All Episodes
Previous Next
April 14, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:38
April 14, 2010, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, there's a conflicting uh number on the size of the crowd at the Boston Tea Party today.
Some sources say there are 10,000 people out there.
Others say there are five thousand people out there.
Which probably means there's about thirty thousand at the Boston Tea Party and growing.
Happy to have you back, Rush Limbaugh, the fastest week in media.
Here it is already Wednesday.
Great to have you here.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882 and the email address L Rushbaugh at EIB net.com.
I say it and they do it.
Timothy Geithner this afternoon in Washington at the White House.
The daily press briefing.
The tax cheats spoke to reporters about Obama's bipartisan meeting today with Congress on financial regulatory reform.
And during the QA, Helen Thomas.
Is this a permanent answer now with more control of some financial institutions?
This is going to be the most sweeping set of reforms since those put in place after the Great Depression.
But we let our system, a system designed for a different era, fall way behind the curve of risk and innovation in this markets.
Never should have let that happen.
This is a very strong package reform.
Again, I think we're very, very close.
I think we're going to have very broad support for this.
Because it's so important.
Again, I think it's very hard for anybody to argue that we can look at the devastation caused by this crisis and not say we we all share a huge responsibility to fix what was broken.
So that's Timothy Geitner talking about the financial regulatory reform bill, Chris Dodd's bill, basically.
And in the White Mitch McConnell came out of the White House today and said, you know, the president pulled a rug out from under the Democrats and said, uh the hell with bipartisanship.
You guys just go get it done.
Forget the Republicans.
Just go get it done.
He thinks they've got enough support.
Uh I don't know what the Republicans and and and and Mitch said, well, we we think we should be allowed to negotiate here.
I know they can't stop anything with numbers they want to negotiate.
What why even accept the premise that we need this kind of sweeping financial regulatory reform?
Dick Morris has written pretty well about this in the Hill.com.
If the financial regulation bill that passed the House last year becomes law, President Obama and his Treasury Secretary, Timmy Geitner, will acquire the right to take over any financial institution they wish to, provided that in their sole opinion, it's both too big to fail and on the brink of insolvency.
The House bill provides for no judicial review and does not require any objective evidence of imminent failure to trigger the takeover provisions.
It just allows the president and Geithner to take over any financial institution they want, even if they have to make up some threat that it's about to become insolvent.
They can fire the board of directors.
They can fire management.
Like that, folks, just like that.
One of these days, if they get all this stuff, no, one of these days, a Republican is going to be elected president and is going to have all these powers at his disposal.
And that's when the drive-bys will call him a dictator.
That's when the drive-bys will say that we have a dictatorship.
Once the government takes over such a company, it will acquire the right to replace the entire board of directors, fire the management of the company, wipe out stockholder equity, and even sell off divisions of the company.
Essentially, this bill puts the government, permits the government to launch an unfriendly takeover of any financial institution it wishes without risk and with no poison pill or other countermeasures possible.
This legislation essentially confers on the federal government police powers that under our system are the exclusive preserve of state and local government.
The blank check the bill gives the feds to take over any financial institution is really more of an exercise of eminent domain than it is an extension of traditional federal regulatory power.
I mean, it's just it's it's it's a I There's no other way to describe this.
This is a very this is this is fascism.
This is the government taking over.
And the the the companies will continue to be run like GM and Chrysler are by so called private citizens, but they're owned by the government.
Well, that's not fascism.
That's the command of control is what it is.
Fascism was privately owned, government run.
This is a government's going to own it all.
Any financial institution it wants, it can just take over.
And the Democrats are going to run for re-election on the notion that we have to have this to protect ourselves from the dangers of Bush policies, which led us here.
You remember all the hoop law about Bush taking away our liberties under the Patriot Act?
Nobody, back then, nobody could name one damn way in which anybody's rights were effectively limited in any meaningful way.
Meanwhile, Obama is running roughshod over a thousand rights a day, and nobody, who was concerned about Bush, is raising an eyelash about this.
This grant of power to the executive branch is unprecedented and potentially totalitarian.
Consider.
Will Obama or any future president target companies that are particularly vocal in their opposition to his policies?
Yes.
Or if they are generous in funding his political opponents.
Yes.
Will the fact that Obama would have this power force companies, investors, CEOs, and managers to self-censor their opinions, and political involvement because they fear the wrath of a vengeful president?
Yes.
Will this grant of authority force companies to hesitate before they grow and expand?
