All Episodes
Previous Next
March 31, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:15
March 31, 2006, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Okay, here we are ready to go.
Open Line Friday, the Rush Limbaugh program and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
I hope you're stoked.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's Open Line Friday.
Oh, yes, everybody knows the rules for Open Line Friday, and basically they are this.
They are these.
It's finally hit me, folks.
I'm on fumes today.
It's been a whirlwind seven days.
I get basically a day and a half more of it to go, and then I can veg, which I'm looking forward to at some point.
At any rate, as you know, Monday through Thursday, we only talk about things that I care about, but on Friday, you can call and talk about things that I don't care about, and we'll take the call.
You can ask questions, comments, or what have you.
It's always freewheeling, wide-ranging, tons of fun, as they say.
The telephone number is 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
All right, folks, yesterday, as you know, we began the program by issuing a warning to terrorists to look out and be on the watch out because the Democrats have a security plan.
And we'll talk about the security plan here in mere moments.
But before we get to that, this is funny.
The Democrats, 36 of them, 36 Democratic candidates are scheduled to gather in Washington Monday for workshops on national security and military issues.
And the scheduled speakers include former Defense Secretary William Perry, former Florida Senator Bob Graham, and retired three-star Army Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy.
The event is being sponsored by California Representative Jane Harmon's Secure U.S. PAC, or Secure Us, I guess is how she probably pronounces it.
And the moderate think tank Third Way will include roundtable discussions and critiques of the candidates' speeches on homeland security, weapons proliferation, and the war in Iraq.
They have to have a workshop.
They have to have a workshop on national security.
And furthermore, they're going to critique candidates' speeches.
Other tips, no doubt, will be offered.
I can just see the classes.
Who is the enemy of the U.S.?
If you're going to have a workshop on national security with Democrats, you've got to tell them who the enemy is.
Because most of them think it's Bush.
The others think it's Cheney.
And then maybe a combination of them think it's Rumsfeld.
So that'd be the first thing they have to do.
Who is the enemy of the U.S.?
Then they have to do a workshop on what national interest means and what national security means.
And then let's say Harry Reid shows up, they'll critique your speech.
Hey, Harry, great speech, pal, but you might want to work victory into that speech.
You might want to.
I wonder if they'll talk about victory.
This is just, it's amazing.
And they're all excited about it.
They're all excited.
They've got their, they're feeling their oats.
They're going to take back security now, ladies and gentlemen.
It's something they have to take back.
And by admitting they have to take it back, it means they don't have it.
It means they're not anywhere on the issue, despite the ports deal.
And there's news about the ports deal today.
Yep.
I am not making up port deal news.
They think I'm making up news about the port deal just to be able to say the port deal.
Anyway, I think it's fascinating.
These guys have to take back the security issue.
And of course, at the top of the list, if they win Congress, the Democrats say they are going to catch Osama bin Laden, the same Osama bin Laden that Bill Clinton let slip through our fingers two or three times.
They're going to increase the number of spies.
They're going to double the number of troops and special forces.
And they're going to be tough and smart, says their Senate leader, Dingi Harry.
Nancy Pelosi over in the House said, we're going to be strong and smart.
She left out tough.
So they say they're going to get Osama.
Well, how are they going to do this?
It might serve us well to examine their track record because they don't want to do any spying on terrorists who are phoning into America or phoning out of America.
They have no desire to find out what terrorists are up to.
They want to impeach and censure.
Oh, by the way, the big censure hearing today, Russ Feingold, Specter was in this, was he on the Judiciary Committee.
So Specter had to hold the committee.
They had more witnesses than they had senators.
And at the end of it, it was just Specter and Feingold.
Feingold finally got fed up and walked out of his own hearing.
John Dean, they actually brought John Dean in there.
And he's off his rocker and he's talking all about himself.
We have audio soundbites of that coming up.
So they're doing hearings about trying to censure President Bush for trying to find out the next time Al-Qaeda might hit us.
And yet they are going to be the ones to capture Osama.
They're going to be the ones to get tough.
They're going to be the ones to take back the security issue.
Now, Denji Harry, you know, when they killed the Patriot Act, he all called a little press conference and they started laughing and applauding.
We killed the Patriot Act, even though they didn't.
They tried to.
I assume that if they're elected and they win the White House, win Congress and so forth at some point, that they will kill the Patriot Act because that's what their orientation is.
They want to cut and run from terrorists in Iraq.
