All Episodes
Previous Next
April 14, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:40
April 14, 2010, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome back.
It's Rush Limbaugh.
Great to have you with us on the fastest three hours in media, telephone number 800-282-2882.
And the email address LRushbo at EIBnet.com.
Seth Liebson, I just read you his summary of the nuke summit.
Read it to you again because he made a pretty apt illustration here.
So in some way, we had a summit that accomplished absolutely nothing except angering the American and international press corps, closing down Washington for two days, and misleading everybody for 24 hours that the Chikoms and others were on board with something to help stop Iran when that just wasn't true.
This just isn't serious foreign policy or defense policy.
In fact, it is a dangerous, even Neronian policy, except it won't be Rome that will burn.
Nero is an actual great comparison to Obama.
Nero wanted to destroy old Rome and build a new city-state in his image.
He couldn't think of any way to do it until he seized upon the happy idea of simply setting the whole place on fire and blaming his biggest opposition at the time, the Christians.
So that's what he did.
And he sat around and played the fiddle.
Hence the phrase, Nero fiddles while Rome burns.
Now, we know from his two autobiographies that Obama has long sought to remake America in his image and the way they chatted about the way things should be in the Harvard faculty lounge.
But before you can remake America in your own image, you have to destroy its economy.
And luckily, Obama has a convenient group to blame there.
Wall Street.
Wall Street bankers.
Everybody hates them anyway.
And then when you lop onto the fact that they caused all of this economic stress, they're the ones.
They got rich while everybody was losing their jobs.
It's a built-in winner, he thinks, to start ripping into the bankers at Wall Street.
So it's round two for that.
And it started today.
But it wasn't the Wall Street bankers who set the fire that now sees the U.S. economy burning.
It was Obama and the rest of the Democrats who wanted to bring down the system to advance their own political agenda.
It's very apt, this comparison to Nero.
It's exactly what is happening here.
Now, from the Washington Times, the Obama administration is warning that the danger of a terror attack with nuclear weapons is increasing.
But U.S. officials say the claim is not based on new intelligence and questioned whether the threat is being overstated.
President Obama said in a speech before the nuclear security summit that the risk of a nuclear confrontation between nations has gone down, but the risk of nuclear attack has gone up.
The two-day meeting concluded with an agreement by participants to take steps to prevent non-state actors like al-Qaeda from obtaining nuclear weapons.
This is patently absurd.
If the Iranians ever do succeed in nuking up, and now we're told it's going to be a year.
It wasn't long ago they told us it was going to be five years.
Now they're saying it's going to be a year.
Other people say it's imminent.
It's within weeks.
Whenever and if ever Ahmedine Izad and the Mullahs get nukes, do you think they have any doubt, any lack of a problem giving al-Qaeda nuclear weapons?
And Iran, of course, doesn't show up at the summit.
Tougher security prevent terrorists, criminals, and others from acquiring nuclear goods.
But Henry Sokolsky or Skolowski, a member of the Congressional Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Proliferation, and Terrorism, said that there's no specific intelligence on ongoing terrorist procurement of nuclear material.
You know, we were given briefings, and when we tried to find specific intel on the threat, the answer was we don't have any.
So we don't have any intel on increased threats.
And that Obama says the nuclear risk is growing.
Why all this talk of nukes all of a sudden?
Out of the blue, I know the summit was scheduled for a while, but all of a sudden now, nukes are on the front page as they were back in the 80s.
And aside from continuing angst, causing chaos, keeping everybody in the country unsettled, I think that's probably what all this talk is about.
The more unsettled people are, the more filled with angst, the more chaos there is out there.
In Obamaville, the view is that that will cause people to call on the regime for even more assistance to quell all of these threats and get rid of the chaos and bring order.
Then, USA Today, interesting story here.
The White House has warned state and local governments not to expect a significant federal response at the scene of a terror nuclear attack for 24 to 72 hours after the blast.
Yes, that's exactly right.
