And greetings, welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
I am Rush Limbaugh, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-everything maha-rushy, America's real anchorman and doctor of democracy, and America's truth detector combined into one harmless, lovable little fuzzball who happens to be running the country.
You know it, and I know it.
Great to be with you.
Another hour of broadcast excellence straight ahead.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
I'm getting a lot of emails about, what are you going to talk about this Ann Coulter thing with Chris Matt?
Yes, we've got audio soundbites about it.
We'll talk about it.
I just want to say one thing about this.
Well, maybe a couple things about this.
And if you don't know what happened, which is not hard to understand because it was on Hardball and nobody watches that show in great numbers, we'll have some audio that we'll get to at some point.
I don't know when, Mike, so don't panic setting it up.
It's not going to be anytime soon.
But there's a clear setup.
It was like when George H.W. Bush back in the 90 campaign was on Larry King Live and Stephanopoulos called in and started arguing.
Now, George H.W. Bush is a guest.
He'd been invited on.
It was ambushed by George Stephanopoulos.
And King's out there acting all surprised that Stephanopoulos got through.
I know how these things work because I, ladies and gentlemen, on these shows have been ambushed.
And that's why I don't do these things.
They're not productive.
And Ann Coulter was clearly ambushed.
And if you look at the transcript or you listen to what Elizabeth Edwards said when she called in, it was a script she was reading.
And now they've put out a fundraising letter on their website today and an email because the Edwards campaign is foundering.
The Edwards campaign is in trouble.
They need money.
But here's what if I look at it, it's easy.
You go on television and you finish and somebody, you wonder what you should have said.
And sometimes I've resented that.
But here's what, if I would have been on that show last night and been ambushed by a guy's wife, a guy doesn't have the guts to call himself.
And to talk about, by the way, to skewer Ann Coulter for bringing up the death of their son, Wade.
They're the ones that exploit their son's death.
And I've got two pages of websites and links that I can establish and prove that these two are the ones exploiting their own son's death.
But here's the thing.
If I'm Ann Coulter, what I could have said or would have said, well, what is this?
This is interesting, Chris.
Here I am as a guest on a national cable show hosted by you, a notorious left-winger.
I am appearing willingly.
Even though I don't suspect ambushes like this, I'm not surprised that you've set one up.
Yet, Mrs. Edwards, so glad you called.
So nice to talk to you.
So nice that your husband has your skirt to hide behind.
Your husband refuses to appear on Fox News in any format because he considers them hostile.
He considers them invalid.
And yet he sends you out to criticize me because I'm appearing on an enemy network.
So nice to have you call in, Mrs. Edwards, so that your husband can send you out to fight his battles.
This is some presidential quality that he is displaying here by having you go out and do this.
That's one of the things that I would have said.
It's easy to come up with this stuff after the fact.
I'm not being critical of Ann Coulter, as you know.
She's my vice president on the half-hour news hour on the Fox News channel.
And, you know, when I'm down in Cabo Wabo, sometimes she's running the country.
But, I mean, this was just so, and Matthews all over television today trying to score ratings out of all of this.
Ann Calder got all kinds of applause for her comments last night, and Matthews couldn't believe that.
So he started treating these people as a bunch of Neanderthals, and just like the way he was talking about Tennesseans during the election last November when that Harold Ford ad was run.
Were they sitting there in the tavern at midnight on Friday drinking the long necks?
And that ad comes on.
What do you think they're going to think?
These elitist snobs set up this ambush and so forth.
And by an either, Ann did not waver from it whatsoever.
It was cool.
It was good.
Now, I want to address something here because when some people hear me say something and then ask, yeah, I mean, what Matthew said when she got applause last night, Matthew said, what do we have?
A deliverance audience here?
Incest, southern hayseed hicks rolling down the river.
Greedon's Clearwater Revival, 1968, Proud Mary.
At any rate, I mentioned in the first part of the program that people said they can't believe that I don't sound worried about the fairness doctrine threats being mounted all over the left.
And I said, folks, I don't worry.