Will it function the same way the antitrust powers of the Justice Department do in making companies re-examine mergers and acquisitions with a view toward what justice will think of their resulting market share?
In antitrust situations where a specific action brings companies under scrutiny like a merger, such concern is not unreasonable.
But when the simple act of making money, showing a profit, and expanding in size puts a company in federal crosshairs, does this not have the potential to attenuate the capitalist focus on growth?
In an environment where the feds are looking over the shoulder of every financial institution to see if they should take it over or shut it down.
Will this not force financial companies to follow the most risk-averse lending policies possible?
Doesn't this mean that it only makes sense to buy government papers since consumer loans, mortgages, and business lending could be considered risky and lead to a federal takeover?
Isn't this policy precisely the opposite of what we need to catalyze economic growth?
In a political world where contributions from financial institutions are sought and widely given, doesn't this power give the president and his party unlimited fundraising ability simply by bearing its teeth and showing the power it has to take anybody over and fire anybody?
Given the fact that Goldman Sachs was the largest, second largest donor to Obama's campaign, giving $954,000.
Doesn't this new power raise the specter that the federal government could take over financial institutions so as to make the competition lighter for its donors?
Already there is considerable evidence that Goldman profited handsomely from the decision of its former CEO, Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, to allow Lehman brothers to fail.
Now that the Treasury Secretary will have the takeover power, might it not be used as irresponsibly and with as many bad consequences as Paulson used his power in the Lehman crisis.
While the focus on the regulatory bill has been on a consumer protection provisions, there has been far less scrutiny on these horrific expansions of federal power.
And they are horrific.
And Dick Morris concludes his piece here with, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez can only dream of this kind of power.
We are...
a nation hanging by thread here, folks.
If this this this is and this is past the House, Financial regulatory reform has passed Pelosi's house.
None of this that Dick Morris says is untrue.
Obama and Geitner can take over any company they want for any reason under the guise that they are protecting it from going belly up, or because it's board of directors is corrupt, or because the management's making mistakes, or simply because they don't like them.
They'll never say that's the reason.
There is not a process to appeal if your company is targeted.
There is no judicial review, Mr. Snerdley.
There is zero judicial review of anything in this regulatory bill.
This is essentially a death penalty for companies if they don't behave as Obama wants them to, in every way, shape, manner, form, from their political donations to the work they do for Obama's friends versus enemies.
Dick Morris did not lightly use the word totalitarian when describing the financial regulatory reform bill.
See, this is this is also how Obama will blunt a uh a recent Supreme Court ruling which allows corporations to donate directly to political campaigns.
You know how much they hate that.
They're already working on legislation to try to stop that.
They hate that's part of a Kay and Feingold that got turned back.
Overturned.
So now corporations can make political donations.
And the left is up in arms, because to them all corporations are corrupt.
Well, this puts Obama in charge of corporations.
If he doesn't like who they are donating to, who they are funding, and he makes it known to them he doesn't like it, and he might take their company over and fire the management, fire the board of directors.
What is the guy running the company likely to do?
Stop donating to political opponents of Obama.
In this case, the regime, the Democrats.
And notice here the financial reform was pretty much forgotten until that surprise Supreme Court ruling a couple months ago.
Then suddenly this went back on the front burner.
This sort of got put behind health care, put behind cap and trade.
It was even behind Amnesty.
And now this thing has leapfrogged ahead of all of them now.
It is priority number one because of that Supreme Court ruling.
And that Supreme Court ruling is instant, meaning in this upcoming election cycle in November, corporations can be involved in the political process for the first time in a long time.
They can't they can't donate to candidates, but they can donate to causes and run TV ads.
Chuck, get this.
Chuck Hugh Schumer is working on legislation that will require any such ads to have a picture of the CEO in the ad.
Either a print ad or a television ad.
So this thing is leapfrogged ahead of every other legislative priority since that Supreme Court ruling.
Whether they go green or not, by the way, whether these companies go green doesn't matter.
Fox News just reported that the Henry Waxman show trials on health care costs have been canceled.
We mentioned this a mere moments ago.
Somebody somewhere on his committee read the law and they realized the companies are required to take the huge charges they have been taking now due to accounting laws.
This is why I essentially started calling these guys the regime.
Because they were obeying the law.
Okay, the health care law passes, and they gotta they've got to take the charge in the quarter the bill passes, not when it's implemented.
So they did that.
And Waxers, no, no, no, this is going to lower costs.
I don't know what you guys are doing, but I summon you here, and he sent out a letter, basically a subpoena.