The White House, the regime, has told state and local governments not to expect a significant federal response at the scene of a terrorist nuclear attack for 24 to 72 hours after the blast.
President Obama told delegates from 47 nations at this nuke summit that it would be a catastrophe for the world if al-Qaeda or another terror group got a nuclear device because so many lives would be lost and it would be so hard to mitigate damage from the blast.
A 10-kiloton nuclear explosion would level buildings within half a mile of ground zero, generate 900 mile-an-hour winds, bathe the landscape with radiation, and produce a plume of fallout that would drift for hundreds of miles, the guide says.
It was posted on the internet and sent out to local officials.
Now, this is interesting.
What about after a hurricane like Katrina?
Same thing.
Don't expect the feds for 24 to 72 hours.
Tell me something, folks.
What is the number one job of the federal government?
Is it to spread the wealth?
Is it to redistribute the wealth?
Is it to nationalize industries?
Is it to take over the doctor-patient relationship?
Or is it to protect the public?
The problem is the government is now so big, it is so involved in so many things, including the most minuscule aspect of our lives.
It's not focused on what it's supposed to do and what it can only do.
And this is what we get: a breakdown and failure.
And they say, look at our number one objective here, the thing we are really chartered with, public safety, protecting the people, protecting the Constitution.
But we want you to know: if you get nuked, we're not showing up for 24 to 72 hours.
What has Obama actually achieved here?
Honestly, I mean, big deal.
So, Canada, Mexico, and other allies give us their uranium?
Are they threats in the first place?
You know, it's not the amount of nuclear material out there.
It's who has it.
That's why we care about Iran.
That's why we care about North Korea.
We don't care the Canadians have it.
We don't care the Israelis have it.
We do now.
We don't care if Mexico has.
We don't have India.
We're not worried about allies, but we are concerned about the CHICOMs having these things.
We're concerned about North Korea.
We're concerned about Iran.
It's who has this stuff.
Obama's not accomplishing anything by having these countries that have no intention of ever attacking us to give us their uranium.
He's just weakening everybody.
And the people we do not want having nukes.
We're not even at this summit.
And a lot of our allies were not there.
The Brits, the Germans, the French, they weren't there.
No, they're less important than San Cordoba, Nigeria.
This man wastes so much time.
You know, it's no wonder he gets nowhere when it comes to Iran building nukes or Venezuela trying to acquire advanced weapons from Russia.
Hezbollah now being armed to the teeth in Lebanon.
I mentioned this last hour.
Syria has transferred a bunch of scud missiles with 400-mile ranges.
Now the Hezbollahs can launch these things if they want and hit Tel Aviv and Israel.
And Obama's out there, look at what I've done, look at what I've done.
I got Canada, I got Mexico to give me their uranium.
We've removed a threat.
Doesn't matter.
Those people did not threaten us.
The people who threaten us and our allies are arming up.
They're in the process of nuking up.
And listen to this soundbite.
What is our foreign policy?
Our foreign policy, Snerdley, where have you been all week?
Our foreign policy is the United States has been the problem in the world.
We are no longer going to be the problem of the world because I, Barack Obama, realize we've been the problem in the world and we're going to change the things about America that have made it the problem in the world.
So we're going to get rid of our conventional nuclear forces.
We are going to stop standing up for freedom and liberty around the world.
We're going to eliminate this notion of American exceptionalism.
He was asked once, do you believe in American exceptionalism?
Oh, yeah, but I'm sure the Spaniards believe in Spanish exceptionalism.
So we are no different.
We're no better.
We're no worse.
Take it back.
We're no different.
We're no better.
And in fact, we are worse than some other nations around the world.
So our foreign policy is based on a presumption that if Obama can show his morality, a morality that comes from leftist radicalism with chit chat going back and forth at a Harvard faculty lounge, that will demonstrate to the bad guys of the world that they really don't need to fear us and they don't need to do these bad things anymore.
