All Episodes
Previous Next
March 22, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:21
March 22, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings once again to you, music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists, all across the fruited plane.
I am your host for life, not retiring until every American agrees with me, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Once again, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
We are on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882, the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
One of the things in the president's press conference yesterday that just wigged out the media is this quote, our commitment to Iraq.
Well, that'll be decided by future presidents, future governments of Iraq, Mr. Bush said at his press conference.
If I didn't believe we could succeed, I wouldn't be here.
I wouldn't put those kids there.
So basically, the Democrats and the media have been demanding that the president level with the American people.
Have they not?
He must level with the American people.
Now, what they mean by that, and what they've always meant by that is, the president's got to tell the American people that we suck, that we're losing, that it was a mistake, we should never have gone there, and we don't have any reason to take this country at war and to bring the troops home.
That's what leveling with the American people, that's their definition of it.
And what did Bush do?
He basically said, hey, we're going to be there through at least 2009 because that's when he leaves office in January of 2009.
And so basically, they just stuck it right to him.
Level with the American people.
Get out.
Admit it's a mistake.
Admit it's wrong so we can impeach you.
No, we're going to be here.
And by the way, it's not news.
There was no news made yesterday in this regard.
He's always said that this would be a long entanglement and that it would probably outlast a two-term presidency of his.
Senate Minority Leader Dingy Harry Reid said that Bush was signaling an open-ended commitment that was never contemplated or approved by the American people.
Well, you're changing the argument here, Dingy Harry.
Vote to bring him home then.
I mean, you really do this.
You can vote to bring him home.
You can vote to cut off the funding, sir.
If the president's lying about it, if he's now got an open-ended commitment like this, and the American people were lied to, and they were never in for this, well, then cut the funding.
If you don't like the spy program, cut the funding.
Demand the program be pulled back.
A Harris poll released last week found that 46% of Americans say the situation in Iraq is getting worse for U.S. troops, 10% more than in December.
The poll also found that 48% said invading Iraq was a bad decision compared with 37% who said that it was not.
And so it's amazing that liberals and conservatives hear things differently, ladies and gentlemen.
Bush, for example, the president said at his press conference, it will be up to future presidents to determine when we leave.
Now, to people like me and most normal people in this country, what that meant was, we're going to stay the course.
We're going to finish the job and we're going to win.
That's what I heard the president say.
To liberals, when they hear the president say it's going to be up to a future president to determine the Iraqis when we leave, they hear that and they say that means we're going to impeach this SOB and we're going to cut and run a week later with dignity.
So I just it's amazing how these groups hear different things.
I'm sure you've heard about this, but if you haven't, the Bush administration yesterday appealed to Afghanistan to spare the life of a man facing the death penalty for converting to Christianity, but said the matter was one of the Afghan government and courts to decide.
In a case that has sparked international outrage, the remarks of Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns were in sharp contrast to condemnations of the trial by lawmakers and by leading European allies.
Briefing reporters with Afghan Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah at his side, Mr. Burns said the U.S. government was watching the case of Abdul Rahman closely, but added, this case is not in the competence of the U.S. government.
It's under the competence of the Afghan authorities.
Well, we need the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.
They use foreign law to decide cases here.
We need to use U.S. law to decide cases there.
You know, this really is an outrage and it's a shame, but it's also instructive.
You convert to Christianity from Islam, and it's a death sentence.
It's the death penalty.
When you look at all the United States has done in recent years to ensure the safety and sovereignty of Muslims, not just in Afghanistan and Iraq, but Bosnia.
You look at the number of troops, human beings, American citizens that we have committed to the cause to free oppressed Muslims from oppression.
It's striking when you see the extremism of that ideology.
I know that people get caught up in this being a religion, and it is.
I mean, make no mistake about it, but the people we're at war with are masking their ideology as a religion to sort of protect it from being attacked or being criticized or being hit.
But this is something I think the United States ought to take a little bit firmer role on.
Maybe we are behind the scenes rather than doing it publicly.
Have you any thoughts, Mr. Snerdley, on Gallup and CNN parting ways?
Have you heard about this?
Well, let me explain what happened.
You know, the Gallup poll, they've got two partners out there.
They've got CNN and they've got USA Today.
So that's why it's called the USA Today CNN Gallup Poll.
Well, yesterday, a fireworks storm of controversy erupted because a secret memo written by the CEO of the Gallup poll was released by an employee to some news agency and it ended up on Drudge.
It was a leak.
It was a leak.
