capital, Obama collected $2 million in donations from a private equity firm, Blackstone?
Obama's the number one recipient of private equity money.
Bain Capital was run by a guy who was donating to Obama when Obama's ad on Bain was relevant.
Romney wasn't at Bain during the time Obama's ad criticizes what Bain was doing.
Anyway, all these Democrat governors, Deval Patrick, Fast Eddie Rindell, Corey Booker, the mayor of Newark, and there are others coming for, wait, wait, I don't like this attack on Bain because Bain is crucial.
Bain is important, and Bain gives money to Democrats.
Now, according to the Boston Globe, Obama has accepted nearly $95,000 in his last two campaigns from employees at Bain Capital.
Boston Globe employees at Bain have given Obama about $92,000.
Democrat candidates and committees have received more than $1.3 million from Bain Capital employees since the 2008 election cycle.
That is double the amount of money Bain has donated to Republicans.
So these vampires, as Obama calls them, and you know what Obama doesn't like about private equity?
Because all they do is look for profits.
And when he says the word profits, he spits it out practically.
He doesn't like profits.
He really doesn't.
He thinks profit is the rule of all evil.
He doesn't like profits at all.
And that's what he criticizes private equity for being focused on instead of creating jobs.
Well, I'm sorry.
Private equity is not there to create jobs.
That's not what they do.
Oh, the other guy that came out, Stephen Ratner, big Democrat private equity guy, Pinch Schulzberger's best friend, or one of them, a New York Times publisher.
Stephen Ratner came out and defended private equity.
He's in the business.
He came out and defended Bain after Obama's attack on them.
And he came out and defended the whole notion of profit seeking.
And it was Steve Ratner, Democrat fundraiser, who said that private equity's job is not to create jobs.
Now, Romney's running around saying that when he was there, Bain Capital did create 100,000 jobs, but that was in the process as a result of companies that Bain invested in growing.
But not all of them worked out.
They invested in some losers.
Welcome to real life.
Not everybody wins in every investment.
Not every investment pays off.
People who understand capitalism, free market, and risk-taking understand that.
Obama, for some reason, doesn't understand it or does and resents it.
So he's out there ripping Bain Capital to shreds.
Let's go back to the audio soundbites.
Here is from this program, October 6th, 2011, last year.
Obviously.
Think, folks, the regime wants to run against Mitt Romney.
That's what I think.
Here's what I'm thinking.
When do you think these astroturf protests were first talked about?
This Occupy Wall Street thing.
How long have they been in the works, do you think?
I have been asking myself this, because this is not spontaneous eruption here.
This is a well-thought-out plan.
Protests are needed because the economy sucks, and these washouts would normally be protesting a Republican president who was responsible.
Now they're targeting Wall Street as if Wall Street's responsible for the failure of Obama's policies.
They're trying to blame the rich for these economic problems when it's Obama and they're targeting Romney as a Wall Street guy.
So I think part of the reason this was concocted was to take Romney out after seeing to it that he's the nominee.
Let's move forward.
Late Monday afternoon in Chicago, this is the closing of the NATO summit, Obama at a press conference, and there was a Q ⁇ A.
And a Bloomberg correspondent said, well, comments from Booker and your Corey Booker, your former auto czar Steve Ratner, who have criticized some of these advertisements of yours, Mr. President, are they going to call on you to pull back a little bit against Bain?
Generally, could you give us your sense of just what private equity's role in stemming job losses is as they seek a return on investment for their investors?
It's important to recognize that this issue is not a, quote, distraction.
I think there are folks who do good work in that area, and there are times where they identify the capacity for the economy to create new jobs or new industries, but understand that their priority is to maximize profits.
And that's not always going to be good for communities or businesses or workers.
And the reason this is relevant to the campaign is because my opponent, Governor Romney, his main calling card for why he thinks he should be president is his business experience.
When you're president, as opposed to the head of a private equity firm, then your job is not simply to maximize profits.
Your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot.
So to repeat, this is not a distraction.
This is what this campaign is going to be about.
It's right.
This campaign is going to be about Bain.
This campaign is going to be about Romney.