American foreign policy today, Snerdley, is based on the fact or based on the assumption that we have created all of the bad guys in the world because of our superpower status, our allied status with Israel, our nuclear arsenal, our standing up for free people around the world.
We don't just mind our own business.
We try to make the world's business ours.
It's none of our business, so we're going to dial it back.
That's U.S. foreign policy.
We're going to stop being the problem of the world.
And when people see that we're no longer guilty of all the things that have justified them in their terrorist actions or their aggressive actions, then they'll stand down.
There won't be any more reason to hate us.
And the only reason they're doing what they're doing is because they hate us and they have a legitimate reason for hating us because we were too big and too powerful and we squished them and stomped on them.
Now, this week, I have played for you contrasting soundbites of Obama and Ronald Reagan because the state-controlled media, so eager to give their boy here some credibility, have had to say, hey, why are you Republicans so upset?
He's doing exactly what Reagan did, and we have demonstrated just the opposite.
I want you to listen to this disgusting quote last night in Washington at the convention center after the Nuke Summit.
He held a press conference.
Bloomberg News, Edward Chen said, given the progress you have cited, to what extent do you feel like you have gained political capital with which to take further to the international stage for the rest of this year to perhaps rejuvenate some initiatives in troubling spots such as the Middle East and elsewhere?
Now, as you listen to this, I want you to ask yourself, those of you who are alive and old enough to remember, if you would ever hear Ronald Reagan talk like this.
I think the work that we've done in recent days around nuclear security and nuclear disarmament are intrinsically good.
So many of the challenges that we face internationally can't be solved by one nation alone.
It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.
And when conflicts break out, one way or another, we get pulled into them.
And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.
Whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.
You ever think Ronald Reagan would say to the American people, whether we like it or not?
Now, who is he talking to?
When Obama said, and how about the God reverb and echo?
I feel like reinstituting it here for myself now and then.
So Obama sits there and says, whether we like it or not, we remain.
I think he's talking to his fringe cook base.
I think he's talking to all those websites, Democrat Underground, Daily Kos, whatever it is.
Hey, look, I'm trying.
I'm trying.
Whether you like it or not, we're still a dominant military power.
I'm working on it, but, you know, whether you like it or not, he's acknowledging that there are some people in this country who do not like it.
He's trying to mollify them, whether we like it or not.
We remain, damn it, a dominant military power.
We have a little Sarah Palin soundbite here this afternoon in Boston, the national Tea Party rally.
Here's just a portion of what she said.
Consequences of these actions, the results are un-American.
Is that what Barack Obama meant when he promised the nation that they would fundamentally transform America?
He warned us.
He warned us with a playbook that sure seems to me like it's Ola Linsky all the time.
Is this what their change is all about?
I want to tell them, nah, you know, we will keep clinging to our Constitution and our guns and religion, and you can keep the change.
Sarah Palins remains on fire, fighting hard out there.
Guess what?
The Democrats, for only the second or third time in history, are going to pass on the budget.
They are not going to do any work on the budget before the election.
Now, the budget has to be done.
Well, they'll get a continuing resolution.
But the budget has to be done by October 1st.
That's when the fiscal year begins.
But they're not going to touch it.
They're going to stay away from it.
They're going to have any debates, no meetings.
Waxman just cancel a hearing on health care overhaul costs.
They're not, I told you, they're not going to have any more conversations about health care.
Now they got the bill passed.
They're not going to talk about the budget.
Steny Hoyer told reporters Democrats may not be able to pass an actual budget resolution this year because too many members will be skittish about voting for a budget with such a gaping deficit during election season.
Theoretically speaking, Congress is supposed to pass a budget resolution every year, but it can get away without passing one.
When Republicans were in control, there were a number of years during which they failed to pass the budget.
At the same time, Democrats pledged to make a big deal out of it.
But they do not want any negatives whatsoever because they know the Tea Parties are all fired up.