You bring your email record, you bring your books, you come up here, and we're gonna you make you explain to us what the hell you're doing trying to sabotage our great health care bill.
So you obey the law on one side, and then if the regime doesn't like it, they come for you on the other side.
So now what we have is Waxman canceling this because somebody obviously told him, I don't know what you're gonna do here in Nostralitis.
They obeyed the law.
So that's gone.
Now all they care about is financial regulatory reform.
And Mitch McConnell said basically we were kicked out of the negotiations today.
Obama said, look, you Democrats, you've got the vote, just go ahead and ram this thing through.
They want this done now.
To blunt the Supreme.
They know.
They know how hated and despised they are right now.
They know they can read their own polling data.
They know it's bad.
They know it's a bloodbath happening in November.
They want to get as much of this stuff done before November as they can.
And they think they've got the votes to do it.
Even with Scott Brown over there in the uh in the Senate.
All right, got to take a time out here.
We'll come back.
Much more straight ahead right after this.
Okay, back to the phones.
We go to Stewart, Florida, just up the road here.
And this is Robert.
Great to have you here on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Good afternoon, Rush.
Yeah.
I will make my 68th visit next month, Memorial Day, to uh honor those who took a pledge to uphold or defend the Constitution of our United States.
Yes.
How am I going to face them knowing that the enemy are we are we deserters because we are we took a pledge and we're allowing these people to destroy?
Flanders field is a uh poppies will be worn on Memorial Day.
And anyone who has a poppy, if you go to your internet or whatever and and punch in at Flandersfield, the last paragraph is from failing hands, we throw the torch.
It's up to you to carry high.
We've done that.
Every piece of ground of our president traveled over in Europe.
We're we're we're we're graveyards.
The sun is shining on American flag and all twenty-four hours of the day.
Unfortunately, many of those flags are in national cemeteries.
He wants a standing army.
He has one.
All we veterans who took the oath to defend the United States and the Constitution.
We're ready.
But they're taking it apart.
Are we deserters?
Have we have we done something wrong that he's laughing at us?
We the veterans.
I'm I'm I serve with your dad, but I didn't know him, but in the same theater, CBI.
And believe me, Rush, we we've done a lot for this country.
And and and you and and and these people in Washington, some of them who who've campaigned at their veterans.
How can they be a veteran and win here and destroy the but the enemy won us that to take over?
I'm sorry if I'm emotional, but I'm I'm I'm a hundred percent totally fairly disabled.
I'm not I I I I I got hurt playing on a winning team, that's all.
We won the war.
But for God's sake, well, the American people, particularly the veterans.
Where are they?
God almighty, they look at the Atlantic Ocean, it's a graveyard.
It it and then Pacific and all.
Please, people we can win this battle not with bullets, we can win it with ballots.
No one has to go on the line or anything, just go and out bullets.
Well, you ask, you ask where the veterans are.
Uh I think they're all part of the mix here.
I I think the uh you know a lot of people call here and say, What are people gonna wake up?
They are awake.
I I haven't seen this level of focused energy, and opposition, focused energy to stop something, to repeal something, to uh turn this all back.
Uh since I've been hosting this program, I think a lot of people, veterans, it's a cross section of the entire American population.
Everybody's fed up, and the numbers are continuing to rise.
And they're just laughing at us.
They're taunting us, they're laughing.
You said, Oh, Geithner out there today.
Yeah, we're gonna sweepingly reform this first time in such fashion since the Great Depression.
And Obama's out there, you know, we're disarming, we're it's it was all forecast.
Everybody on uh on our side of the aisle knew all of this was coming.
We knew this was what Obama and his regime are capable of.
That realization is just now hitting a lot of people, and more and more of them are realizing it each and every day, and it's very frightening.
You add up all these I mean, the transformations have taken place in in less than a year and a half.
So uh I understand you're being emotional about it.
Uh you're 100% permanently disabled.
You've fought To defend freedom, Constitution, and you see it being ripped apart right in front of your face, and you probably think the people doing it are laughing at you, and they are.
You're nothing but a bitter clinger.
Things don't go right, you blame minorities, you cling to your guns, you go to church, you seek comfort and solace wherever you can.
Uh this is what they think of us all.
They're afraid of us, too.
They're afraid of the Tea Parties.
Look at what this regime has to do, ladies and gentlemen, in order to triumph.
They're not interested in debate, of course.
No totalitarian or statist is.
They have to discredit us.