And the upshot of it is that the CEO of the Gallup group saying, you know, we don't have enough prestige being associated with CNN anymore.
They don't have enough audience.
Their audience has gotten so small, it's dropped so much that we don't get any impact.
In fact, the poll is not even thought of as ours.
It's thought of as a CNN poll or the USA Today poll, but it's not worth it.
Now, we love USA Today.
They're the largest circulation paper in the world, including the Journal and the New York Times.
They got plenty of international coverage.
We love that.
So we're not going to affiliate with just one network anymore.
We're going to start our own e-network, and we're going to send our pollsters out to be guests on every network to discuss our poll to give our poll more prominence.
Well, this list lit a fire over there at CNN because they claim it's the exact opposite.
They claim that they've been in negotiations to extend this for the last four months.
And basically, they say that this guy is unprofessional and he's lying to his staff, that the truth is that CNN was overshadowing Gallup, and that Gallup was upset that nobody knew it was the Gallup poll, that when they watch Bill Schneider dissect the poll, they think it's a CNN poll.
CNN, USA Today, Gallup poll is how it's portrayed.
Now, Gallup poll wants the credit for themselves.
We got this nice little argument going on between these two liberal companies with one accusing the other of lying.
I guess they're both accusing the other of lying.
But now, Bill Schneider's without a poll, folks.
Bill Schneider doesn't have a poll.
And I feel so bad for Bill.
His job, he's the political site.
His job is to analyze the poll, the polling data.
He's been using Gallup.
And now what are they going to do?
They're going to have to form their own polling unit if he's going to have a poll.
Bill Schneider didn't have a poll.
That's why I'm saying, I don't have a microphone.
All right, folks, more news about Dubai.
I love this type of stuff.
Construction on a skyscraper, expected to be the world's tallest, was interrupted when Asian workers, upset over low wages and poor treatment, smashed cars and offices in a riot that an official said Wednesday caused nearly $1 million in damage.
The stoppage triggered a sympathy strike at Dubai International Airport with thousands of laborers building a new terminal, also laying down their tools.
While we're even exporting liberalism over to Dubai as well as to China.
And I wanted to pass this story on because I know so many of you people want Dubai to just get stuck.
So when anybody sticks it to Dubai, I'll tell you about it.
All right, Sonia is in Spring, Texas.
Welcome, Sonia.
Nice to have you with us.
Yes, thank you, Raj.
Raj, I want to talk about maybe three or four points really briefly, and then maybe you could expand on them.
But the first thing is that the administration and how it has been sponsoring the Shias all this time, and they have not produced anything.
We have not seen any governments yet.
I think the pressure should be put on them so that all major and minor groups of Iraqis are going to unite, and we want one Iraq with nobody.
We need to discourage anybody that's trying to cut a part of this and a part of that.
I remember in the 80s when Iran was trying to interfere, and they are doing this now again.
And it seems like it's amazing.
Nobody even cares anymore.
And nobody is putting the pressure on this group and telling them that this is not.
You're talking about the Shia.
Yes, because there's a misconception about the Sunnis and not every Sunni is behind the criminal Saddam or behind his group.
Okay, Sonia, give me your other three points because I'm just waiting to launch here on the one you just mentioned.
The point was the misconception about the Sunnis and the other thing about the troops and when they should leave.
And the thing, it boils down to another point, and that is what we always talk here about when is the best time to leave and what is the best thing here for the people here.
And I could understand that.
The other question is, what's good for the Iraqis?
What is good has been happening to them and to their daily lives.
That is an interesting point because we've been talking all day today about media coverage of this war and how one-sided it is.
And you notice the media never talks about how good it is for the Iraqis.
They always talk about how the Iraqis are getting killed and murdered and these roadside bombs.
And they make it sound like the Iraqis have no desire for us to be there.
They want us to get out of there.
You're right.
There's no concern for the welfare of the future of Iraq as reported by the media, so it doesn't show up in the polls of the American people.
They do flavor it.
You're right.
What do we want?
Do you think we should pull troops out of there?
Let me say this.
Let's put the media aside because people need to think for themselves.
People need to start thinking, and nobody has to point out this or point out that.
Because when you see what's going on, and when you hear, especially people that have families there, I know the administration, I know they're trying to encourage women and women in business and all kinds of things, and this is good, but the reality there is these groups of people are going to be forced to, people are going to open their eyes on them, they're going to be targeted and maybe killed, and even worse, threatened and their family members.
There is a lot of things that are happening now that is making the families and their lives.