They're trying to limit the damage.
Here's Brad in Naples, Florida, as we go back to the phones.
Great to have you here.
Thanks for taking my call.
I just wanted to point out that I'm quite surprised that the president has not gone after Russia or China, let alone some of the other countries such as Pakistan or India for upgrading their nuclear weapons programs, specifically Russia for upgrading their anti-ballistic missile defenses around Moscow.
Now, I'm not a lawyer, but according to the anti-ballistic missile treaty, both of our countries are allowed to have 100 interceptors to destroy ballistic incoming ballistic missiles.
Now, Russia has continuously tested their new missile systems, which have nuclear weapons to destroy ballistic missiles that would be coming into their country, which no one talks about.
And it's just very confusing to me how we're disarming our ballistic missile defense systems, which do not have nuclear weapons to destroy other missiles.
But we do not talk to Russia about this, and it's quite confusing to me.
Why?
Furthermore, China is testing anti-satellite weapons openly, and they're further modernizing their ballistic missile systems.
Why is this confusing to you?
Well, I mean, it's not confusing, but no one discusses this with them.
Why is that confusing?
I mean, we're disarming.
They're not.
I mean, that's the issue right there.
And who's running the country?
Right, absolutely.
But even during President, in all fairness, President Bush did not approach Russia about this either.
Instead, he increased our ballistic missile defense systems, which I think was the appropriate measure to do.
Of course.
And Bush authorized the installation of a defensive missile shield in Europe to protect those countries against an attack from Iran.
Guess who's just canceled it?
The regime, the Obama regime.
People are going to have to get their arms around the fact that this man's transformation of America is to cut it down to size.
He believes we have been the problem of the world.
He's going to end our superpower status economically and militarily.
That's his objective.
He's not going anywhere until he gets that done, folks.
The views expressed by the host on this program, now documented to be almost always right, 99.6 percent of the time.
Happy to have you with us.
I say it, and they do it.
Earlier in this program, I warned you people that Obama and his regime were soon to revive blaming Wall Street for all of our economic ills as a means of advancing support for a financial regulatory reform bill that would give him unilateral power to shut down or fire any of the board or directors or executive officers of any financial
industry.
institution he wanted, based on any arbitrary feeling he had that they posed a threat.
They know that everybody hates the Wall Street bankers.
They're going to ramp up and they're going to start running against Wall Street as they push for this legislation.
We mentioned last week.
Who was it?
Chris Van Holland, running the Democrat Congressional campaign Committee, said, yeah, we're going to run against Reagan.
We're going to run.
We're going to say we run for seats in November.
We're going to say we cannot continue these policies of the past.
That means Reagan.
No sooner do I say it on this program this morning than later.
An hour later at the White House, Alston Goolsby Austin Goolsby, the White House economist for the Economic Recovery Board, went on, Enria Mitchell, NDC NEWS, Washington.
She said, what makes you think in the end it'll be a bipartisan bill, meaning the regulatory reform bill, because it seems to me that both sides are choosing to stick to their talking points on this.
We're going to go to the American people and they're going to look at the bill, and it's now been more than two years since BEAR Stearns collapsed.
Given what's happened in the job market, what's happened to industry, nobody wants this to happen again, and they know perfectly well that, when the big banks are funding tens and hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying, giving money to Republicans to get them to oppose the measures the president's calling for, I think there are going to be a lot of members of uh Congress that maybe they aren't the leadership.
They're going to say whoa, wait a minute.
I, I don't want this to happen again, regardless of what party they're in.
Okay, so there they are.
Come at, this is Austin Goolsby, less than an hour after I warned you what the strategery would be coming out.
Oh yeah, these banks, these Wall Street banks tens and hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying, giving money to Republicans to get them to oppose the measures the president's calling for, what he, of course, doesn't say is that all these people elected Obama, all these people donated to Obama in droves.
Now that they see what Obama has in store for them basically with a stroke of a pen being able to take over their bank of course they're donating to Republicans to try to stop this.