It is what it is, and there's no sense in worrying about it.
And people writing to emails, I just can't believe you don't worry.
Well, I used to.
Let me try to explain it to you.
Worry is basically doing what?
Worrying is telling yourself a negative outcome of a future event.
And you can't possibly know if the outcome of a future event is going to be negative.
So what does that lead to?
Well, it leads to distraction.
It leads to suffering, self-imposed suffering.
It leads to paralyzation in some cases.
And then you end up causing yourself all kinds of grief.
Then you get depressed and you get miserable and so forth.
It becomes self-consuming or all-consuming.
Now, I don't succeed at it all the time.
Clearly, there are things that upset me.
But in terms of sitting around worrying about something way down the road that I can't possibly know the outcome of, and by the way, something I'm going to have a lot of input in.
It's not as though I'm wandering around aimlessly in the forest here with no chance to impact whatever this effort against all of us on talk radio is going to end up being.
I do have, so I've got the ability to say, all right, fine, you want to come after me?
I'm not going to sit and worry I'm going to lose.
I'm not going to sit here and worry that they're going to succeed because it just leads to paralysis and suffering and so forth.
But the most important thing is that worry equals the telling yourself of negative events, negative outcomes.
And it's, I know it's natural.
We human beings are predisposed to pessimism.
Optimism is hard to achieve and it takes effort, just the way we're built and so forth.
And I learned this over a whole number of years.
I'm not lying to you about it when I say that I'm not worried about it.
I have, besides, I know I have plenty of you worrying for me.
I'm only kidding.
I just want to explain this because I don't want you to think that I'm not superhuman, and I'm not trying to sound that way, and I'm not trying to belittle anybody else who does.
It takes effort to not get trapped in these kinds of emotional downspirals.
But worrying creates angst.
It creates drama.
You don't keep it to yourself.
It affects everybody else that you're around.
And when the subject you're worrying about is something about which you can't possibly know the outcome, it's an absolute waste of time.
And I don't like to waste time.
It's too valuable.
At any rate, here's what's going on on the Senate floor.
Catherine Gene Lopez of National Review Online, their corner blog, Has gotten an update from somebody at the Heritage Foundation and says that as if the Senate floor situation couldn't get any worse, Dingy Harry's staff is now rewriting the Clay Pigeon Amendment behind closed doors.
This is this 300-page, 300-plus-page amendment that nobody's seen.
They can't see it because it's not finished yet.
It's being written behind closed or being rewritten.
And it is the intent of the majority leader to bring his new unread amendment, bring it up for vote without the Republicans ever seeing it, without them ever seeing the language.
Yesterday, Senator Reed didn't have this amendment ready when he started debate on it.
Mistakes were made in the initial drafting.
The fact was not discovered until Republicans objected to waiving the reading of the bill, and the Senate clerk had nothing to read.
So shockingly, Dingy Harry scrambled around, put the floor in mourning business for a few hours, then allowed Kennedy's staff to make final changes to the amendment.
The language was finally made available around 5:30 last night.
Reed graciously gave Republicans a night last night to go through it before moving to it this morning.
So the bottom line here is that Harry Reid is demanding a vote on these immigration amendments, which is what the cloture vote yesterday was all about, without divulging the actual text.
Thought you should know that.
A brief timeout.
We'll be back and continue here on the EIB network in an El Jiffo.
We have an online exclusive just been posted at the Washington Times by Stephen Dinan and Jerry Sieper.
The head of a Mexican forgery ring was convinced that he could make phony documents that illegal aliens could use to indicate fraudulently that they were eligible for a new amnesty.
This according to a government affidavit recounting wiretapped phone calls the man made.
Julio Sanchez, who ran a $3 million a year forgery operation before he was arrested in April, was expecting Congress to pass a legalization program, which he called amnesty, and said he could forge documents to fool a U.S. government into believing that illegal aliens were in the country in time to qualify for amnesty.
This, according to an ICE agent, in the affidavit, in recounting a wiretapped phone conversation, ICE agent Jason Medesa said that he heard Mr. Sanchez tell an associate the forgery ring could fix his papers to meet the requirements of a legalization program such as the Senate is debating today.
So, I mean, it's oh, no.
We're in an all-out war here, ladies and gentlemen.
It appears.
By the way, regarding being in an all-out war, Vice President Cheney and the White House have just been issued seven subpoenas over the domestic spy program.
Is this Waxman, Henry Waxman's committee that issued the subpoenas?
Probably is Government Oversight Committee or some such.
It doesn't matter.
It could be Conyers either.
This is just part of the ongoing effort to harass the administration.
And yet, while Bush is trying to give these guys exactly what they want, the immigration bill that the Democrats all, well, most of them, not all of them, actually, Grab Soundbites 1, 2, and 3.
Not all of them do want this.
There's Claire McCaskill, who was on Lou Dobbs tonight last night on CNN.
And Dobbs said, Senator, were you surprised at all by the passage of cloture?
I was a little surprised, although I could tell there was serious arm twisting going on, particularly on the Republican side.
Several of the senators who voted no on cloture the last time flipped and voted yes today.
My sense is they may not be there for the next important procedural vote, which will be Thursday.
So I'm optimistic that ultimately this bill will not become law.
She's a Democrat in Missouri.
Kit Bond's a Republican.
He voted for cloture.
She voted against it.
One of the reasons I wanted to play the soundbite to you is because there had to be all kinds of arm twisting going on yesterday, the tricks, the offering of amendments, various things that are coming from the supporters of the bill to get Republicans to change their mind.
Dobbs' next question was this.
In your best judgment, Senator McCaskill, will the Senate find conscience and character and capacity to look to the common good and the national interest, or will they fall in line and pass amnesty?
My best judgment is that the people out there in America should continue to call and write and make the ruckus they're making.
They're making a big ruckus.
And it's reassuring to me that our democracy is as engaged as it is.
It'll be a close vote, but my guess is that we will not get final passage on this bill this week.
Claire McCaskill, Democrat Missouri, predicting the bill will fail.
Now, it's got two chances to fail.
One is if they don't get their cloture vote tomorrow afternoon, then it's over for at least two years.
If they do get their cloture vote, the final vote will be on Friday.
The vote for final passage will be on Friday.
And that would be another area where another attempt to defeat it.
But if it gets closure, it'll pass.
The cloture vote tomorrow is going to be the key.
This morning on the Senate floor during the debate on immigration, Senator Feinstein, who is very much upset that the lack of fairness in radio in America, there's not much correct reporting on radio in America.
Senator Feinstein said this.
To fail at this point in time to continue this situation where 12 million remain unidentified, where they pose a serious risk to national security, where 700 to 800,000 people will enter our country illegally or overstay their visas over 10 years.
That's 7 to 8 million additional people here in undocumented capacity.
Where 400 to 500 people die every year trying to cross all Mexican borders.
And where 4 million people continue to wait for a green card.
We take these problems and we try to solve them in this bill.
Now, people who are opposed to the bill say, I don't like this, I'm going to vote against the bill.
I don't like that.
I'm going to vote against the bill.
And yes, they can do that.
And yes, they're entitled to do it.
But know what you're doing when you do it.
Where has it been established that these people on the left are the brightest bulbs in our sockets?
Every time I listen, I don't care if it's Al Gore, if I listen to this woman, if I listen to John Kerry, if I listen to Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, these people are dimwits.
They are not intellectual giants.
And yet they're praised and treated as though that they are.
What she just said here is patently ridiculous.
To fail at this point in time to continue the situation where 12 million remain unidentified, well, for crying out loud, as I mentioned in the first hour, and quite brilliantly so, I might add.
We're going to find these people to send them back.
The touchback proposal, right?
We're going to find these people to send them back, and then they've got to come back.
Well, how are we going to find them to send them back if we can't deport them?
Nobody's talking about deportation.
We're going to have to deport them to get them to come back.
It's not going to happen anyway.
I don't care what.
Listen to this.
The Senate just now killed a Republican proposal to require all adult illegal immigrants to go home temporarily in order to qualify for permanent lawful status in the country.
This was Kay Bailey Hutchison and her amendment, the vote 53 to 45 to table her amendment that was one of several proposals designed to respond to conservatives who decry President Bush's immigration bill as a form of amnesty.
This is an AP story, by the way.
So bye-bye touchback.
And this is, you know, Senator Lindsey Gramnesty was pushing this as a way to buy off conservative citizens and voters, as well as some Republicans.
So the plan to send immigrants home is, and Kit Bond cares about this as well.
What this is going to mean to the closure vote too soon to say, Scott in Boston, you're next on the EIB network, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Hey, Rush, Amnesty Depression, Dittos from Boston here.
So I'm hoping you can give me a pick-me-up.
I'm really worried about this whole thing, and I'm wondering if, you know, you can tell me anything that makes me think I don't have to pack up my home and move because La Raza is going to move into it.
Let's see.
Pardon me.
I've got a – I just lit a cigar here, and I'm on the verge of hiccups.
And so that's why I'm trying to avoid the hiccups, something about what's caused it.
Well, I don't think it's realistic to have to pack up your home for La Razza to move in and leave it and so forth.
See, here's all I can tell you.
I will admit to you that it looks bad because none of this makes any sense.
The impression we all get is that representative Republicanism doesn't work.
Not democracy, because democracy clearly is not what's functioning here.
But elected representative republicanism is not working.
There's absolutely no response to the majority of Americans on this.
And so it creates, what is this all about?
That's the fundamental backbone of our society, many people believe, in the functioning of the country.
But the point is, the battle's not over.
And the war is not over, even if this thing passes the Senate.
Nancy Pelosi is going to need 60 to 70 Republican votes in the House.
And over there, these people are going to be far more attuned and sensitive to the complaints of constituents because they're all up for reelection every two years, meaning less or just a little bit more than a year from now.
Some people think the fix is already in, and if it passes the Senate, it passes the House automatically and it's going to happen.
I'm at a real disadvantage because I work in Boston and you know who my senators are here, and I live in Maine, and my two senators in Maine are completely ignoring all my phone calls and faxes and everything to kill this thing.
So it's not a good feeling.
No, and a lot of people are in the same circumstance you are.
Nobody's senators responding.
Well, very few senators are responding to their constituents.
That's what a lot of people are looking at here as the breakdown.
Well, thanks for what you do, Rush.
Please keep hitting it.
I'm going to answer this a little further.
We've got to go to a profit center timeout here, but I'm going to answer this a little further because I don't want you to be forlorn and hopeless out there because it's not necessary.
We'll be back here in just a second.
Actually, that's what happens on this program, real life.
Now, this question comes up periodically from people.
How do you stay optimistic or tell me things are not totally lost?
You know, it's difficult in a situation like this not to sound Pollyannish.
I want to try to avoid that because I understand and I join you in recognizing the absolute seriousness that this particular piece of legislation poses.
But it's not just this piece of legislation that poses great problems.
Folks, I don't know if you notice all the other things that are happening out there.
Left, the Democrats and the left in this country have gotten so confident that they are not holding back who they really are.
Ever since that election last November, they are opening up and they are telling everybody in this country who they are and what they want to do.
Have you noticed the stock market plunge that started last week, went down 185 points in one day?
You know what coincided with that?
Bunch of attack on capital, an attack on the capital gains tax rate.
And I'm telling the people of Wall Street, I don't care whether they're Republicans or Democrats, they understand that the Democrat Party is going to launch an attack on capital formation.
Now, you have right now the top marginal income tax rate is 35%.
The capital gains rate is 15%.
So there's a differential there of 20%.
You don't think, if you don't think that that capital gains rate of 15% has not been an absolute boom, when you hear about all the unexpected money flowing into the Treasury every month with all these stories about tax receipts higher than ever, deficit coming down, cap gains is it.
15%.