They're openly admitting, and don't think this isn't coming from the White House and one of those many Obama websites, They're openly advertising the fact that their attempt is to discredit members of the Tea Party who go to these rallies tomorrow.
And in some cases, rallies today.
This is a new eye-opener.
The state controlled media is reporting, it's not a secret.
You would think that they would keep all these efforts to infiltrate quiet.
And then tomorrow report, my God, look who these tea pretty people are.
Look at all those racist banners and signs.
They're not even bothering to do that.
Because they have to recruit.
They are having to recruit these infiltrators.
That's why they're having to advertise it.
Meanwhile, the the the the media is reporting it as though it's ho hum happens every day.
And then when tomorrow comes, they'll report that the Tea Party is a bunch of racist snobs and homophobes, even though they have reported all week that those people holding those signs are probably infiltrators.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair, El Rush Ball, America's truth detector, the doctor of democracy, and general all-round good guy.
Okay, so Obama says we're gonna punish these people who think that they can go out and take all kinds of risks and then get bailed out by the taxpayers.
We can't have that anymore.
So I'm gonna have this financial regulatory reform bill where I can just take over their business, or I can fire them, and I can fire the board, I can do whatever I want if I suspect them of being troublemakers.
Well, now, aren't the people who are getting mortgage modifications people who took risks buying a house they couldn't afford, and then expected the government to bail them out when things became difficult?
It was the policy, in fact.
So that's what the regime said happened on Wall Street.
But when average citizens do it by policy, policy meant loan these people money when you know they can't pay it back because we believe in affordable housing.
And then, when they can't make the payments, we'll give them mortgage modification because these people expect us to bail them out since we put them in the house in the first place.
So why shouldn't we have as much enmity for these average citizens who scam the system as Obama wants us to have for these Wall Street bankers?
Simple question.
Folks, you may have heard me uh mention a column in Monday's Wall Street Journal, and it's worth repeating because it makes a very clear point, especially now, that the regime has made clear how they intend to campaign.
This column in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, written by a professor from Hillsdale College, Burton Folsom, and his wife.
He runs Hillsdale's free market for them.
Now the left and the media for decades would have you believe that the FDR saved us from a second depression at the end of World War II by introducing one social program after another.
In fact, what saved us from a depression was the Congress in 1945 that voted to repeal certain taxes and lower other taxes, stimulated massive investment from small and large companies, which yielded employment opportunities for so many men returning home from the war.
Think about that.
Now we're told that FDR saved us.
The New Deal saved us.
Ten years after the New Deal, we still had 15 to 20% unemployment.
New Deal didn't do anything about unemployment.
The new deal created the aura of FDR.
And the Democrat Party has the party of compassion and caring.
They didn't do one thing.
World War II came along.
That lifted us out of the recession, the depression.
But then we faced a second one after we won, all these people returning home needing jobs.
What did Congress do?
It wasn't one social program after another.
It was tax cuts that were lowered.
Some were repealed.
Now liberals liked, and by the way, the unemployment rate in 1946 was 3.9%.
After cutting taxes, after repealing taxes, and after other legislation that incentivized job creation.
Now the left likes to use this FDR New Deal example and say that all those government programs saved us when in fact it was something completely different.
And Burton Folsom of Hillsdale explained all of this with great factual detail in a book that he put out a couple years ago, and then with his uh condensed article on Monday in the Journal.
Now, this is the kind of clarity of thinking you get from Hillsdale College professors on and off the campus.
Now, if you want to involve yourself with Hillsdale College, well worth your while.
Sign up for their free monthly speech digest called Imprimus.
Every month, in Primus features clear thinking from people like Professor Folsom.
So you don't have to enroll at Hillsdale to benefit from the brilliance there.
And you don't have to get your kids in, although it'd be a great thing if you could.
They don't take any federal money, by the way.
Not even a GI Bill, not even nothing.
They don't want federal tentacles anywhere near Hillsdale College.
Go to Rush4Hillsdale.com, sign up to receive Imprimus for free.
That's Rush for Hillsdale.com, or you can call them.
They're in Hillsdale, Michigan, 1866 Hillsdale, and they'll sign you up over the phone.
Here's John in Richmond, Virginia.
John, thank you for calling.
Great to have you on the program.
Thank you, Rush.
First of all, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to talk to you and your listening audience.
I'm a 21-year Air Force veteran, and I'm also a 21 year Rush veteran.
The subject of my call is social program entitlements and the uh cost creep associated with that.
My message is be careful what you ask for.
