All Episodes
Previous Next
June 27, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:30
June 27, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
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 anchor man, a 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?
Anne Calder thing with Chris Matthew.
Yes, we've got audio sound bites about it.
We'll talk about it.
I just want to say one thing about this.
Well, maybe a couple things about this.
Uh and if 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.
Uh well, 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 uh anytime soon.
Uh but there's a clear setup.
It was like it was like when George W. H. W. Bush back in the nighty 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.
It was uh I know how these things work because I, ladies and gentlemen, on these shows that have been ambushed, and that's why I don't do these things, they're not productive.
And Ann Colter 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 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 if I I look it, it's easy, you go on television and you finish and somebody know what you should have said, and I I sometimes I've resented that.
But here's what if if if if 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, uh to skewer Ann Coulter for bringing up the death of their son Wade, they're the ones that exploit the son the their son's death, and I've got two pages of websites and links uh that I can establish and prove that these two are are the ones exploiting their own son's death.
But here's the thing.
If I man called her 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 uh suspect uh 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 uh that 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 Colder, as you know.
She's uh he's my vice president on the uh half hour news hour on the Fox News channel.
And uh, you know, when I'm down in Cabo Wabbo, sometimes she's running the country.
But I mean, this this is this was just so and Matthew's all over television today trying to score ratings out of all of this.
Uh Ann Colder got all kinds of applause for her comments last night, and and and Matthews couldn't believe that.
So he started treating these people as a bunch of Neanderthals and uh just like the way he was talking about Tennesseans during the election last November when that Harold Ford ad was run, where they're sitting here in a tavern at midnight on Friday drinking the long necks, and that ad comes on.
What do you think they're gonna think?
These elitist snobs uh set up this ambush and so forth, and by Anne did not waver from it whatsoever.
It was cool.
It was good.
Now I want to address something here because when some people uh hear me say something and then ask um.
Yeah, I mean, what what what what what Matthews said when when she got applause last night, Matthew said, what do we have?
A deliverance audience here.
Incest, Southern Hayseed Hicks, rolling down the river.
Greed's Clearwater Revival, 1968, Proud Mary.
Any rate, I I mentioned in the first part of the program uh that people said uh uh 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.
Uh it is what it is, and there's no there's no sense in worrying about it.
And people writing the emails, I just can't believe you don't worry.
Well, I used to.
Let me try to explain it to you.
Um 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.
Uh 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 and become self-consuming or all consuming.
Now, it I don't I don't succeed at it all the time.
I mean, I've clearly there are things that upset me, and I uh 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 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 worry that they're going to succeed.
Because it just it just leads to paralysis and suffering and so forth.
But m the most important thing is that worry equals the telling of your telling yourself of negative events, negative outcomes.
And it it's it's that's why I know it's natural.
We human beings are predisposed to pessimism.
Uh optimism is uh hard to achieve, uh, and and it takes effort, just the way we're built and so forth.
And I learned this over a whole number of years.
My point, 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.
Uh I'm only kidding.
I'm I just want to explain this because I don't um I don't want you to think that I'm it's 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, you know, not get trapped in these kinds of uh, you know, emotional downspirals.
But uh you know, worrying creates angst, it creates drama.
It it uh it you 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 um it's too valuable.
At any rate, here's what's going on on the Senate floor.
Uh Catherine Gina Lopez of National Review Online, their their corner blog, uh has gotten an update from uh somebody at the Heritage Foundation and says that as uh 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 uh 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, uh, and it is the intent of the majority leader to bring his new unread amendment, uh, 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 uh 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 is finally made available around 5 30 last night.
Reed graciously gave Republicans a night uh last night to go through it before moving to it uh this morning.
Uh so the the the b the bottom line here is is that Harry Reid is demanding a vote on these immigration amendments, uh, which is what the cloture vote yesterday was all about, without divulging the actual text.
Thought you should know that.
A brief timeout will be back and continue here on the EIB network in an LGIFO.
They have an online exclusive just been posted at the Washington Times by Stephen Dynan 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 three million dollar 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 wiretap phone conversation, ICE agent uh Jason Medisa 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 uh is debating today.
So I mean it's it's we're in an all-out war here, uh, ladies and gentlemen, it appears.
By the way, regarding being in an all-out war with Vice President Cheney and the White House have just been issued seven subpoenas over the domestic spy program.
This uh is this Waxman, Henry Waxman's committee that issued the subpoenas.
Uh probably is government oversight committee or some such.
It doesn't matter, it could be Conyers, either little bit.
This is just part of the ongoing effort to harass uh the administration.
And yet, while Bush is trying to give these guys exactly what they want, the uh immigration bill that the Democrats all, well, most of them, not all of them actually Rab Soundbites one, two, and three.
Not all of them do want this.
There's Claire McCaskill, who was on uh Lou Dobbs tonight last night on CNN.
And uh uh 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.
Uh several of the senators who voted no on cloture the last time uh 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 um 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.