Many people are invested in the markets and income on assets, equities and so forth is taxed at 15%.
It's not considered earned income.
And it's not just the rich.
If you're a member of the California teachers or personal employees union out there, your fund, your pension is invested in these instruments.
All of the municipalities and the firefighters, everybody's pension is invested in one degree of asset equity or some other, and the gains that are made there are taxed at 15%.
One of the reasons why is because it's a high-risk thing.
It's much riskier than taking a job and getting a guaranteed amount of money paid to you every week, two weeks, month, whatever.
And so there's a risk-reward system.
Now, during the 90s, the top marginal rate, if you added it all up during the Clinton years, was 40%.
And the capital gains rate was 20%.
And Robert Rubin was the Secretary of the Treasury back then.
And Rubin is one of the guys leading the call for raising the capital gains rate to something.
Now, what does he want it up to?
25 or 30%?
I think they want it to be the same as earned income.
The Democrats made that point last week, and you saw what happened on Wall Street.
It's not just this immigration bill.
They are taking aim at capitalism.
They are taking aim at individual liberty.
They are taking aim at freedom.
They are taking aim at prosperity.
They have a visceral disgust with the way this country is structured, the institutions and traditions.
Larry Kudlow wrote a piece today in National Review Online, and he really spelled it out.
He said, look, the Democrats have a war on winners.
The Democrats have a war on life's winners.
Or as Dick Gephardt used to say, the winners of life's lottery.
It's just an accident that some people do better than others.
And so there's all kinds of things that Democrats are aimed at here.
They want to tear down the existing structures and rebuild the country in their own image, which leans left and socialists and so forth, because they want power.
They want control.
You say, well, Rush, why would they want to reduce the amount of revenue coming into the Treasury by doubling the capital gains tax rate?
They'll go out and borrow money.
They'll have to blow the deficit sky high.
The bigger the government gets and the more taxation they need to fund it.
All these illegals that are going to put a great strain on the social safety system that we've built up for in this country for the genuinely needy.
In fact, it's another thing.
We keep hearing that there are jobs Americans won't do.
Well, you know how to get rid of that and welfare.
Make everybody on welfare go to work and there will be jobs that Americans will do and we won't need these low-income arrivals from all over the world who have no education.
Just stop welfare and there'll be all kinds of jobs Americans will do.
But when you've got the federal government paying a bunch of people, millions, 51% of us now receive a government check of some kind for some reason.
Well, that leads to control.
When you've got a number of people who really don't have to work to get by, well, I'm not talking about prosper here, but to subsist, and subsisting in America is not bad compared to subsisting in a place like I saw in Afghanistan.
When you've got that many people that are dependent on the government or looking to the government, that's power for the people that run the government.
And that's what the Democrats want to do.
And in the process, they want to get rid of any possibility that conservatism or the Republican Party would pose them a serious electoral challenge down the road.
And so there's more than just this immigration thing.
The immigration thing is part of it.
The frustrating thing about that is that the Republicans are going along in their own demise.
Unbelievably, shockingly, they're going along with it for whatever reason is inexplicable.
So how does this all relate to the guy who called from Boston who wanted to buck up?
I don't want to be dramatic here, but we really are in a war for the survivability of the kind of country we've always had and want to have in the future.
I'm not saying the country is going to be destroyed.
I don't want to get overly descriptive or dramatic here.
I mean, America is going to be America.
And there are always going to be people who will surpass these obstacles and get by.
And they're always going to be hated.
And they're always going to be targeted as winners by the left.
But there's a lot to fight out there.
And if you believe in it, you don't, I know it's easy to give up and get depressed.
And maybe if you have the money, move behind some gate and let other people worry about it while you try to enjoy your life.
You can do both at the same time.
This is something that's going to have to be dealt with in a serious fashion, an ongoing effort.
And it's not.
This immigration bill, let's say cloture is defeated tomorrow.
Go ahead and exhale, but wake up Friday morning and understand the Democrats are going to come right back with some other measure.
These people are focused.
They are relentless.
