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 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 5,000 people out there, which probably means there's about 30,000 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, LRushbaugh at EIBnet.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 Q ⁇ A, 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 pact of 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 all share a huge responsibility to fix what was broken.
So that's Timothy Geithner talking about the financial regulatory reform bill, Chris Dodds bill, basically.
And in the White House, Mitch McConnell came out of the White House today and said, you know, the president pulled the rug out from under the Democrats and said, to 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.
I don't know what the Republic and Mitch said, well, we think we should be allowed to negotiate here.
I know they can't stop anything with numbers they want to negotiate.
Why even accept the premise that we need this kind of sweeping financial regulatory reform?
Dick Morris has written pretty well about this in theHill.com.
If the financial regulation bill that passed the House last year becomes law, President Obama and his Treasury Secretary, Timmy Geithner, 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 done, 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 a, 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 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 command and control is what it is.
Fascism was privately owned, government-run.
This is the 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 the 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 could only dream of this kind of power.
We are a nation hanging by thread here, folks.
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 Geithner can take over any company they want for any reason under the guise that they are protecting it from going belly up or because its 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, or 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 also how Obama will blunt 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 cainfeing 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 healthcare, 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 donate to candidates, but they can donate to causes and run TV ads.
I think Chuck Hugh Schumer, 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 has 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, it doesn't matter.
Fox News just reported that the Henry Waxman show trials on healthcare costs have been canceled.
We mentioned this a mere moments ago.
Somebody somewhere on his committee read the law and they realized that 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 healthcare law passes and they've got to take the charge in the quarter the bill passes, not when it's implemented.
So they did that.
And Waxman said, 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 going to 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 going to do here, Nostrilitis.
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 Court.
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 Senate.
Okay, got to take a timeout 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, Raj.
Yeah.
I will make my 68th visit next month, Memorial Day, to honor those who took a pledge to uphold and defend the Constitution of our United States.
Yes.
How am I going to face them knowing that the enemy, are we deserters because we are who we took a pledge and we're allowing these people to destroy?
Flanders Field is a poppies will be worn on Memorial Day.
And anyone who has a poppy, if you go to your internet or whatever, and punch in Flanders Field, the last paragraph is from Failing Hands, we throw the torch.
It's up to you to carry it high.
We've done that.
Every piece of ground that our president traveled over in Europe, we're graveyards.
The sun is shining on the American flag at all 24 hours of the day.
Unfortunately, many of those flags are 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 done something wrong that he's laughing at us?
We the veterans.
I serve with your dad.
I didn't know him, but in the same theater, CBI.
And believe me, Rush, we've done a lot for this country.
And these people in Washington, some of them who campaigned that they're veterans, how can they be a veteran and go in there and destroy what the enemy wanted us to take over?
I'm sorry if I'm emotional, but I'm 100% totally permanently disabled.
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.
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 going out for a while.
Well, you ask where the veterans are.
I think they're all part of the mix here.
I think a lot of people call here and say, when are people going to wake up?
They are awake.
I haven't seen this level of focused energy and opposition, focused energy to stop something, to repeal something, to turn this all back since I've been hosting this program.
And 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.
I said Geithner out there today.
Yeah, we're going to sweepingly reform this first time in such fashion since the Great Depression.
And Obama's out there, we're disarming.
It was all forecast.
Everybody 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, the transformations have taken place in less than a year and a half.
So I understand you're being emotional about it.
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.
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 a White House on 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 Party 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 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 Rushball, America's truth detector, the doctor of democracy and general all-round good guy.
Okay, so Obama says we're going to 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 going to 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 modifications 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 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 forum.
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, stimulating 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 the 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 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, Imprimus 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 rushforhillsdale.com.
Sign up to receive Imprimus for free.
That's rush4hillsdale.com, or you can call them.
They're in Hillsdale, Michigan, 1-866-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 cost creep associated with that.
My message is: be careful what you ask for.
Rush, I just returned from Germany for a 10-day visit with family and friends, and this time I went back to Germany.
I had been stationed there before, but this time I went back with all of 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 some of the things that I learned.
First of all, I talked to a woman who is an architect, not a rich woman, I'd say makes a good living.
I asked her what her income tax bracket is, and her answer to me was 58%.
And included in that 58% is 3% church tax and a 2% EAST tax.
And I asked her what the East tax was.