Uh one of the reasons I wanted to play the soundbite to you, because that there had to be all kinds of arm twisting going on yesterday, the tricks, uh, the offering of amendments, various things that are coming from the supporters of the bill to get Republicans to uh change their mind.
Dobbs next next question was this.
In your best judgment, uh, 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 recus 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.
And it's got two chances to fail.
One is if they don't get their cloture vote tomorrow afternoon, then it's over.
Uh for at least two years.
If they do get their cloture vote, the final vote will be on Friday.
The f vote for final passage will be on Friday.
Uh and uh that that would be another area where another attempt to defeat it, but if it gets closer, 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 uh in radio in America.
There's uh not much correct reporting on radio in America.
Senator Feinstein said this.
To fail at this point in time to continue this situation where twelve million remain unidentified, where they pose a serious risk to national security.
Where seven hundred to eight hundred thousand people will enter our country illegally or overstay their visas over ten years.
That's seven to eight million additional people here in undocumented capacity.
Where 400 to 500 people die every year trying to cross all mechanism.
And where four million people continue to wait for a green card.
We take these problems and we try to solve them in this bill.
Now, people on 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 are entitled to do it.
But know what you're doing when you do it.
Why where has it been established that these people on the left are the brightest bulbs, you know, in our sockets?
I tell 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 Reed, Ted Kennedy, these people are dimwits.
They are not intellectual giants.
And yet they're praised and and uh and 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 twelve million remain unidentified?
Well, for crying out loud, as I mentioned in the first hour, and quite brilliantly so, I might add.
We're gonna find these people to send them back.
The touchback proposal, right?
We're gonna find these people to send them back.
And then they got to come back.
Well, how are we gonna find them to send them back if we can't deport them?
Nobody's talking about deportation.
We're gonna have to deport them to get them to come back.
It's not gonna 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 uh K. Bailey Hutcheson and her amendment, the vote 53 to 45 to table her amendment that was one of several proposals designed to respond to conservatives who decrypt Bush's immigration bill as a form of amnesty.
This is an AP story, by the way.
Uh so the the bye-bye touchback.
And this is you know, Senator Lindsay Gramnesty was pushing this as a way to buy off conservative citizens and voters, as well as some uh Republicans.
So the plan to send immigrants home is 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.
Uh hey, Rush.
Amnesty Depression ditto from Boston here.
So I'm hoping you can give me a pick-me-up.
I am really worried about this whole thing, and I'm wondering if, you know, you can tell me anything that makes me think uh I don't have to pack up my home and move because La Raza is going to move into it.
Uh pardon me, I've got a I've got uh I just lit a cigar here, and I'm on the verge of of hiccups, and so that's what I'm trying to avoid the hiccup.
Something about uh caused it.
Uh well, I uh I don't think it's realistic you have to pack up your home for La Raza to move in and and and leave it and so forth.
Um the here's all I can tell you.
Uh I will admit to you that it looks bad because none of this makes any sense.
Uh the impression we all get is that representative republicanism doesn't work.
Um not democracy, because uh the d democracy clearly is not what's functioning here.
Uh but elected representative republicanism is not working.
There's absolutely no response to the majority of Americans on this.
And so it 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.
Uh uh and the war is not over, even if this thing passes the Senate.
Uh Nancy Pelosi is going to need sixty to seventy 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 re-election every two years, meaning less uh just a little bit more than a year from now.
Uh uh some people think the fix is already in, and if it passes the Senate, it passes the House automatically, and uh and it's going to happen.
But 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 uh are completely ignoring all my phone calls and faxes and everything to kill this thing.
So it it's it's not a good feeling.
No, and a lot of people are in the same circumstance you are.
Whether there's nobody's senators responding, well, very few senators are responding to their constituents.
That's the uh that's that's what a lot of people are looking at here as the as the as the breakdown.
Well, thanks for what you do, Rush.
Please keep hitting it.
I'm gonna I'm gonna answer this a little further.
We've got to go to a profit center timeout here, but I'm gonna answer this a little further uh because I don't want you to be forlorn and uh 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 uh 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 Pollyanish.
Uh I 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.
The 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?
One down 185 points in one day.
You know what?
You know what coincided with that?
Bunch of attack on capital and attack on the capital gains tax rate.
And the uh I'm telling you the people in 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 uh right now the the top marginal income tax rates 35 percent.
That the capital gains rate is fifteen percent.
So there's a there's a differential there of twenty percent.
You don't think if you don't think that that capital gains rate of fifteen percent 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.
Fifteen percent, many people are invested in the markets, and income on assets, equities, and so forth is taxed at 15 percent.
It's not concerned uh 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.
Your your your uh all of the municipalities and the firefall, all these everybody's pension is invested in uh in in one degree of uh of asset equity or some other, and the and the the gains on uh that are made there are taxed at fifteen percent.
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 uh every week, two weeks, month, whatever.