And we're talking about here how they're going to catch Osama and how they're going to take back the security issue.
They want to do what John Murtha's plan is, immediate withdrawal, because they think we've lost the war.
They're invested in us losing the war.
These are the guys that claim they're going to get the security issue back or take it back.
And yet, everything, if you watch what they've done, everything they've done is invested or an investment in defeat.
They're trying to give terrorists legal rights.
The Al-Qaeda Bill of Rights, they want to make sure that Bush cannot mistreat them in prison, can't torture them.
They want to make sure that they have access to our courts as full-fledged citizens of the United States have.
They want to make sure that we're not going to be mean when we torture these terrorists, like making them stay awake during interrogations.
And the Democrats, why, they'll vote for funding the troops before they vote against it.
This is their track record.
This is all laughable.
No wonder they have to have a national security workshop.
Can you believe this?
National security.
It's like having a meeting behind closed doors to figure out what they believe.
This is supposed to look serious, ladies and gentlemen.
We're supposed to see this, and we're supposed to understand that these people are serious.
They want to protect us.
They want to protect the country, and they're getting serious.
They're going to have workshops on national.
This is the way liberals do things.
Now, if you doubt their commitment to national security, if you doubt their commitment to all this, all you have to do is look at what Democrat congressperson Cynthia McKinney is going through.
She slugged a Capitol police officer who asked for identification.
There's going to be a warrant for her arrest issued this afternoon.
Howard Feynman's on television last night saying, hey, she was just apprehended because she was black.
They're already trying to charge racism in this.
So, bottom line is the Democrats will take back security, folks.
The Stone Ages, if you are dumb enough, and some people in this country are, if you are dumb enough to elect them, I'll forget what they come out of their workshop and say, forget what their battle plan is.
Never forget what the last three years have been like.
Quick time out.
We'll be back and continue El Quicko.
By the way, let's not forget.
One of the reasons for the workshop out there, ladies and gentlemen, is that the media is taking a look at the so-called take-back security plan the Democrats have offered.
They don't like it.
They don't see any substance there.
And it was Ron Brownstein's story yesterday.
That's only going to be amplified.
And when that happens, as I said, it's got to be bad.
I mean, the whole drive-by media is worried and unimpressed with the take-back security plan.
Let's go to audio soundbite number one.
The president of George Mason University, Alan Merton, is on C-SPAN today and received this phone call.
I just want to know how a state-funded school can be conservative and even with the nickname Patriots with Walter Williams playing the role that he does on Rush Limbaugh gives a real taint to the university as far as I'm concerned.
And so I just would like to know how a state school could end up being as conservative as George Mason University seems to be.
We have faculty all over the political spectrum.
We have faculty who, as you mentioned, Walt Williams, that's clearly right of center.
Roger Wilkins on our faculty, someone who's played a prominent role in civil rights activities and far beyond, is also on our faculty.
If you look across our faculty, I can line up for you, if you want, enough that are on the left and match them up with enough on the right.
I think what's happened in a lot of cases, other universities don't have anybody at all from the right, or let's say relatively few from the right.
We have left-wing, right-wing, center, and that's what we should be doing in universities.
Unbelievable.
So here's the president of George Mason University, and he's on this weekend because they're in the Final Four this weekend.
He has to defend the fact that Walter Williams is a guest host on this program.
That led to another call.
Walter Williams, I think that he's one of my heroes, and my perception is he's assembled a great group of people with him.
And I think he has a gift for being able to bring economics to the everyday person.
And I'm always delighted when he's on Rush Limbaugh, and I just want to compliment you on that.
Explain who Walter Williams is.
Walt Williams is one of the faculty members in our economics.
And he's nationally recognized.
His columns, his participating on the Russ Lumbo show and others.
I really, you know, I love C-SPAN, but this poor, here's this poor university president.
He has to sit there and listen to dumb idiots.
And he has to act civil.
He has to act polite.
What a stupid question.
I don't screen anything there.
I know they don't.
That's the whole point of C-SPAN.
They've got to sit there and act like every idiot that phones in is worthy of serious analysis, reasoned response, and so forth.
That first guy is a.
That would just depress me.
It would just depress me.
But the president gave a good answer.
Wall Street Journal today, Brendan Meneter, who's one of the editors of their opinionjournal.com website, has a piece on George Mason University, Rodney Dangerfield University.
And there's some things in here.
I didn't know about this university.
28,000 students.
It resembles many large state schools in that it provides an affordable education to a broad range of people.