So they're going to try to recreate in people's mind that nothing's changed.
The Wall Street never elected Obama.
Wall Street's always hated our president.
Wall Street big money has always hated our guy, because they know our guy is for the little guy, our guy's for Main Street.
And now the Republicans Republicans have joined forces with the bankers to try to stop our beloved president from saving the economy.
That's going to be the campaign.
And it's just been announced there by Austin Goolsby, who himself has never held a job in the private sector.
He is another one of these eggheads sitting around a Harvard faculty lounge throwing ideas around like spitballs in theoretical discussions.
All right, back to the phones we go.
This is Becky in Salem, Oregon.
Great to have you here, Becky.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
It's a pleasure to speak to you.
Thank you.
I can imagine.
I'm a little nervous.
I've never done this before, but I just wanted to share with you something I got in the mail the other day.
I got a mini audit from the IRS.
My husband and I are always on time with our taxes.
We are not part of the 47% who do not pay federal income taxes.
We have always been on time, and we just got this paper that we've got to explain ourselves for the deductions we claimed on our taxes for 2007.
So I'm just a little confused.
I'm frustrated because I get this little sheet to tell me, a single-spaced full page telling me all the items that they need in order for us to justify the deductions we took.
Schedule C deductions?
I don't.
Well, therefore, they just gave me a sheet and they checked off charitable giving, miscellaneous deductions.
That's Schedule C.
Yeah.
I don't know if it's just because of our tax bucket or what, but it's like, no, no, no, no.
It's well, it could be, but I don't know what your income level is.
The IRS commissioner announced a renewed all-out effort on high-wealth people.
We're talking multiple millionaire people who have an intricate business organization that could be, they say, rife for hiding money from our beloved government.
Does that describe you?
Well, we've had to dissolve some of our investments into CRTs just to make sure that our investments are not being taken advantage of.
Well, but you don't, you and your husband own multiple businesses in the Bahamas and Bermuda and all that, right?
No, we're not that.
No.
All right.
So I think what happened?
A computer probably just spit your return out.
Something in your return deductions versus your gross.
An adjusTedros computer probably just spit it out.
And so you got to deal with it.
It's not a full-fledged audit.
It doesn't sound like this is a harassment audit.
But it just seems like, okay, here, right in the midst of taxes, our poor accountant is probably going to hate us after this because, you know, and even last year, we received some letters.
Is this the first time you've been audited, mini or full or otherwise?
Yes, yes.
Oh, well.
Can we get you to it?
Oh, heavy, you've got a lot to learn.
We're still young.
Yes.
Yeah.
Well, this is not that big a deal compared to what they could do.
All they're asking you to do is justify your deductions further, like your receipts.
I mean, this is, you have to provide them, for every charitable donation, you've got to provide them a letter from the charity acknowledging that you did make a donation.
You can't just say, I gave leukemia, lymphoma $1,000.
If the computer spits your return out, they're going to want to see the letter from leukemia lymphoma.
So if you made charitable donations, go get all those people to send you a letter the year that you made the donation and verifying the amount.
If you've got a bunch of meal entertainment sea deductions, business entertainment, and so forth, just produce the receipts.
Minus.
Well, I'm thankful my husband is very good about being on track with that.
But one of our family members told us, Hey, well, listen, why don't you just also submit other deductions saying, Hey, listen, I forgot these.
I didn't put them on my return just to balance out if they don't accept our other deductions.
Because I know either way, they're going to grab us up by our ankles and shake this out for some more money.
But it's just frustrating.
Oh, but yeah, really?
Yes.
I'm sorry.
I'm just angry.
I hear every time we get my husband's paycheck, it's like he worked so hard, and every year it just seems like more and more is being taken.
I know it's normal, and I know I'm probably saying the same thing millions of other people are saying, but it's like when is it?
It just seems like it's never going to end.
It's just frustrating.