It's very, very hard.
Sadly, one of the things that has been overlooked and one of the many reasons that was stated for going to Iraq was the humanitarian aspect of it.
The liberation of a people that had been subjected to beheadings and murders.
I don't know if people have heard the stories of women in Iraq.
200 of them total had been beheaded and their heads placed on the front doors of their homes, ordered by Saddam Hussein for sexual indiscretions.
And it was a warning to all other women and the men who lived in those homes, their husbands, and in some cases, their fathers.
And so the humanitarian aspects of this have not been much considered, all because of this strawdog of weapons of mass destruction.
There weren't any weapons of mass destruction.
Bush lied.
That has become the whole template.
But I want to go back to your first point, because interestingly enough, there is a fascinating little column today in the New York Sun by a man named Joshua Galertner, who is a Haskrule student in Woodbridge, Connecticut.
And I'm going to read excerpts of this to you because he's got a solution for what's going on.
Exactly what you told you.
You say there's no statesman that has arisen amongst the Shia or anywhere in Iraq that can actually call us a government.
And this is going to serve, I think, as an interesting history lesson to people because I'm convinced, particularly if you're under 30, that American history education, if you went to public schools, has not really taught you what I'm going to share with you from Joshua Galertner's piece.
It's oriented around the concept of what do we do to establish an actual functioning government in Iraq, because there's a political crisis there.
After these recent elections, they formed a new government, but they had precious little representation for the Sunni minority.
And there are similarities to our own founding.
The puzzle of how to protect sovereignty, where majority rule clashes with minority rights, is hardly new.
Another group of political leaders went through a similar struggle in the 18th century, and the result was the United States Constitution.
Many compromises had to be reached in order to bring the country together.
One seems particularly appropriate to the current situation in Iraq, the aptly named Great Compromise, which led to the creation of a bicameral Congress.
Delegates from every state but Rhode Island met in 1787 to draft a new constitution to replace the ineffective Articles of Confederation.
Shea's Rebellion, which was an uprising of veterans who had lost their property during the Revolutionary War, showed that a strong central government was necessary to safeguard popular welfare.
The rebellion was put down not by government troops, but by mercenaries hired by the merchants who saw their businesses threatened.
At the Constitutional Convention, delegates argued over how strong the federal government should be and how to guarantee states' rights.
One struggle centered on representation in Congress.
Large states, afraid of being dominated by small states, wanted representation keyed to population and wanted majority rule protected.
Small states, afraid of being dominated by large states, wanted equal representation for each state and wanted minority rights protected.
Eventually, the convention settled on a two-house Congress: one house to protect majority rule, the other to protect minority rights.
Each house would have the power to keep the check, keep the other in check.
The same system might work well in Iraq.
One house would be organized as the Iraqi parliament is today, with a member of parliament for every constituency and all constituencies of roughly equal population.
In the other house, each of the three dominant religious groups would have an equal voice.
Each house would act as a check on the other.
Shiites would have their rights as a majority preserved.
Sunnis and Kurds would have their rights as minorities protected.
Civil war might could be averted, and American troops could move on to Iran.
This is Joshua Gallertner, again, a high school student in Woodbridge, Connecticut.
Now, I'm sure you heard that, Sonia, and I don't know how familiar you are with our founding here and the establishment of our bicameral Congress, but how did that sound to you?
Well, what it sounds like, I think every sincere Iraqi will reject, and I can't say it enough, reject anything that says this is the Sunni and this is the Shia.
I understand that this is now there is they call it a majority Shia.
We need first to calm down everybody, calm down the heart and calm down the minds and tell everybody that and not tell, I don't know which way they need to think about it.
That's the point of this piece.
There was a lot of commotion and discord at the founding of this country, and it's took us a lot longer to get to where Iraq is today.
Took us much longer than it's taken them.
But the point is, this is a way to calm down some of these hearts and some of the minds because you do have a bunch of people scared to death.
They're not going to be represented fairly.
They're going to be trounced and dominated.
And you have that in every society where you have majorities and minorities.
And this is a way of dealing with it and giving them representation.
It's an idea.
It's a high school student who obviously understands American history.
It's cool.
I wanted to pass it on to you.
That's right, my friends.
A man, a legend, a way of life.
Learn it, love it, live it.
Serving humanity, half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
And this show is doing more than any other show to continue to ferret out news on Dubai and the port deal.
And when we find it, we are the first to pass it on to you.
Now, a lot of you on hold, and I've got great things you want to talk about, but there's something, two things here that I have to mention.