For state residents, tuition is about $3,000 a semester.
For those out of state, it's $8,500.
These amounts roughly correspond to a few weeks of classroom time at nearby Georgetown.
George Mason has no intentions of being an elite institution, and it's a good thing.
You know who George Mason is?
He is one of the founders.
That's right.
George Mason's a famous, probably the most unknown of the founding fathers.
He is the that's okay.
Everybody wants to show me how smart this is.
I'm getting all these people shouting at me in the IFB while I'm trying to conduct broadcast text, and I can do it because I am a highly trained broadcast special.
I'm going to finish this specialist.
George Mason.
I'm sure if you went to the public school system in the last 30 years, you've not heard of him.
You probably think he founded the Masons and that he's got a school named after him or something.
But George Mason was a key architect of the Constitution.
He had written the Virginia Bill of Rights more than a decade before the Constitution.
But he was one of the three delegates to the Constitutional Convention who refused to sign the final document because it lacked a Bill of Rights.
But he's one of the key founding fathers.
One of the people actually served as the engine to get it all going.
Now, all this attention on George Mason University is fine, folks.
And, you know, I'm a big believer in higher education, but they're burying something.
We uncovered it yesterday on this program.
I don't know that, well, I'm pretty sure that the president did not get a call about this, President Merton.
Otherwise, Cookie would have given me the audio.
And in Mr. Miniter's piece I just read, there's not one mention of the real interesting thing about George Mason University, and that is they have a campus in Dubai.
They have a campus in the United Arab Emirates.
They do satellite transfers.
They do satellite classrooms and so forth.
Now, everybody's waxing eloquent.
Oh, they're getting so sentimental because no expert thought George Mason had any business even being in the NCAA tournament, the March Madness.
They didn't think they deserved to be chosen or selected for the tournament.
And so now that they've gotten to the final four, oh, the sentimentality, isn't it so wonderful?
The small, relatively small school from the small conference.
Yeah, can't fool me.
This school, there's something fishy here when you have a satellite campus in Dubai.
I mean, you know what that means, folks.
It means exchange of students and ideas.
All you got to do is get a student from the Dubai campus who is in, bring a terrorist in there.
We know they're all running around the United Arab Emirates.
We learned that during the port deal.
They're all over the place.
Yeah, and you get courses in, well, not basketball court minute, courses in court milling, how to manage yourself in court when you don't have to go to a military tribunal when you're a terrorist captured to battlefield.
Who knows what they're teaching at George Mason's campus at the UAE?
But all you got to do is get a bunch of your terrorists that are roaming around Dubai, enroll in the school, and then transfer them to the George Mason campus.
I'm sure they do.
Teach port management, port security, how to buy ports, how to get around xenophobia and racism in other parts of the world.
I can't believe nobody's mentioning this.
I can't believe nobody's upset about this.
Well, it doesn't make any sense to me.
Look at the hysteria that was caused when this company wanted to buy a few terminals here in six of our ports.
Now, one of the final four schools has a satellite campus and nobody knew.
And it's being covered up.
I hope Representative Peter King can follow up on this as a service to his people and country and this country, because this is something that it needs to be examined and looked into.
How can this arrangement even happen?
How can a major American institution have a satellite campus on, of all places, Dubai, and have nobody, have nobody?
I guess it's too much to hope that George Mason would be disqualified from the tournament.
I guess it's probably too late for that.
By the way, I have an idea I'm going to propose to you later on today based on something Senator Kennedy said yesterday.
Senator Kennedy has compared the illegal immigrant movement in this country to the new civil rights movement.
Well, how do we deal with this?
Affirmative action for illegal immigrants.
I just want to take these people for their word.
If he's going to call it that, then we need to go all the way.
What did we do to help minorities in the past?
Affirmative action.
We got to move them to the head of the line.
We're talking about moving people to the back of the line here with our guest worker program.
Then they've got to identify themselves.
That's not how you deal with a civil rights movement.
Civil rights movement, you've got to give them affirmative action.
You've got to move them to the front of the line, whether they're qualified or not, regardless who they bump, regardless who they replace.
If that's what Senator Kennedy wants to call it.
And I have some information on immigration going back 40 years that you may not know.
And it will stun you.
There's also a raging controversy in Philadelphia.
If you know Philadelphia, one of our favorite towns, they're building a skyscraper there, the Comcast Center, that is going to have waterless, no-flush urinals, 116 of them.