Sorry.
It's like what's never going to end?
Taxes or the harassment?
Well, just that the increase of taxes, you know, with this whole thing.
Or you haven't even seen you, you ain't, as they say, seen nothing yet.
I know.
I mean, starting next January, all the rates get bumped up.
Well, I'm hearing conflicting talk that the Bush tax cuts in the middle class are not going to be sunsetted.
Well, that's good.
But if you're in the 36% bracket, hello, 39.6%, then you add the state increases to that.
A lot of people, the job creators, the entrepreneurs, are going to be facing a total income tax bite of over 50% when you factor in the States and Medicare, FICA, Social Security, and all of that.
Wow.
So it's no, everybody's going to get socked.
Everybody's going to get socked.
By design, look at this is the whole point here is to prevent upward mobility.
The whole point is to prevent people like you from acquiring wealth.
It's just, it's just maddening.
It's just difficult to watch.
Tell me about it.
Tell me about it.
Look, I've been audited 12 years in a row by the state of New York.
When I moved out of there in 1997, I sent them three letters.
It's been fun for eight years, but I'm gone.
I'm not filing returns because I'm out of here.
And three years went by, four years went by, and it was fine.
And then I get a note.
You haven't filed returns since 1997.
That was five years at the time.
We need to see every bit of tax information here, your federal tax return.
We want to know when you were in New York, what days you worked in New York, and so forth.
And I had to prove it.
It took two years.
I had to prove it to them 14 different ways every day of those five years.
Yeah, it's amazing what they ask you to do.
You're lucky.
You just got a computer-generated note saying justify your Schedule C.
Yeah.
Okay, well, I'll come back to you.
Wait till you get a note demanding that you prove to them where you were 14 different ways every day of the tax year.
Wait till they say, which house did you really live in?
You live in New York or Florida?
I live in Florida.
Well, we want to come see.
We want to come see which of your houses is the more lived in.
Wow.
Oh, they can do it.
You're guilty until proved innocent in the tax law.
Wow.
Well, thank you, Rush, for your help.
At least it calms me down somewhat when you glad you called.
I was expecting you to give me some great insight in how to overcome this, but no, I can't.
Well, now, wait a second.
Okay, no, wait, wait, wait.
What?
How to overcome it?
I don't know.
Maybe just to go.
Whoa, this is interesting.
What were you ex this is not?
No.
No, no, no, no.
There's nothing wrong here, Becky.
There's no wrong answer.
I'm curious.
I have failed as host here.
No.
And I want to know what you were expecting.
What kind of insight?
Oh, just that.
He gave me words of encouragement as I look at this explanation of item sheet that I can just overcome the government by sticking it to them and maybe having some pithy things to say that I don't know.
I'm just I love your show, and you've just helped my husband and I just keep perspective on where things are at.
I was trying to give you some encouragement by saying it sounds like a computer spat this thing out.
It doesn't sound like you've been targeted for anything.
Okay, yeah, so you haven't failed me as a host.
Yeah, and but I mean, you have to deal with it.
Yeah.
I mean, you can't sit there and ignore it.
No, not at all.
Don't think that Geithner ignored it for a while, but then when he wanted to become Secretary of Treasury, he had to pay the money back.
Well, exactly.
That's how it's.
Maybe, okay, maybe you could say if you maybe go ahead, Becky, and ignore it.
And when they come forward, you say, no, I don't want to be Secretary of the Treasury, so I'm not going to pay this.
And you might not owe anything after you go through the process here, anyway.
I mean, there's all kinds of inspiring ideas that I could give you.
I was just, you said it's a mini-audit, and I'm, from what, from what you've said, it sounds like it's a traditional computer-generated thing that happens randomly.
Doesn't sound like you've been targeted for any reason.
You'll know when that happens.
You'll know when you've been targeted.
That's no doubt about it.
Back after this.
We have a couple of conflicting stories here.
First, from the Oregonian.