Um Rush, I just returned from Germany for a 10-day visit with uh family and friends, and this time I went back to Germany.
I I had been stationed there before, but this time I went back with all of uh current events in mind, and I began to ask my family and friends some questions about their social programs and the costs associated with that.
And I wanted to share with you uh some of the things that I learned.
First of all, uh I talked to a woman who is an architect, um, not a rich woman.
Um I'd say makes a good living.
Um I asked her what her uh income tax uh bracket is, and her answer to me was fifty-eight percent.
And included in that fifty-eight percent is three percent church tax and a two percent East tax.
And I asked her what the East tax was, and she said that uh all German uh citizens are required to pay two percent to the East in the rebuilding effort after the wall fell.
And I had commented to her, I said that that was twenty-one years ago.
And she said yes, and we continue to pay the taxes.
Wait a minute, are you saying East or Yeast?
East, east, like East Germany, when before the wall fellowship.
Oh, these smalllies.
Holy, I thought it was a yeast tax because they all drank beer.
Well, well, Rush, in addition to the um to the uh income tax, uh the Germans are paying the U.S. dollar equivalent of seven dollars a gallon for fuel.
Yeah.
And one of the gas stations there had a sign up that said eighty percent of that amount is taxes.
Yeah.
In addition to the income tax and the fuel tax that they pay, on top of that, all the uh products and services in the country are taxed at a 19% national sales tax or value added tax, which is called Myrvicstea in in German language.
So the people of Germany, in order to support their social programs, are paying a huge income tax, huge taxes on the cost of fuel, and on top of that, a nineteen percent value added tax.
By the way, when I was stationed there back in the late eighties, that nineteen percent was fourteen percent.
So it uh these programs are continuously uh tapping into the uh the German um economy, if you will, uh chipping away at it because people over there are are smothering in in these uh Well that was my next question.
The the Germans that you ran into and spoke to, they uh are they just resigned to it, they comfortable with it, or do you did you run into people unhappy about it?
Oh, they're unhappy about it.
Um they're they're used to it because it's it social programs have been there for given what you just told us.
It's interesting to note that of all the European Union countries being asked to bail out Greece, they're all going to Germany.
They're all telling the Germans you owe you better bail out Greece.
You better you do the most uh the largest contribution to bailing out Greece, and Merkel is is uh not happy about it.
And Germany is is uh considered one of the least of the social democrat republics in uh in the European Union.
Well, I'm just concerned about the uh the current in this country uh from the left, if if you will, uh, to increase our obligations to the social programs.
But that's exactly this is exactly what the left in this country looks at, they look at Germany and they see their dream.
I mean, Bill Clinton even said so when he was talking about some program of his might have been health care or something, but he looked at Germany.
Germany was what we wanted to emulate.
Um this is clearly what what uh uh what Obama and and the regime are looking at.
So uh and they they they really they can't afford well, not like they can't afford one, we don't allow them to have a military.
I mean, that's that's part of the deal.
That's why we have air bases still in Germany.
Uh after World War II, they're not allowed to have an army.
Uh free standing and so forth.
I mean, that's that's part of the price that they paid.
Uh look, I appreciate that, John.
Thank you very much.
A very succinct and concise report.
We'll be right back.
Sit tight.
Okay, we just had the last caller uh with a uh a review of the German social welfare state.
Do any of you recall reading or hearing recently that Angela Merkel just won re-election in Germany in a landslide?
You recall reading that, Mr. Snertley?
Angela Merkel just won re-election in Germany in a landslide.
You know what her platform leading item was?
Tax cuts.
Slashing now you're see uh well, you're kidding, like I was kidding, something that comes true.
Angela Merkel and her re-election in a landslide, totally ignored by U.S. government run media.
It was back in October, and her lead platform item was running on tax cuts.
Because the Germans are are fed up with all of this.
Eric in Indianapolis.
Yes, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Thanks a lot, Rush.
It's great to be here.
Megadidos uh from Indiana for all you do.
Really appreciate it.
Um just wanted to tell you that uh, you know, you mentioned earlier in the show that uh this this government bill for the takeover of corporate America was going to permit uh for an unfriendly government takeover, I believe is the way you referred to it.
And the point I wanted to make was that if history has shown us anything throughout the years, it's been that's what all government takeovers are.
There is no such thing as a friendly government takeover of anything.
They operate uh by whatever means is necessary into hell with anybody standing in their way.
So just kind of wanted to point that out.
Okay.
Uh well, would you say that General Motors uh and Chrysler being taken over was friendly?