This will be Philadelphia's biggest skyscrapers, or biggest skyscraper, and the unions, a plumber union up in Philadelphia, is fit to be tied because no pipes means no repair work.
No pipes means no work.
So the mayor's office in Philadelphia, kid you not, this is right out of the story.
The Associated Press, the mayor's office has stepped in to try to save the urinals.
A new slogan and campaign for one of our favorite cities, Philadelphia.
Quick.
Time out.
Back with more in just a moment.
Hi, welcome back.
It's Open Line Friday.
We are here, El Rushball America's anchorman, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Billings, Montana, this is Eric.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Hey, Rush, what an honor to talk with you.
I understand.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Hey, I'm just kind of curious with the union not being against this whole guest worker program.
I guess that leads us to believe that they plan on organizing these people, these guest workers.
Well, I'm just kind of curious with some of your callers yesterday, these agribusiness guys.
Is there still going to be a demand for all these workers when they got to pay them a union scale?
That's, I don't, I don't, I'm not quite sure that that is the way this is going to work out.
That's the plan.
By the way, you may be more informed than I because I'm running on fumes today.
Where have you heard that unions support the I'm not sure?
Well, I've just been watching around the talk circuits and all that on TV, and I've seen a few of them coming out.
There was, I think, a lady on Hannity and Combs the other night, one of the hotel workers' unions, and they're all for it.
It just seems to me that they'll get them organized, and I'm just kind of curious when that pay scale goes up when it's not cheap subsidized labor.
Is there still going to be that?
I don't think my recollection here is that the AFL-CIO, CIO, is against it.
I've got a story here in one of my stacks about it.
But I don't think unions unilaterally would be for this.
Like I said, I've seen two or three unions.
The Hotel Workers Union, this lady was a representative, and I know she was for it.
She talked about a million and a half members.
Yeah, well, that's a decent number since there's only about 12 million of them left, unionized people in the country.
No, 12%.
It's 12%.
Take it back.
12% of the workforce is unionized.
Down from 15, down from a high of 37, back in the glory days of big labor.
Let me check into that because normally, you know, like unions generally much in favor, they support raising the minimum wage.
And they do it, they try to sell their support on the basis of compassion for the poor and the downtrodden, the hopeless, the lost, the hungry, the thirsty, you name it.
But the only reason they want the minimum wage up is because it raises their wages because they've all got contracts saying they've got to be X amount above it.
It becomes the new ceiling or actually the floor on which their new contracts are negotiated and based.
Let me share with you this story.
We talk about, it's going to shock you.
Immigration reform.
And the word to focus on here is reform.
There's no such thing as immigration reform.
I mean, they sell it that way and they talk about it, but wait till you hear this story.
Do you have any idea just what we're reforming?
Because it's important.
Before we can fix a problem, we have to see what caused the problem in the first place, and we have to identify the problem.
And before we seek a problem solver, we have to find out who helped create the problem and find out if they're still on the job.
First, the problem.
The problem, Hart Seller, it was called Hart Seller or the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965.
At the signing ceremony of Heart Seller, President Lyndon Baines Johnson said, this bill we signed today is not a revolutionary bill.
It does not affect the lives of millions.
It will not restructure the shape of our daily lives.
Well, that's about 41 years ago.
We got a lot of hindsight that we can use.
We have learned that this high-sounding liberal dream, Hart Seller, 1965, worked out about as well as the war on poverty.
In other words, it was a disaster.
Well, LBJ is no longer available to face accountability, but I do know that the man who marshaled the bill through the Senate is still around.
The man who marshaled Hart Seller, Immigration Bill 1965, not only is he still around, he is leading the reform on the reform that he helped reform.
We're into our third or fourth incarnation of reform here, and the guy who's working on the third or fourth version was the first guy who got this whole thing started in 1965.
Now, before I reveal his name, let me pass on to you some of his quotes in 1965 as he then led the reform we are about to reform.
Who do you think it is?
Here's what he said.
Snurdley thinks he knows who it is.
And I'm sure many of you think you know who it is.
First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually.
Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.
Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.
Contrary to the charges in some quarters, the bill will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia.
And in the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.
The reformer then assured the Senate and the country and the media, quote, the bill will not flood our cities with immigrants.
It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society.
It will not relax the standards of admission.
It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.
And if that weren't enough, the reformer, the man who started this whole thing with Hart Seller, the Immigration Nationality Services Act of 1965, and who is today leading the charge to reform his own error, to reform his own failure, to reform his own disaster, said, no immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge.
All right, you think you know who this is?
The reformer who wants to reform that which he reformed is Senator Ted Kennedy.
These are the words of Senator Ted Kennedy, 1965.
And he today is working on reforming what he reformed, what has been a total disaster.
How in the world can we fix it if the same people are involved in fixing it who broke it in the first place?
We're not even being honest with ourselves about the failures of our past attempts at reform.
I know some of you are surprised that he's been around 40 years, but please, he's been around and around and around our necks for 44 years.
Ted Kennedy is also the man, as an ancillary little bit of information here, who gave us the health maintenance organization.
It was Ted Kennedy's impetus that created the HMO, and it's now Ted Kennedy who's trying, he's bashing the hell out of them and saying they're stealing people blind and mistreating customers and patients and so forth.
He is the architect of at least two modern disasters, and that's probably scratching the surface, barely scratching the surface.
All you have to do is listen to his statements from his past records and do the opposite of what he wants to do.
Ted Kennedy is a disaster.
Ted Kennedy probably doesn't remember everything he said back in 1965 about the Hart Seller bill, but it promised us then exactly what we're being promised now, and it was an utter disaster.
And we tried it again.
20 years later, we had to go back and fix it.
Hello, 1986.
And it was Simpson Mazzoli.
This immigration business seems to run in 20-year cycles.
Now, here's the reality check.
You heard the quotes from Senator Kennedy.
Nothing bad's going to happen.
We're not going to be flooded.
We're not going to have these people become public charges, meaning welfare recipients.
It's not going to happen.
Political refugees, and this is the Center for Immigration Studies, our website.
And this was back in September 1995.
This is 10-year-old stuff.
You know it's even more profound now.
Political refugees qualify for public assistance upon setting foot on U.S. soil.
The exploding Somali refugee population of Lewiston, Maine, 36,000, is largely welfare dependent.
Likewise, 2,900 people in Wausau, Wisconsin's 4,200 Hmong refugees receive public assistance.
In all, 21% of immigrants, 21% of immigrants receive public assistance, whereas 14% of native-born Americans do.
Immigrants are 50% more likely than natives to live in poverty.
This was exactly what Senator Kennedy 40 years ago assured us would not happen.
So Senator Kennedy and the Democrats want to pander.
Well, then it's time to get both feet in the water on this immigration vote scam and be honest.
To demonstrate their compassion and their sympathy for the millions of potential new voteritos, Democrats ought to propose legislation granting illegal aliens the benefits of affirmative action.
If they're going to call this the modern civil rights movement, then let's take it right where we know it's going to go right off the bat.
Affirmative action.
Contractors employing more than 50% illegal aliens will get preferential treatment for minority contracts.
Illegals applying to colleges get equal status with African Americans.
Maybe, in fact, no, they get bumped ahead of everybody.
And to really sew up the vote, new union job openings will go to illegal aliens.
They are the most depressed, oppressed, the people with the toughest rotohoe.
This, my friends, is the only fair way of dealing with this never-ending discrimination.
If these underappreciated and undervalued, well-meaning criminals really are the backbone of our country, if they really do represent, like Ted Kennedy thinks and some of the other people on this, what is great about this country, then it's high time the Democrats, the wisest and kindest people in our planet, took the bull by the horns and did the right thing.
Ted Kennedy says the immigrants today are part of a great and noble movement, like the civil rights movement of the 60s.
Well, if that's true, and if Kennedy's not just pandering and he isn't just treating his new amigos like idiots and let's give these ne'er-do-wells a helping hand, we got to boost them up.
They can't get ahead in our own too much discrimination.
You can hear it out there all over the country.
Racism and sexism and bigotry and xenophobia, all these being directed at the backbone of America.
And we in America have learned how Democrats deal with this.
We know what they think about it.
It's affirmative action.
It's time to give them a liberal helping hand.
Let's help them achieve what they can't achieve on their own.
Let's take care of them like helpless children and get them first in line.
Affirmative action or give me death.
And give them something else to protest to.
We'll have an argument about it, so we'll start demanding affirmative action as they throw the merit, fly the Mexican flag up there.
I'm going to wait for Senator Kennedy here to be consistent and the rest of the liberals to be consistent.
If this is the modern civil rights movement, then we know what that means, and it's time for affirmative action for illegal, and especially not just affirmative action, it's time for comparable worth.