They are without scruples on what they're attempting to do.
And they're going to keep working now that they won those elections.
So the 08 elections are going to be pivotal and the Republicans are not doing anything to help themselves.
Now, people always ask me, Rush, why would rich Democrats vote to raise taxes on themselves?
This is always a very good question, and I love providing the answer.
This term, tax the rich, the rich aren't paying their fair share of taxes, is so loaded and such a misnomer.
The people who have genuine wealth in this country, who do not work and have earned incomes when you make a wage, capital gains are when you have taken the money you've earned after taxes that you've earned and you invest it in an equity or in a stock or what have you.
Any gain, any appreciation is only taxed at 15%.
The truly wealthy in this country never pay these tax increases.
The truly wealthy in this country have pretty good portfolios and they're divergently diversified in their investments.
Some are in municipal bonds, some are in equities, some are in hedge funds.
They're all over the place, but they're not paying 39%.
And if the rich tax rate gets raised to 42%, they're not going to pay that.
Now, if the capital gains rate goes up, they will pay that.
The capital gains rate, 25%.
That'd be a disaster in terms of capital formation in the markets.
But at the end of the day, those people would still be paying far, far less in taxes than the quote-unquote rich defined now by Barack Obama and Democrats as those of you who make a family $4,000, $200,000, or $250,000 a year.
It's such a loaded question.
It's all based on class envy.
And the people that you think, the Democrats make, you think are going to really get soaked never get soaked because there's no tax on wealth until you die.
And then we have the inheritance tax of the estate tax.
While you're alive, whatever wealth you've accumulated that you have socked away, there's no tax on that other than the capital gains that you might make.
And some of your investments go south, by the way.
You don't get compensated for that when you lose.
You just lose.
And that's why the capital gains rate has traditionally been much lower.
Now, it's interesting.
Kudlow points out in this piece that Bob Rubin, when he was Treasury Secretary for Clinton, is out there leading the charge today to get the capital gains rate raised.
He's one of the liberal Democrats trying to do this.
Yet, during the Clinton years, the top marginal rate, 39% or 40%, cap gains was 20%.
There was the same 20% differential that there exists today, except it's 3,515 today under Bush.
And of course, Bob Rubin is clearly eager to point out how great an economic boom we had in the 1990s with this differential of 20% from earned income tax rates to capital gains.
Now, all of a sudden, with the same differential, 35% income tax rate at the top and 15% capital gains, that's not good.
We've got to raise the capital gains rate.
And he's got his, by the way.
He is a multi-millionaire.
Whatever tax policy that the Democrats enact is not going to impact him at all.
And if he wants to have no impact from it, he can take as much money out of his equity portfolio and put it over municipal bonds.
And if you go out and buy municipal bonds, you can buy municipal bonds these days are throwing off maybe 4% or 5% tax-free.
There's no tax on the income generated by municipal bonds.
So if you happen to, I'll just give you the numbers here.
I gave a caller these numbers once.
If you happen to have, and I learned this when I saw how Ross Perot's invested, the vast majority of Wasp, and he's a billionaire.
Most of it's in munis.
And I said, what is this?
So I went and talked to people.
I had some numbers run for me.
$25 million of municipal bonds will throw off tax-free $2 million a year.
And there's no, whatever income tax rate goes up, it's not going to affect anybody who has municipal bonds.
That's fixed income, essentially.
It's going to throw off the same amount of money as it was intended when you bought it.
It doesn't change much.
I mean, it is what it is when you buy it, and it's not something that grows.
You have to keep adding to it if you want it to throw off $2 million a year or more.
But just run the numbers down, and you don't have to have $25 million.
If you want $300,000, if you want $100,000 tax-free, you're not going to, the municipal bond way will insulate you from whatever tax increases these people come up with.
But what's horrendous about this is that the Democrats and the liberals are trying to make every one of you think that the people are really soaking are the Warren Buffetts.
Now, there's this story.
Warren Buffett here is joining with the Clinton campaign, and he's all upset about tax rates too.