About immigration.
President Bush yesterday said that illegal aliens, even longtime residents with families, should not get automatic citizenship as part of any new guest worker program.
He said if people in the party believe that, they ought to stand up and say it about the Democrats and the domestic wiretapping and so forth.
But he made a point here as for the issue of what happens to the estimated 12 million illegal aliens already here, including longtime residents with families and roots.
The president said that they should not be able to jump in line ahead of those who have waited legally for citizenship.
And then this whole concept of a guest worker program comes up.
Now, I've cited the work on several previous occasions on this program of the economist Robert Samuelson, who writes, among other places, at the Washington Post.
He's a columnist.
And he has an absolutely excellent piece today on this whole notion of guest workers.
And, you know, this is one of the problems for the Republican Party.
You've got half the Republican Party that wants no part of illegal immigration and want to get tough on it and crack down.
It's illegal.
You have another part of the party, the elements of the business community who keep saying, okay, look, if you get rid of these workers, these guest workers, these illegals, then the price of your food's going to skyrocket.
The price of this product is going to skyrocket because these are people that are doing jobs that Americans consider beneath them and won't do it for what we were willing to pay.
Well, of course, the answer to that is then pay them more rather than support an illegal immigration program at what are considered to be much lower wages.
But Samuelson tackles this whole issue today in an interesting way with some historical empirical data.
Economist Philip Martin of the University of California likes to tell a story about the state's tomato industry in the early 60s.
And by the way, this immigration, I once, my grandfather was born in the 1890s.
And when I first started this program back in 1988, I was home in Missouri and I was talking to him and he said, what's the big discussion?
What's going on on your program?
I said, immigration.
And it was back.
I forget specifically what it was, but immigration was big back then.
He laughed at me.
He said, you know, this is never going to change.
I remember my high school debate topic in the early 1900s was resolved the United States should close off European immigration.
And I said, what was the problem?
The country thought that Europeans coming into the country just were trash.
Every white trash didn't want them in the country.
This has always been the case.
We've had an immigration problem.
I said, but was it illegal?
Well, no, he said that that's point.
We were talking about legal immigration there.
We didn't want that many, no matter how they were getting in.
I said, well, it's become an argument about illegal immigration now.
And it's, you know, and it's, he's right.
It's always roiled the country and it will always continue to.
But even back then, there was a process called acculturation.
There was a distinct American society, distinct American culture.
Immigrants wanted to be part of it.
The lure of America was that it was America.
People wanted to come to America.
What's happening now is that people want to come to America and balkanize.
They want to bring their culture to this country and exist here without acculturating.
And when you add illegal status to that, then you have a roiling problem.
So in the early 60s, tomato growers in California relied on seasonal Mexican laborers brought in under the government's Bracero program.
The Mexicans picked the tomatoes that were then processed into ketchup and other products.
In 1964, Congress killed the program despite growers' warnings that its abolition would doom their industry.
Well, what happened?
Well, plant scientists developed oblong tomatoes that could be harvested by a machine.
Since then, California's tomato output has risen five-fold.
It's a story worth remembering because we're being warned again that we need huge numbers of guest workers, meaning unskilled laborers from Mexico and Central America to relieve U.S. labor shortages, quote unquote.
Indeed, the shortages will supposedly worsen as baby boomers retire.
President Bush wants an open-ended program.
Senators Kennedy and McCain advocate initially admitting 400,000 guest workers annually.
The Senate is considering these and other plans.
And Mr. Samuelson correctly says, gosh, these are all bad ideas.
Guest workers would mainly legalize today's vast inflows of illegal immigrants with the same consequence.
We'd be importing poverty.
Now, this isn't because these immigrants are not hardworking.
Many of them are.
Nor is it because they don't assimilate.
Many of them do.
But they generally don't go home.
Assimilation is slow, and the ranks of the poor are constantly replenished.
Since 1980, the number of Hispanics with incomes below the government's poverty line has risen 162%.
Over the same period, the number of non-Hispanic whites in poverty rose 3%, and the number of blacks 9.5%.
So what we have now, and wood with guest workers, is a conscious policy of creating poverty in the United States while relieving it in Mexico.
By and large, this is a bad bargain for the U.S.
It stresses local schools, hospitals, and housing.
It feeds social tensions.
Witness the Men at Men.
To be sure, some Americans get cheap house cleaning or landscaping services, but if more mowed their own lawns or did their own laundry, it wouldn't be a tragedy.