This campaign is going to be about people who unfairly pursue profit.
I was exactly right.
I was exactly right about this last fall when I said Occupy Wall Street was put together to go after Romney.
And I said, James Petthukukis, who is over at the American Enterprise Institute, has a post at the Enterprise blog where he quotes the president here as saying, their priority is to maximize profits, and that always not a good thing for communities or businesses or workers.
Petthukukas says, I think Obama doesn't fully grasp how dangerous his words are.
If Obama had a true grasp of economic history, he would realize that it was only when business and profits and innovation began to be valued by society that we got the economic takeoff in the West that improved our average standard of living from $3 a day in 1800 to more than $100 a day today.
Now, Petthukoukis believes that when Obama, the president of the United States, starts running around denigrating, impugning, and criticizing profits and free enterprise, that it is dangerous.
And he asks, maybe Obama's not fully aware how dangerous his words.
He's being generous, I think.
Because I think Obama knows exactly what he's doing.
I think Obama knows exactly who he is.
I think there's any question Obama's got a chip on his shoulder about capitalism and free markets, the way this country was founded.
And he thinks profit-seeking is evil.
And he thinks that everything that comes with it is evil.
And he thinks that profits equal poverty.
He believes that profits is money that should be kept in the pockets of the poor.
That somehow profits derive only from people being screwed, only from people getting the shaft.
And so he's going to double down on Bain, no matter what Booker says, no matter what Steve Ratner says, no matter what Fast Eddie Rindell says, and no matter what Mark Warner says or Gaval Patrick, he's going to double down on it because that's what he loves.
It's what he knows.
It's what he's comfortable with.
It's what he doesn't like.
It's what he's passionate about.
We are back, El Rushball, the cutting edge of societal evolution.
So Obama doesn't like maximizing profits.
He doesn't like pursuing profits.
And by the way, if you make a profit on healthcare, you are going to be targeted.
The left in general hates profits.
They look at it as nothing more than people being screwed.
But doesn't Obama do everything he can to maximize his fundraising?
In fact, didn't Obama evolve on gay marriage in order to maximize his fundraising?
Let's substitute the word profits for fundraising.
It costs money for Obama to go, not his.
But it might cost the DNC.
It might cost somebody for Obama to go out.
There are costs involved in fundraising.
I mean, $10,000 a plate.
Somebody's got to pay for the food, unless it's underwritten too.
But the bottom line is there are costs.
Fundraising is the profit.
The net you end up with is the profit after all the expenses are included after the fundraising event.
This is why so many people don't like certain charities.
You donate a million dollars to a charity, you find out half of it's used for administrative costs.
But Obama does everything he can to maximize his fundraising, his own profits.
So it's okay for him to do it.
I wonder if all these widows and orphans and public employee union people who have money invested in these companies think the company shouldn't be trying to maximize profits, that they ought to be putting the community first, whatever the hell that means.
The purpose of a corporation is not to create jobs.
The purpose of private equity firms is not to create jobs.
The purpose of a community or of a business is not to put the community first.
This theory is so simple to understand.
A business is started by somebody who has a passion for a product or an idea and thinks it would truly benefit somebody, or it would make him rich if he could sell it, whatever.
And in the process of growing the business, if it does grow, if he lucks out, if he gets very fortunate, it grows, then guess what he needs?
He needs employees.
Then what are the employees doing?
Well, he needed healthcare benefits.
But that's not why the guy went into business.
But it is success that makes all these things that Obama cares about possible.
You've got to have profit.
You have to have business success before you can have employees, before the employees can have benefits.
And that's what Obama is targeting: success.
That's what he wants to punish.
What are these companies supposed to do?
Just invest in the community?
Work for nothing?
Everybody's supposed to be a non-profit?
So Peter Kukis is right.
The guy's dangerous.
I think he knows how dangerous is.
That's where I step aside.
Y'all tell you about the new t-shirts to the EIB store for Rush Babes for America.
We get back from the break at the top of the hour.
A record low.
Number of Americans identify themselves as pro-abortion, pro-choice.
A record low.
Now, according to Gallup, and don't go anywhere.
▲
Export Selection