And she said that all German citizens are required to pay 2% to the East in the rebuilding effort after the wall fell.
And I had commented to her, I said, that was 21 years ago.
And she said, yes, and we continue to pay the taxes.
Wait, are you saying East or yeast?
East, East, like East Germany, before the wall fell.
Holy swallies.
Holy, I thought it was a yeast tax because they all drank beer.
Well, Rush, in addition to the income tax, the Germans are paying the U.S. dollar equivalent of $7 a gallon for fuel.
And one of the gas stations there had a sign up that said 80% of that amount is taxes.
In addition to the income tax and the fuel tax that they pay, on top of that, all of the products and services in the country are taxed at a 19% national sales tax or value-added tax, which is called Mervichdeu 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 19% value-added tax.
By the way, when I was stationed there back in the late 80s, that 19% was 14%.
So these programs are continuously tapping into the German economy, if you will, chipping away at it because people over there are smothering in these.
Well, that was my next question.
The Germans that you ran into and spoke to, are they just resigned to it?
Are they comfortable with it?
Did you run into people unhappy about it?
Well, they're unhappy about it.
They're used to it because social programs have been there for forever.
Now, 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 better bail out Greece.
You better do the most, the largest contribution to bailing out Greece.
And Merkel is not happy about it.
And Germany is considered one of the least of the social democrat republics in the European Union.
Well, I'm just concerned about the current in this country from the left, if you will, to increase our obligations to the social program.
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 healthcare or something, but he looked at Germany.
Germany was what we wanted to emulate.
And this is clearly what Obama and the regime are looking at.
And they can't afford one.
We don't allow them to have a military.
I mean, that's part of the deal.
That's why we have air bases still in Germany.
After World War II, they're not allowed to have an army.
Freestanding and so forth.
I mean, that's part of the price that they paid.
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 with 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. Snirtley?
Angela Merkel just won re-election in Germany in a landslide.
You know what her platform leading item was?
Tax cuts.
Slashing.
No, see, 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 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.
Mega Didos from Indiana for all you do.
Really appreciate it.
Just wanted to tell you that you mentioned earlier in the show that this government bill for the takeover of corporate America was going to permit 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 by whatever means is necessary and to hell with anybody standing in their way.
So just kind of wanted to point that out.
Okay.
Well, would you say that General Motors and Chrysler being takeover was friendly?
Well, I mean, it wasn't a whole lot.
I guess it depends on what side of the coin you're on, but no, I would have to say that.
The only people to whom it was unfriendly were the bondholders, the legitimate investors.
The unions loved it.
Yes, that's true.
And I guess that comes back to you got to kind of figure, I piece the unions and the government as kind of one and the same.
Now I get your point.
I get your point.
Anytime the government exercises that kind of authority and control, there's nothing friendly about it to anybody by definition.
But then there's the other side of all this.
And this is the question, you know, Paul Ray, another Hillsdale guy, raised the question, is this really a golden opportunity in disguise for America to reassert itself now that everybody has seen what the left saw.
Tony Blankly has a great column today.
And I wanted to get to it.
I'll 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.
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 want to hear what others have to say about it before I pronounce the truth.
I want to know what people's thinking is on this.
But 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, LegalZoom 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 LegalZoom.
Some of you have a will, but you need a new one because of changes in your life.
Maybe you want a trust.
LegalZoom 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 LegalZoom.
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 in Houston, thank you for waiting.
You're next.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
Hey.
Mega San Jacinto De Dillos 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 quotes from Obama this morning.
And then you quoted Samuel Adams.
And I told Beau that ever since you were on the Limbaugh letter 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 do such a great job of communicating to the American public 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 newspaper publisher.
He organized a lot of the protests in Boston, including the Tea Party Yeah, I give us the crown.
So just wanted to make that point.
You are modern-day Samuel Adams.
We appreciate everything you do.
Terry, thank you very much.
Very nice.
I truly appreciate that.
Much more than you know.
If I were Tiger Woods, I would say, of course.
And it's a good thing you realize it.
But I have a little humility here, and I do appreciate that.
You're very, very kind.
Samuel Adams quote: once again, I mean, 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 brushfires 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.
That's the word from the police.
The police are telling people that there were between 13,000 and 16,000 people in the rally today, by far the largest conservative rally somebody's seen, a cops or somebody into in Boston.
And I have a picture here, and it looks jam-packed.
And 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