Now, I'm not saying I endorse all this.
Snerdley's in there throwing his pencil around.
But the point about importing poverty and then allowing Mexico to export it, the numbers here back up the contention.
The most lunatic notion is that admitting poor Latino workers would ease the labor market strains of retiring baby boomers.
The two aren't even close substitutes for each other.
Among immigrant Mexican and Central American workers in 2004, only 7% had a college degree, and nearly 60% lacked a Haskruel diploma, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Now, among native-born U.S. workers, 32% had a college degree.
Only 6% did not have a Haskrule diploma.
Far from softening the social problems of an aging society, more poor immigrants might aggravate them by pitting older retirees against younger Hispanics for limited government benefits.
You know, I'm not so sure that the baby boomer, the Census Bureau had a story the other day that tried to dispel the notion that retiring baby boomers are going to put additional strain of proportions that we can't deal with because the point is that baby boomers, a 65-year-old baby boomer is not a 65-year-old of two or three generations.
It's going to keep working.
Going to remain productive somehow.
That's just a side element to all this I'm adding in.
It's also a myth, writes Mr. Samuelson, that the U.S. economy needs more poor immigrants.
The illegal immigrants already here represent only about 4.9% of the labor force, the Pew Hispanic Center reports.
In no major occupation are they a majority.
They're 36% of insulation workers, 28% of drywall installers, and 20% of cooks.
They're drawn here by wage differences, not labor shortages.
Excuse me, 2004, the median hourly wage in Mexico was $1.86 compared with $9 for Mexicans working in the United States.
With high labor turnover and the jobs that they take, most new illegal immigrants can get work by accepting wages slightly below prevailing levels.
Now, let me just jump to the last paragraph.
It's said that having guest workers is better than having poor illegal immigrants.
With legal status, they'd have rights and protections.
They'd have more peace of mind and face less exploitation by employers.
This would be convincing if its premise were incontestable, that being that we can't control our southern border.
But that's not been proven.
We've never really tried a policy of real barriers and strict enforcement against companies that hire illegal immigrants.
Until that's shown to be ineffective, we shouldn't adopt guest worker programs that don't solve serious social problems, but rather just add to them.
So we'll link to this piece.
I'm sure it's at the Washington Post website as well, Robert Samuelson today, but it's a great companion piece with the president rejecting automatic citizenship.
And it's well worth noting that Senators Kennedy and McCain working together on this immigration plan to do just that, allow for 400,000 guest workers each year, which is just simply going to exacerbate the current problems that we have.
And the notion, well, we can't deport the 11 or 12 million that are here.
I don't know why we can't, but it said that we can't.
And we really can't troll the borders.
We can't send the military down there.
We can't.
We really, we're full of we can'ts on all this.
And of course, the Democrats, I don't want to leave them out of the equation.
The Democrats have their own explanations to give here and to be involved because they have no clue to make a statement on this.
The Democrats, like every other issue other than the war, the Democrats don't want to tell you what they really think.
They haven't got the guts.
At least the Republicans are out there having this internal battle over this, so you know what the different arguments and disagreements on the Republican side are.
The Democrats are simply looking at this as an avenue to get more voters registered Democrat, legal or illegal immigrant, notwithstanding.
It doesn't matter to them.
Rush, how do you know that?
Because I know the Democrats.
I know the Democrats like every square inch of my glorious naked body, not just the back of my hand.
Look at Hillary Clinton.
Look at the latest push of the Democrats is to restore voting rights for convicted felons.
Why do you think that is?
The Democrats are having no outreach.
They're not building their base.
They're not adding.
All they're doing is servicing their liberal kook fringe base.
They're looking at illegal immigrants and felons as a way to grow their voting base.
Now, that to me is pretty sick.
That's pretty desperate if that's your primary outreach program.
They'll never admit that's what it is, but they're not going to tell you what they really think about immigration unless it's a Democrat in a blue star or a red state or a red district whose reelection depends on satisfying red state, red district type voters.
But the fact of the matter is, they want to stay out of it just like any other controversial issue because they want to avoid taking any position possible, hoping that the Republicans will self-destruct on it.
A quick timeout.
Your phone calls are next.
Stay with us.
All right.
Now, let me get just a couple of addenda, if you will, addendums for those of you in Rio Linda to Mr. Samuelson.
One of the problems with analyzing economic circumstances in this country, such as they generally separate income into five groups or quintiles in this country, and the poverty quintile is the bottom, maybe the bottom two.