Uh well I mean it wasn't a whole lot of I guess it depends on what side of the coin you're on, but I I no, I would I would have to say that that's the first time.
The only people to whom it was unfriendly were the bondholders.
Uh the legitimate investors.
The unions loved it.
Yes, that's true.
And I guess that comes back to you gotta kind of figure out I I piece the unions and the government as kind of one and the same one.
Now I get your point.
I I I I get your point.
Anytime the government exercises that kind of authority and control, there's nothing friendly about it uh to anybody by definition.
But then there's the other side of all this.
And this the question you know, Paul Ray, another Hillsdale guy raised the question.
Uh is this really a golden opportunity in disguise for America to reassert itself?
Now that everybody has seen what the left saw.
Tony Blankley has a great column today.
And I wanted to get to it.
Well save it for tomorrow.
National Review.
We're like frogs put into a pot of cold water.
And for 80 years, the heat has been turned up gradually.
The gradual encroachment on liberty, the gradual elevation of the left's agenda, has been so gradual and so compassion oriented that we haven't seen it.
Now all of a sudden the temperature is near the boiling point, and we frogs are jumping out of the pot.
And forming the tea parties.
It's a great analogy.
And a lot of people think this could be America's finest hour.
Because I haven't said which side I came in on that, because when I say it, there's nothing left to be said.
And I I want to hear what others have to say about it before I pronounce the truth.
I want to know what people's thinking are thinking is on this.
Well, one thing I do know Americans never quit.
Enough Americans never give up.
And a lot of people believe the best is yet to come if we strive for it.
There are still plenty of Americans who think that.
Yogi Berra, it ain't over till it's over.
And we have a great sponsor here that is of the same frame of mind, LegalZoom.
They have declared April do over month.
Whether you need a fresh start, a minor revision, or a full do-over, legal Zoom can help with the legal documents.
And here's how.
Maybe you started a business in the past and it didn't take off.
Don't give up.
It's never been easier to start or restart a business or form your corporation or your LLC at legal Zoom.
Some of you have a will, but you need a new one because of changes in your life.
Maybe you want to trust.
Legal Zoom is not just about estate planning documents and business formation, though.
You can do name changes, uncontested divorce, even get bankruptcy help.
I mean, for virtually any common legal document or form, think legal zoom.
I love these people.
You talk about entrepreneurs, I've met them, they come to our Super Bowl party every year.
LegalZoom.
Not a law firm, but they provide self-help services at your specific direction.
If it's time for a do-over, go confidently into the future with LegalZoom.com.
That's legalzoom.com.
Terry and Houston, thank you for waiting.
You're next.
Hello.
Hey Rush.
Hey.
Megasangestino de Dio's from the great state of Texas.
Thank you very much, sir.
God bless our vets and all of our servicemen too.
I just wanted to call you real quickly because I was grinding when I heard the uh quote from Obama uh this morning.
And uh then you quoted Samuel Adams.
And uh told Bo that uh ever since you you were on the uh limbaughetter as Paul Revere, I've been wanting to call in.
Just to make the point that you are a modern-day Samuel Adams, much more than a Paul Revere, because you uh you do such a great job of communicating to the American public uh what we need to know about legislation, all that kind of stuff.
And that's exactly what Sam Adams did.
Not only did he do all those other jobs you talked about earlier, but he was also a uh newspaper publisher.
He organized uh uh you know a lot of the protests in Boston, including the Tea Party against uh against the Crown.
So uh just wanted to make that point.
You are modern-day Samuel Adams.
We appreciate everything you do.
Terry, thank you very much.
Uh very nice.
I uh truly appreciate that.
Uh much more than uh than you know.
If I were Tiger Woods, I would say, of course, and it's a good thing you realize it.
Uh, but I have a little humility here, and I do appreciate that.
You're very very kind.
Samuel Adams quote, once again, I mean, it this guy knew about the Tea Parties.
He was the Tea Parties back then.
It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men.
That's exactly what the Tea Party is.
That is from Samuel Adams.
Okay, reports are now 13,000 to 16,000 patriots at the Tea Party rally in Boston today.
Uh that's uh the word from the police.
The police are telling people that there uh were between thirteen thousand and sixteen thousand people in the rally today, by far the largest conservative rally uh somebody's seen, a cops or somebody uh into in Boston.
So uh, and I have a picture here and it looks jam-packed.
And I we haven't yet had any reports of homophobic or racist signs.
That'll come tonight or tomorrow.
And we'll see you tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection