All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 20, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:35
September 20, 2012, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, the uh the Gallup Daily Presidential Tracking poll is out.
Now what do you think it says?
Now keep in mind, we have a Gallup poll out, swing states, that shows that Democrat voter enthusiasm is way up.
Oh, it's so exciting.
Democrats all of a sudden by a 20% margin want to vote more than Republicans do.
Yep.
And it's a voter enthusiastic, I mean sky high, a Democrat vote.
Wow, it's rebounded.
So what do you think the Gallup Daily presidential tracking poll today is?
Hmm.
They're tied uh 4747.
Uh Romney was down a point in the last poll.
And before that, Romney was down five or six.
And now they're tied at forty-seven forty-seven.
Suddenly his Democrat voter enthusiasm in the same poll.
So I guess the Axelrod threat has worn off.
Now Axelrod, when it when Gallup reported bad news for Obama a couple three weeks ago, Axelrod threatened him.
Had a meeting with him, called him in or did something.
This 4747 tie in the Gallup Daily Presidential Tracking Poll, that's even after the devastating Romney tape.
So Romney went up a point today.
Obama didn't lose near.
It was 4746.
Obama.
Now it's 4747.
And Gallup is saying that Obama's approval is down by two.
And the Department of Justice has joined a lawsuit against Gallup.
That's they have.
Are you aware of that?
You're looking at me like I'm a space cadet.
I'm telling you, Gallup has been threatened or part of a DOJ lawsuit, and they still reporting it's a tie.
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
Rush Limbaugh, the excellence in broadcasting network.
Happy to have you here.
Telephone number, and we will get to your phone calls in this hour is 800-282-2882.
The email address L Rushboat EIB net.com.
Go to the audio sound bites yesterday, Washington, Capitol Hill.
During a Senate Homeland Security Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on the attacks on the embassies in Libya and Egypt.
National Counterterrorism Center Director Matthew Olson testified.
And he and Joe Lieberman had a little back and forth.
Let me begin by asking you whether you would say that Ambassador Stevens and the three other Americans died as a result of a terrorist attack.
Certainly on that particular question, I would say yes.
They were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy.
Whoa.
Whoa.
Intel official under oath, Libyan attack was terrorism.
Planned terrorism.
It wasn't reaction to a movie.
Last night on the CBS Evening News, the anchor Scott Pelley spoke with correspondent Elizabeth Palmer about the attack on the embassy in Libya, and Pelle said, look, we were told initially that the four Americans were killed as part of a riot over this anti-Islamic film produced in America.
It's caused so much unrest in the Middle East.
But what have you been finding out, Elizabeth?
Most people we talked to, including neighbors uh around the composite say that there was absolutely no demonstration that in fact the attack began when a group of armed men, as many as a hundred, showed up at the same time at both the compound's main gates, uh, and began uh firing both with guns and also with heavy weapons, including rocket propelled grenades and also mortars.
Why, that doesn't sound like a protest to a movie to me.
That sounds like a pre-planned attack.
Why, you got a hundred guys, guns, heavy weapons, RPGs, rocket propelled grenades, mortars.
Why, this directly contradicts what our president said.
Our president said it was a video.
And Hillary Clinton said it was a video, and Susan Rice said it was a video, and then President Obama said again that it was the video.
They've all been saying it was the video that caused this.
It's a horrible video, by the way.
That's a despicable video.
We rounded up the filmmaker.
That's right, we sent sheriff deputies to his home in Cerritos at 140 AM on Sunday, under cover of darkness.
Of course, there was enough light, the media cameras to shine in this guy, and we rounded him up.
We took him in.
We held him for questioning.
We didn't charge him with anything because the picture was all we wanted.
We turned the guy loose, and he's such a coward, now he's afraid to go home.
Because he doesn't want to be hassled by the media anymore.
But he has denied everything to do with the movie.
Meanwhile, Obama keeps saying it was the movie.
Obama keeps inciting violence and keeps excusing violence at the same time.
As anybody thought of this.
Every time he blames this movie, he provides inspiration for terrorists to get ticked off and start taking out their frustration.
And then after they do, and he blames the movie, the terrorists say, hey, we can do this with impunity.
Well, they don't know the word impunity.
We can do that.
Nobody's going to come after us.
Why that stupid American president is blaming that movie for everything we do.
We go out and do all this we want, and he's just going to continue to blame one of his own citizens.
What a deal.
You imagine a terrorist community has got to be throwing party.
What a deal.
Everything they do gets blamed on an American filmmaker and a movie that nobody has seen.
You know, so if if if I'm Terry terrorist and I'm sitting there and I'm watching, I gotta be excited.
I'm really excited.
The President of the United States is making me mad by talking about this movie and how offensive it is.
And then when I go as terry terrorist and do some terrorism, then O'Raman blames the filmmaker and not me.
I got a total free ride.
And then I can also say, yeah, and you killed Obama and you're bragging about it, I'm really mad.
And they'll blame that on the filmmaker.
Now the thing, Mr. Pelley, for you and Elizabeth Palmer, you got a problem now because you know that the president lied to you, and the Letterman shows on your network.
That would be CBS.
You have the President of the United States lying to you.
You have the Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton.
Oh, folks, do you know what's going on in Pakistan?
Aside from the fact that our embassy is underseas, do you know that there's an ad running on television in Pakistan?
Featuring pictures of President Obama and Hillary Clinton.
And what are they apologizing for the for the movie?
They're talking about how horrible this movie is.
And how they had nothing to do with it.
And they're asking to not be held accountable.
Nope, don't blame us.
And pictures of Hillary and Obama on Pakistani TV screens telling these people in Pakistan how horrible this movie is.
How ashamed they are of it.
I don't know if they're apologizing for it or not, but they may as well be.
It's on Pakistan TV, even after all of this is known.
They're lying everywhere.
Now, CBS knows this, and Rhea Mitchell, NBC and the University of Washington.
They all know it.
F. Chuck Todd knows it.
What are they going to do?
But the president of the United States lying to them, lying to the American people, Hillary Ditto, Susan Rice Ditto, what he can do about it.
They've undercovered now themselves, imagine this.
Imagine the position they're in, they're state-controlled media, they're Democrats with bylines.
And somebody at CBS made a mistake and actually found out the truth.
And then the mistake was compounded.
Some idiot editor actually allowed it to be reported on the air.
And now what do they do?
I got it.
They if in the real world they have to go ask the president, why are you lying to us?
And why did why did you lie to Letterman?
Well they'd have to.
Mr. President, you realize that there are witnesses in your own administration and eyewitnesses on the ground have talked about the fact that the video didn't have anything to do with this attack in Benghazi, the death of the ambassador.
It's not going to happen.
But we know that it did.
Here, let's let's go back.
We got a montage of lies, the regime blaming the video for all this last Thursday, Friday, Monday, yesterday.
This video is disgusting and reprehensible.
It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage.
We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.
The unrest we've seen around the region has been in reaction to a video.
It was a spontaneous, not a premeditated response to what had transpired in Cairo, a direct result of a heinous and offensive video.
You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character, who is an extremely offensive video directed at Mohammed and Islam extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies.
Now, how are they going to square this?
The voice is first was Hillary talking to the second graders, then Jay Carney, we have no information to suggest it pre-planned.
We just played their own State Department guy, Homeland Security guy saying it was planned.
We got CBS reporter with witnesses that, oh yeah, it was planned, and mortar fire, RPGs, hundred guys.
We were working on this for a couple of days.
And here's uh Susan Rice, spontaneous, not premeditated.
Yes, it was premeditated.
It had nothing to do with the video.
And last year it was Obama on Letterman.
Oh, you had a video that was released by somebody who lives here's shadowy character.
They're lying.
And they continue to lie.
That advertisement, by the way, in uh Pakistan is being run by the State Department.
And uh it features Obama and Clinton.
And by the marked by the U.S. Embassy SEAL, advertisements condemning the video appeared on Pakistani TV today in an apparent attempt to undercut anger against the U.S. where the film was produced.
Are you pulling your hair out?
I I don't know how how to deal with this.
Tell you that.
I wouldn't have whether it's guts, courage, one I I couldn't do this.
It's not even a matter of conscience.
I just I'm how do you lie so blatantly when the truth is known?
Are you relying on the fact the truth isn't known?
Or are you relying on people don't care?
Do you think whatever they hear they won't believe they'll believe what you say.
Is that what Obama believes in Hillary?
Must be must be.
The advertisements end with the seal of the American embassy in Islamabad.
And Clinton in this advertisement, she says we absolutely reject the content and message of this video.
And the words are subtitled.
Make sure that everybody gets it.
You know, why didn't we think of running ads in Afghanistan after 9-11?
Well, we could have said some video brought down towers.
I don't know.
This is beyond credulity.
This is just it's Clinton-esque.
Except this isn't about sex.
I have to take a break.
I'm I'm literally I don't know what to do with this.
Beyond telling you.
It is.
I can't relate to it.
I I can't.
It's not in my makeup universe lexicon behavioral pattern.
Uh just cannot take a break.
I don't know what to do with this.
Fastest media program in history.
Fastest three hours in media, fastest week.
We went along through it, and we uh we're gonna start in Baltimore.
This is Yehuda.
Yeah, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Dr. Limbaugh, it's an honor to speak to you.
Thank you.
Rush, I wanted to discuss the recent LA Times op-ed regarding whether or not the film Innocence of Muslims is protected under the f under free speech.
I saw that uh yesterday or the day before, yeah.
Yeah, so the argument was that if expression leads to incitement of violence and puts people in danger, it should not be allowed.
So that pretty much sums up the liberal narrative apparent from the administration's reaction, their haste to blame the film for the violence, and obviously from this op-ed.
So they're arguing that condemnation and serious attempts to stop undue murder, destruction, and violence carried out by radicals is far less important than discouraging and potentially enforcing exposure and condemnation of that exact same violence.
But where does this lead?
You know, you can even there'll be frankly there there can be some short-sighted people.
Yeah, yeah, you know what?
I think it like fire in a crowded theater rush, we've got to make sure that people don't offend the religious feelings of people if if all you gotta do to have your speech curtailed is offend somebody and make them get violent.
So now so now the question really becomes who has more freedom of expression?
Us twenty-first century American citizens or Muslim extremists.
And I think that from what's going on, the answer is that right now Muslims are freer to express themselves than we here in the United States in the twenty-first century.
A brilliant point.
Because under this op-edge term, the point is the Muslims can wreak havoc all they want.
Mm-hmm.
But if we say something about it that they claim caused it, we can't speak anymore.
What our words are going to be deemed more injurious, risky, and harmful than their actions.
Yeah.
A good a good analogy would that to be of um you know, like the big brother little brother relation relationship, whereas the big brother must act older and responsible while the baby can do whatever he wants because he's the baby, and the liberals don't see the radical Muslims as people who have a chance of ever controlling themselves in the absence of an outside enforcement, yet they assert that we are the ones who must adjust to that.
And honestly, I mean that that really takes away our freedom of expression and since you have obviously intellectually delved into this.
And by the way, if if you don't have an answer to this, no problem, because I'm hitting you with it without you having had any knowledge that's coming.
Well, you've thought about it.
What now why do you think why do you think the American left is in fact so tolerant of this?
Why are they so tolerant of terrorism?
Why do they want us to blame ourselves for it?
What what what explains this in your mind?
Well, so in my mind there are two aspects.
Let's let's call the positive aspect and the negative aspect.
So the positive aspect is that they haven't seen it close up in their eyes.
It hasn't happened to them.
It hasn't happened to their family.
The negative aspect is the core, the psychological core of liberalism, in my opinion, and that is that liberals by definition, the reason why they're liberals is because they like to preach to others.
So even if even if the other people, you know, the normal uh mainstream citizens, they're not doing anything wrong.
But the liberals, because of this inherent feeling that they, you know, this holier than now feeling that they need to preach their beliefs to somebody else, they're going to look for something wrong, for something to criticize in uh in the other people, even though the mainstream citizens aren't doing anything wrong.
And that's pretty much where it stems from.
That even though the the the radical Muslims are committing egregious crimes, but it's you know, but somebody here is uh condemning it and exposing it and doing it in in an insensitive way, which by definition every exposure is.
So instead of choosing to um to condemn and to fight against the real problem, which is a lot you know, which is pretty hard to do, instead they just take the way of preaching to the harmless innocent citizen who is doing nothing but exposing evil.
Well, I have no doubt all that's true.
I, however, have a different theory.
And it's not nearly as complicated as yours.
My theory is because there's real basic basic question.
Why in the world do they go so out of their way to make sure these people are defended?
What what is the and I think it's because they, the American left, have a lot in common with middleton Islam.
They have a common enemy.
They have a common com and the common enemy is American conservatives.
That's very worrying.
That's extremely worried about it.
I think they're both totalitarian.
They believe in totalitarianism.
They believe in in in the largest central command and control commanding and telling everybody what they can and can't do, where they can and can't go, what they can and can't eat.
The similarities between the American left and militant Islam are shocking.
And we believe in freedom.
And that doesn't go with either liberalism or Islam.
Let me read you how this LA Times op-ed, which claims that freedom of speech probably does go too far when it involves Islam.
The point is, I'm quoting from it now.
The point is to emphasize that U.S. law makes a distinction between speech that's simply offensive and speech that is deliberately tailored to put lives and property at immediate risk.
Now who talks that way?
When's the last time, Snerdly, you thought of saying something so you could put lives and property at risk?
Anyway, that's what it says.
It goes on here.
Speech that is deliberately tailored to put lives and property at immediate.
Well, who gets to sit in judgment of what kind of speech that is?
Yeah, that's right, government does.
Especially in the heightened volatility of today's Middle East.
Such provocation is certainly irresponsible and reveals an ironic alliance of convenience between Christian extremists and the Islamic extremists.
They claim to what do Christian extremists have to do with this?
Christian extremists?
Where are they?
Who are they?
They're not even in this story.
This is ah, but you see.
But you see, the reason I said this last week, maybe it's earlier this week.
The reason they're harping on this video.
I I that that Obama PR skit that we did on Monday, the press, I'm telling you that was a week or two ahead of its time.
Because the point we're trying to make in that skit is this filmmaker is an extremist Christian.
And that makes him a conservative.
And that's why Obama's harping on it.
It's part of the presidential campaign.
Blaming this video is blaming conservatives, as far as the presidential campaign's concerned.
What the heck does a Christian extremist have to do with the with Middle Eastern terrorism?
So the whole thing ends by bashing Christian extremists.
I'll tell you, liberals in my old buddy uh Andy McCarthy has written a whole book on this, which is fascinating on the ties between liberalism, socialism, leftism, and Islam.
And the similarities are scary.
Central command and control, no liberty or freedom.
Everybody living under dictates what you can eat, what you can drive, where you can drive, who can drive, who will live and die, who gets health care and who doesn't, it's scary stuff.
And I'm telling you, the American left, whenever, whenever a terrorist outbreak happens, what's the first reaction anywhere from a Democrat?
Oh my God, oh, we got to apologize.
Oh, we have to do what's oh, are they afraid of them?
Well, that's just BS.
We have to understand them.
We have to understand their rage and find out why they I mean it's all part of blaming America.
It's all part of blaming us.
That that's true.
But this it's almost like there's cowardice, although I don't think that's what it is at all.
Uh I I I think that they really Don't want, folks, as I look at this, the Democrat, but the American left doesn't want us to see terrorism for what it really is.
They want us to see it as some really uh rare occurrence that is radical, very nothing to do with mainstream anything, doesn't happen that much.
But to the extent that it does, it's because there are conservatives that these people don't like.
If a let me just put it this way.
Answer this question with intellectual honesty.
If your average liberal had a choice to rid the world of Muslim extremism or American conservatism, what do you think the liberal would choose?
And before you answer, try to remember what you've told about what's being taught in schools, about who the real enemy in America today.
The real enemy is any Republican, any conservative, and for all the cliched reasons.
By the same token, do teachers in schools rev their kids up to the dangers of militant Islam?
No way.
We can't offend those people.
You can offend American conservatives all day long.
You give your average liberal a chance.
Okay, tomorrow the world is going to be absent, either militant Muslims or militant conservatives.
Which do you choose?
They'd vote us, folks, off the boat.
I have no doubt about it, and I'm not kidding or exaggerating.
I think we represent a bigger threat to them because we stand for the exact opposite.
They are they are in common on their uh controlling characteristics, domineering characteristics, they're arrogant, they want to control everything, everybody.
They want to be in control of things that people eat, drink, use, high-tech, all this.
Liberals have to have control over people.
Uh largely based in the belief, well, that's a raw thirst for power, but it's it's also rooted in the fact they have contempt for people's ability to handle the rigors of life on their own.
The Islamists want to do it just to keep this rigid moral code intact and fealty to uh the uh the holy Quran, as President Obama pronounces it.
And we are diametrically post on it with freedom, individual liberty, rugged responsibility, individuality, uh entrepreneurism, um you make the best of your life, however, realize it's the the equality of outcomes is not possible.
They want sameness everywhere, sameness in dress.
That's it's really striking when you think about it, all the areas of similarity.
It uh it really is.
If a terrorist act happens, what's the liberals' first reaction?
Blame conservatives.
Uh Dark Knight Rising uh Tea Party.
Uh Gabby Gifford's Sarah Palin.
Uh you name it, any criminal act, mass murder or terrorist act, the American left, including the media, first looks for the conservative to blame.
The underwear bomber in Times Square, Mayor Doomberg, who do you blame?
People who didn't conservatives who are unhappy with Obamacare.
Right.
Meanwhile, what's his name at Fort Hood blows the joint up.
No, we can't we can't say that that had to do with Islam.
This is a sick person.
Wait a minute, he was being inspired by this this this shake over there that Obama eventually wiped out with a drone attack.
Well, he's still a lone wolf.
He was not acting in consort with anyone, he's just a sick individual.
Now wait a minute, he was a Muslim and he went nuts and he just blowing people away.
Well, it's an isolated occurrence.
You let a conservative and get uh any acting like that happen, and the left's first reaction is trying to blame a conservative for it.
You know and I know.
Anyway, let me take a quick call here before we go to the break.
Paul in Nashville, I'm glad that you called.
Thank you for waiting.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Yes, sir.
Hi, Rush.
Um I'm a little nervous, and uh, I hope you'll please excuse me if I sound a little out of breath.
It's because of an illness that I have.
Okay.
Appreciate that, but you don't sound out of breath.
And even if you did, this is not the show that would hold it against you.
Thank you.
I appreciate it.
Uh excuse me.
I want to make three quick comments.
I would like to make them consecutively, and then hear your reply to them.
All right.
Uh first.
Uh the political divide in America that exists can be summed up in one profound comment from a founding father.
And that quote is this.
Half of Americans would rather be equal in economic poverty than unequal in economic freedom.
Romney has not articulated that fact because it's too hard of a truth for half of Americans to uh want to hear.
Uh secondly.
Americans respect a candidate who is a fighter, not a gentleman.
That's what Obama has going for him, and that's how he's perceived as a fighter.
And lastly, a famous quote I'm sure you're familiar with.
America will exist until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
From then on, the majority always votes for the candidate who promises the most benefits from the public treasury.
Yep.
Yep.
Everybody familiar with that last one.
Your first quote has already scrolled out of my view.
What was it again?
It is that half of Americans would rather live equally in economic poverty than unequally in economic freedom.
In other words, if we're going to be poor, we're all going to be poor.
Right.
Well, except except uh my problem with that is it's just like the 47%, the the people you're talking about would not admit being in that 50% group.
You if you went out and said you you would rather be economically they would never admit it.
They may live it and but they would never admit it.
It's like Churchill.
I think it was Churchill.
Uh his variation of that quote, I have paraphrased over the years in my own way.
Basically say that what liberalism is shared misery.
Everybody leaving living equally miserable.
If you want equality of outcomes, that's what you're going to get.
Everybody leaving living equally uh in misery.
Now, I don't disagree with with your your point.
A lot of people would choose security over prosperity, safety over effort.
Whether it's 50% what this election's all about.
But there are this the reason why class envy tends to work in certain pockets is that there are people who can be made happy if you tell them that we're going to raise taxes against the rich and the rich are going to be a little bit poorer.
You're not going to be any better off.
You're still going to be in the depths of economic misery, but those people are going to hurt.
They'll be made happy by that.
Democrats play on it.
Makes no sense.
Makes no sense.
But there's all kinds of people that are infected with get even with them ism is what I call it.
And that is, you know, largely it's human nature.
How many people do you know who like to lift themselves up by putting other people down?
Or who rejoice in the failures of other people.
Happens all the time.
Very common.
I gotta take a breath.
Great call.
I appreciate it.
We'll be back with much more after this.
Don't go away.
Okay, here's the Churchill quote.
I had to look it up during the break.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure.
The creed of ignorance, the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue, the equal sharing of misery.
Want me to run in by you again?
And stand by because I got a story on the size of male genitalia coming up next.
Here's the Churchill quote.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, the gospel of envy.
Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
That's it.
Liberalism is spreading misery equally.
That's exactly what it is.
I have a story from Philadelphia, CBS News, CBSI Ball News.
If size matters, male private parts are shrinking, according to a new Italian study on sexuality.
The study's leaders.
Kids are back in school now, it's okay.
Well, it's September 20th.
It's just adults out there now.
The study's leaders claim to have bona fide research.
I say bona fide, probably here.
Bona fied research that says the average size of a penis is roughly 10% smaller than it was 50 years ago.
And the researchers say air pollution is why.
Air pollution, global warming, has been shown to negatively impact penis size.
Italian researchers.
I don't buy this.
I think it's feminism.
I think if it's if it's tied to the last 50 years, the average size of uh member is uh 10% smaller than his 50 years has to be the feminazis.
That would have been a chickification and everything else.
Thank you.
Give them time, and they'll blame Bush.
Give him time.
But air pollution versus feminazis, ha.
No content.
By the way, Stephanie Cutter, we have Stephanie Cutter here.
She was on Aaron Burnett out front last night on CNN, and they asked her, look, Stephanie, it wasn't the video.
It wasn't it was the pre-planned.
The U.S. was warned of an attack on the Egyptian embassy.
They were warned of the attack in Benghazi two days before it happened.
Stephanie, it wasn't the video.
Didn't the administration drop the ball?
Here that this is Obama's chief campaign, babe.
Listen.
They are conducting an investigation to get the bottom of why those attacks occurred and what they could have done to better protect the ambassador and the embassy's security.
In terms of how the president and Mitt Romney handled that crisis, I think that the American people have drawn a conclusion that the president handled it like a commander-in-chief, like a leader, and Mitt Romney shot from the hip.
As the president said, shot and aimed later.
Americans believe that the president handled that crisis better than Mitt Romney.
So Cutter basically, who cares that Obama lied?
The problem here is Mitt Romney.
So it doesn't matter.
That's the answer, by the way.
Working for Obama has got to be the easiest job in the world.
So, Stephanie Cutter, hi, I'm Aaron Burnett here at CNN.
We've just uh we've got your irrefutable proof now that the attack in Benghazi and Egypt was not the video.
Uh it was pre-planned.
It was terrorism to happen the anniversary of 9-11.
The administration continues to cite that the fact that the video, the president was just on Letterman the other night lying about this.
Didn't you guys drop the ball?
Aaron, look.
The real thing here is that Romney.
Romney didn't look like a president, did he?
Well, Romney came out and dealt with this, Romney didn't know what he's doing.
Romney's clueless.
Romney's an absolute idiot.
Romney didn't care about people.
He's a racist, sexist, big and homophobe.
Probably pass out cigarettes to kids in the neighborhood when nobody's looking.
You're asking me about Obama?
For crying out loud, Aaron, it's Romney.
Don't you understand?
Romney is the absolute worst guy on a planet.
He doesn't know what he's doing.
He handled it horror.
President Obama handled this brilliantly.
That's the answer.
It's all you have to do.
When you work for Obama.
Doesn't matter what the question is.
Obama's a leader.
He's presidential.
Romney to know what he's doing.
Because you know that the media is not going to follow up.
They're going to nod their heads, they're going to agree with you and say, job well done.
From the Wall Street Journal, it says right here, Bank of America ramping up job cuts.
Bank of America implementing a plan that will lay off 16,000 workers by the end of the year.
16,000, Bank of America.
You know who one of the uh largest stockholders, Bank of America, happens to be?
That would be none other than Warren Buffett.
▲
Export Selection