And then you get the middle class, upper middle class, and then the obscenely filthy, stinking, rotten winners of life's lottery rich.
Now, it is assumed that if you are born into one of those quintiles by a lot of people, you stay there forever, that there's no upward and downward mobility, which of course isn't true.
People move in and out of these income quintiles throughout their lives.
It is not true that everybody born to poverty stays there.
It's not true that everybody born rich stays there.
There have been numerous cases of these trust fund kids blowing it all.
The middle class features constant upward mobility.
The idea that immigrants coming to this country are forever going to stay poor if they take these jobs that pay less than what Americans would work for.
It may be true in some cases, but it's not axiomatic that they will always only make that kind of money.
And then you also have to examine what poverty is in this country to say what it might be in Mexico.
I mean, in poverty in this country, the New York Housing Authority deals with poverty-stricken people.
They have dishwashers.
They have washing machines.
Some of them have standalone freezers.
They have apartments.
They have cars.
And they have parking spaces.
Television sets.
Sometimes plasmas.
They have cell phones.
You know, poverty in this country, and there are pockets of poverty that are very severe too, but overall, on average, poverty here is not poverty the way it is around the rest of the world.
So you have to factor some of these.
It's the old dynamic versus static scoring technique.
For the longest time, Congress, when they would score the effect of tax cuts or tax increases, did it on a static basis.
There's just one pie, and they looked at it as a zero-sum game.
And of course, it's not true.
You have to score these things dynamically.
Cutting taxes expands the economy, creates jobs, increases tax revenue because there are more taxpayers paying income taxes.
Tax cuts, tax increases, rather, do just the opposite if they're sustained over a long enough period of time.
And of course, on the right people and in the right areas.
Now, before I get back to your phone calls, runaway bird droppings in Orlando have prompted actual warning signs.
This is, it's a mess, but the way the story is written is hilarious.
They actually have signs in downtown Orlando that say caution entering bird dropping area.
Now, I'm sure you've been driving around, you've seen deer crossing signs.
In downtown Orlando, they have signs, caution entering bird-dropping area.
And they've got a picture here of a car that is literally covered in bird poop.
And here's why it happened.
The problem began when Orlando city workers removed cypress trees on Bird Island at Lake Eola in Orlando.
And I've seen this happen in other parts around the world.
Birds gather.
I forget where I was.
Oh, might have been when I was south of France or something.
There was this rock.
I think it was in the Mediterranean.
It was just nothing but bird poop.
That's where all the birds went.
Thank goodness it was offshore.
You could see it.
So they moved these trees because what happened was the bird droppings were polluting the water.
Now, the birds, to get even with the city of Orlando, have moved from Bird Island into the city.
They moved, they're covering anything and anyone between Lake Eola and Central Avenue with droppings.
Downtown resident James Taylor said, you have to brace yourself for the smell.
It's a really bad stench.
It's disgusting.
It's absolutely disgusting.
I was walking the other day and I got pooed on walking under these trees.
Somebody told me it was good luck.
Caution entering bird dropping area.
Don't sit on the benches unless you are very brave.
And this, interestingly enough, is where the National Football League owners meetings will take place next week.
I don't know if it's on Bird Drop Avenue, but it's in Orlando.
Apparently, you ought to see the picture of this car here.
It's obviously somebody's abandoned the car.
And if this happened just in the normal course of one business day while the car owner was at work, it's quite stunning.
John in Kent, Washington.
I have about a minute, but I wanted to get to you.
Thank you.
Hey, Rush, it's an honor.
Thank you.
For everyone who thinks that we'll be paying $10 for a head of lettuce if we don't allow the guest workers here, I've got news for y'all.
We're already paying $10 for that head of lettuce.
We're paying for it through border control enforcement, through the costs to educate illegal aliens, through our emergency rooms.
We're already paying for it, Rush.
The other thing I wanted to say is those who tolerate illegal immigration, I think what they're looking for is they're busting wages.
It's a wage-bust move.
Americans will take the jobs if the wages are higher.
That's the point.
Yeah, that is true.
But there are jobs that some Americans won't do that they consider beneath them.
And believe me, there are some jobs that you don't want Americans doing.
I don't have time to explain why, but I mean, they're more trouble than they're worth in certain kinds of jobs.
They end up presenting you, they end up presenting the job, and they end up screwing you.
Back in just a second.
Sadly, my friends, we are out of busy broadcast time, but there's always tomorrow.
And we will be here revved up and ready to go.
And we'll look forward to rejoining you then.
▲
Export Selection