He said he made $46, what, billion or million last year.
I forget one of the two.
I guess it'd be $46.
He made $46 million last year, and his tax rate, he says, was lower than his secretary who makes $60,000.
Well, in the first place, what a tight wad to pay his secretary $60,000.
Number two, Warren Buffett probably played a lower tax rate because a lot of his income, of course, comes from his investments.
He's getting cap gains income.
Berkshire halfway.
He might pay himself a salary of $100,000, take the rest of it in cap gains.
There's all kinds of things that you can do.
Of course, his secretary is going to pay a higher tax rate.
She's being taxed at somewhere in the 20s, and he's being taxed at 15%.
But 15% of his $46 million is still going to be higher than whatever her percentage is of her 60%.
But the Democrats say, yeah, but look at how much he's left with and how little she's left with.
And of course, that causes another spike.
Look, the point of all this is you have to stay engaged.
And you are engaged on this immigration bill like you haven't ever been engaged.
And there's far more down the road that you're going to have to remain engaged in.
It's going to be challenging to figure out who to vote for in 2008 because your own party is letting you down and giving you no reason to support them.
But on the other side, it's not just this immigration bill that will eventually down the road lead to the total restructuring of our society and culture.
The Democrat Party will do the same damn thing.
And way to go, Mr. Broadcast Engineer.
What a perfect bump.
Fit in with what we're talking about here.
The Isley brothers fight to power.
And if all the rest of what I told you is not bad enough, the Democrat Party is trying to secure our defeat in the war on terror.
They are trying to empty Club Gitmo, where incidentally, I, a man running the country, you know it and I know it, have a thriving licensed merchandise business at Club Gitmo.
And they're trying to shut that down and bring those prisoners of war here to give them access to the U.S. court system.
You can forget about anything ever happening to them.
Then, when their ACLU and John Edwards-type trial lawyers get hold of them, trying to secure defeat in Iraq, they're trying to make us impotent in the rest of the world.
Now, you got Senator Leahy, the Judiciary Committee Chairman in the Senate, issuing seven subpoenas also to the Justice Department and a couple other places, Dick Cheney, over the warrantless wiretap program, which has already been shown to have helped stave off terrorist attacks last summer in London.
You know, I haven't been around throughout the entire history of this country.
Nobody has.
And so it's always hard for us.
It can't be any worse than it is today.
But folks, these battles for control of the country, ideological battles, intra-party partisanship and skirmishes, they've been going on forever.
And for those who are citizens that are engaged and care about this for all the reasons you care about it, you care about it for your kids.
You care about it because you love the country.
You care about the future.
You want people born in this country 100 years from now to have a better life than you have.
So you care about this stuff.
And it's a never-ending battle.
It's never going to end unless the Democrats succeed in eliminating as a viable opposition party either the conservative movement or the Republican Party.
But even at that, even if that happens, somewhere down the road, there'll be a revival.
Parties in power always end up screwing up.
It took Democrats 40 years to screw up their control of the House, but they did.
The situation during the Civil War of this country probably had this country more roiled than we are today.
But that's history, and that wasn't us.
Today is us.
The things that we're going through, the things we're threatened by, they're very real.
And I don't mean to diminish them by trying to compare them to things in the past.
Just saying that there's reason here to not throw in the towel.
You know, you all out there, I got to tell you, you're the backbone of this country.
You are the ones that make the country work, not these schlubs in Washington who are elected.
They're the ones that get in the way of it.
They're the ones that have to be overcome.
Their laws, their regulations, they're the ones who put obstacles in our way that have to be overcome.
And we always manage to do that.
We always, this business out in Tahoe, this fire, this destruction out there is so unnecessary.
But we're living among a bunch of liberals who won't let us cut down dead trees for crying out loud.
And so people's property is destroyed.
Now the liberals in charge of this are blaming people for living there or global warming or some such stuff.
I look, it's frustrating to you and me alike.
But they can be beaten because they have been in the past.
And we still have one big, busy broadcast hour to go here on today's excursion into broadcast excellence.