The Oregonian, this is, of course, in Oregon, their blog.
Jason Levin, the Portland man who caused the ruckus over his plans to infiltrate the Tea Party protests in an aim to discredit them, teaches in a Beaverton middle school, now faces an investigation by the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission.
You see, folks, even teachers are regulated in this unfettered economy, as the regime describes it.
Melody Hanson, the Commission's Director of Professional Practices, said Wednesday that the agency opened an investigation because there was enough concern that there was some neglect of duty on the part of Levin.
He's skipping out on his teacher duties to run this website advising people how to infiltrate the tea parties.
Levin teaches in the media lab at Conestoga Middle School, although he describes himself in an interview earlier this week as a technology consultant.
Levin started the website called Crash the Tea Party that he said was aimed at encouraging people.
You know what it is.
Both the Scrule District and the Teachers Licensing Commission receive calls protesting Levin's actions, saying it was inappropriate for teachers.
Then we go to the government-run Associated Press.
A group planning to crash the Tea Party on tax day is led by an Oregon teacher who has been threatened since his picture and personal phone number were posted on the internet.
Beaverton middle school teacher Jason Levin's group wants to infiltrate the Tea Party to discredit.
Do you realize, folks, what are we talking about here?
We have actual mainstream press reports of this guy's attempt to infiltrate a genuine, legitimate citizens group to discredit it, and it's reported as though it's a whole hum everyday occurrence with a stamp of approval from every media outlet reporting it.
Oh, yeah, just another day in America.
A bunch of agitators are going to infiltrate a decent bunch of citizens' groups and try to discredit them.
And when they do, we're going to report that the citizens group is a bunch of racists.
And now, so the teachers board is investigating the guy for dereliction duty, essentially.
And yet the AP has got a sob story here on poor guy being harassed by people who say they belong to the Tea Party.
I don't believe this for a minute.
I think he's harassing himself.
He's probably making phone calls to himself or have his friends doing it and saying it's a tea party.
Because I'll tell you something, Mr. Levin.
The Tea Party people don't care a rat's rear end about you.
The Tea Party could not care less about you or anybody else doing what you're trying to do.
You are not on their minds.
These are not the kind of people to call you.
They don't even want to go to the trouble of finding out your phone number, Mr. Levin.
You are as insignificant as an amoeba to them.
They're not going to waste valuable time trying to find out where you live or what your phone number is to call you up.
So this is part of the subterfuge as well.
Well, quickly, Brian, somewhere in Illinois, great to have you on the EIB network.
Mega Ditto's Rush, thank you for letting me be the tip of the conservative spear if even for a few short moments.
Thank you, sir.
I'm telling about Sam Adams because I didn't learn anything about him in school.
I know a lot of people didn't.
This guy is the epitome of what a Tea Party is, and he spent his entire life opposing British rule, and they hated him for it.
He would have been one of the first men executed had we lost the Revolutionary War.
And a lot of people don't know the shots heard around the world were because Thomas Cage was trying to hunt down John Arrest John Hancock and Samuel Adams.
And he is a true patriot that we did not learn about in this cruel system.
And I wanted to inform some people of that.
Thank you.
I'm glad that you continue your great work.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
He also makes a pretty damn good beer.
Back after this.
I was not kidding.
The original Sam Adams did make beer.
They actually called them Maltsters.
Back in those days, Maltsters produced the malt that is necessary to brew beer, and that's what the original Sam Adams did.
And you know something else about the original Sam Adams?
He was a banker.
He was an evil banker and a brewer of malt to give to beer brewers.
And he was also at one time a Boston tax collector.
So if you close the loop on Sam Adams, it all makes sense that he would be the original revolutionary.
He was a tax collector.
He saw what happened.
He was a maltster, a banker.
And the previous caller is right.
He's not taught about much.
He's not.
And here's his quote.
It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen on setting rush fires of freedom in the minds of men.
Rush fires.
▲
Export Selection