Uh and so there's a there's a there's a risk-reward system.
Now, during the nineties, the top marginal rate, if you added it all up during the Clinton years was forty percent.
And the uh the uh capital gains rate was twenty.
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 percent?
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 they have a visceral disgust with the way this country is structured, the institutions and traditions.
They're Larry Cudlow wrote a piece today in uh 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 lotteries 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 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 the why would they want to reduce the amount of revenue coming into the treasury by doubling the capital gains tax rate?
And they'll go out and borrow money.
They'll they'll have the blow 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 from 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.
End welfare.
Make everybody a 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 it'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 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 then 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, or the immigration thing is part of it.
The frustrating 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 uh to uh uh buck up?
This we're in a 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 or always had and want to have in the future.
I'm not saying the country's gonna be destroyed.
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 targeted as winners by the left.
Uh 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 you know, 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 gonna have to be uh dealt with in a in a in a serious fashion, an ongoing effort, and it's not.
This immigration bill, let's say, let's say cloture's defeated tomorrow.
Go ahead and exhale, but wake up Friday morning and understand the Democrats are going to some other measure.
These people are focused, they are relentless, they are without scruples on what they're attempting to do, uh and they're gonna keep working now that they won those elections.
So that 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 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 and 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 uh in an equity or in a stock or what have you.
Uh 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 or 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 uh 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 family for $200,000 or $250,000 a year.
So the um it it's it's 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 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, Cudlow points out in his piece to the that Bob Rubin, uh, 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 percent cap gains was 20 percent.
There was the same 20 percent differential that there exists today, except it's 3515 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 percent from uh earned income tax rates to capital gains.
Now all of a sudden, with the same differential, 35 percent income tax rate at the top and uh and 15 percent capital gains, that's not good.
We've got to raise the capital gains rate.
It's an all-and-he's got his, by the way.
He is a multimillionaire.
Whatever tax policy that the Democrats enact is not gonna impact him at all.
And if he wants to have no impact from it, he can take as much money out of his equity and uh portfolio and put it over municipal bonds.
And if you go out and buy municipal bonds, you can buy municipal bonds uh these days are throwing off maybe four or five percent tax free.
There's no tax on the income generated by municipal bonds.
So if you happen to, I'll just I'll just give you the numbers here.
I gave a caller these numbers once.
If you happen to have, and I've I learned this when I saw how Ross Perrose invested, the vast majority of Wasp Peru, 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 dollars of municipal bonds will throw off tax-free two million dollars a year.
And there's no whatever income tax rate goes up, is not going to affect anybody who has municipal bonds.
They're tax, they're those are that's fixed income essentially.
It's gonna throw off the uh the same amount of money as uh 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 two million dollars a year or more.
But just take run the numbers down, and you don't have to have 25 million dollars.
If you if you want 300, if you want a hundred thousand dollars tax-free, you're not gonna the municipal bond way will insulate you from whatever uh 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 Buffett's.
Now, there's this story, Warren Buffett here is joining with the Clinton campaign, and he's all upset about tax rates too.
Because 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 dollars last year, and his tax rate, he says, was uh was lower than his secretary who makes sixty thousand.
Well, in the first place, what a tight wad to pay a secretary sixty thousand dollars.
Number two, Warren Buffett probably played a lower tax rate because a lot of his income, of course, comes from his investments.
He's he's he's getting cap gains income.
Berkshire half the way.
He might pay himself a salary of a hundred thousand dollars, take the rest of it in cap gains.
There was all kinds of things that you can do.
Of course, his his secretary is going to pay a higher tax rate.
She's being taxed at, you know, somewhere in the twenties, 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 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 spot.
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, and 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.
Democrat Party will do the same damn thing.
And way to go, Mr. Broadcast Engineer.
What a perfect bump.
That fit in with what we're talking about here, the Isley Brothers.
Fight the 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 Gitmall, where incidentally I, the 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 uh uh impotent in uh 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 even been around throughout the entire history of this country.
Nobody has.
Well, it can't be any worse than it is today.
There have all but it, folks, there are these battles for control of the country, ideological battles, intra-party partisanship and skirmishes.
They've been going on forever.
And for those who uh are citizens that are engaged and care about this for all the reasons you care about it, you care about it for your kids, care about it because you love the country, you care about the future.
You want you want people born in this country a hundred years from now to have a better life than you have.
Uh 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 load down the road, there'll be a revival.
Uh parties in power always end up screwing it up.
Took Democrats 40 years to screw up their control of the House, but they did.
Uh the situation during the Civil War in 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'm not, I don't mean to diminish them by trying to compare them to things in the past.
I'm just saying that there's reason here to not throw in the towel.
Uh you know, you, you, you all out there, I gotta 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.
Uh 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 is the this destruction out there is so unnecessary.
But we're living a bunch of among a bunch of liberals who won't let us cut down dead trees for crying out loud.
And so people's properties 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.
▲
Export Selection