The fact that they're being paid peanuts is insulting.
We'll be back after this.
And we're back.
It's Open Line Friday on the EIB Network, 800-282-2882.
This is a case in Stafford, Virginia.
Hi, Case.
Nice to have you with us.
Hey, Rush, thanks for having me on.
Hey, you know, I was kind of bumped out the other day when I heard you joined the drive-by media on this immigration issue.
And I said to myself, I can't believe Russia's actually doing this.
You know, we need to change the policy, immigration policy, so we can handle more applicants.
And that will reduce.
Wait, hold on.
Know, I'm running on fumes today, but when somebody I kind of wake up when somebody says I'm joined a drive-by media and say, what's that about?
What do you mean I've joined a drive-by media?
Yeah, because you're not looking at this immigration issue, see what the root cause is, and we'll actually fix it.
So that's why.
I just, how can you say this?
Have you had the radio on?
I just told you.
I heard you talk about the sometimes that's high.
How can you say that?
I just did a brilliant analysis of how the current problem came to be, and that the same guy who created it for us is now reforming it.
Where am I failing?
I don't see it.
Well, that's a start.
But where you're failing is this.
You know, we'll never fix the immigration policies.
We'll never fix the illegal flow if we don't change our immigration policy so they can handle more applications.
If they don't handle more applications, we'll continue to have a large number of illegals coming across the border.
And that's just too much for the law enforcement to handle.
Change of policy.
Okay.
So what you're saying is, let's just make them all legal.
So we don't have to, we don't call them illegals.
Let's just expand the number of legal immigrants by whatever number of illegals are here so we don't have any problems whatsoever and then bam, problem solved.
No, no, I'm not saying that.
Yes, that's exactly what you're saying.
I may be on fumes, but that's exactly what you said.
When you start talking, we don't have enough applicants, we don't have enough forms, we don't have enough, we don't have whatever you, however you termed it.
Yeah, I mean, you got to automate the processes and push more applications through.
Automate the process.
It's a process, but it's a bureaucracy.
Just hold those applications up forever.
And as long as there's demand for employment over here and we're at full employment, don't forget that we're at full employment.
We're a land of opportunity and hope.
So as long as we're a land of opportunity and hope and we're at full employment, there's going to be demand for people to come across the border and work because there's work for them.
We're at full employment.
So the only way to capture that is you change your policies, increase your throughput, reduce your illegal, that will automatically reduce the illegal population across the border to a manageable level for law enforcement.
Okay, it's like you can never.
No, I know, I know what you're saying.
What you're suggesting is we don't even try to enforce the law.
You're just suggesting we give up.
Your method of enforcing a lawsuit to not do it.
I'll tell you what, you know, the natural progression where logic dictates you take your belief is, today we annex Mexico and we just we take it and we call it, we make it a state, just make it a state, and they call it New New Mexico, Nuevo Nuevo Mexico, Nuevo Nuevo Mexico.
Just annex the place and then when they travel from Mexico to New Mexico, New New Mexico to New Mexico, they're just moving from state to state, not illegal.
Problem solved, I like the way you think.
All right, back to the phones.
This is Eric in in Flint, Michigan.
Hello Eric, great to have you, sir.
How you doing Rush?
Never better, sir.
Good.
I've been a big fan of yours since I was a student at Bob Jones about 15 years ago.
Let me ask you a quick question.
Why is it, do you think, that you haven't heard hardly anything from Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton about the whole immigration thing?
I mean, the silence is deafening for NAACP.
They're busy.
They're busy.
The Reverend Zach is in New Orleans.
He's leading a big march there tomorrow.
The march is, what is it called?
The March for the Right to Return a Protected Vote and Reconstructions.
He's trying to, they got problems down in New Orleans.
They don't have voter base.
And Sharpton's working on a New Orleans deal, too.
He's trying to figure out how he can get involved in a deal down there at Duke with a lacrosse team, supposedly raped some hoes.
But I don't think they're very good.
That has a possibility down there.
Duke thing's got a possibility of being a Tawana-Brawley situation.
And Sharpton's got a balance.
Can he afford another one of those?
And his life's going on.
New Orleans is a big deal to him.
But I'm going to tell you something.
You'll see these guys at some point they will get involved because when Ted Kennedy calls it the new civil rights movement, that's Jesse Jackson's turf.
He owns it.
So, yeah.
Anyway, I got to run here because of the constraints of time out there.
Eric, a great, great question.
Exotic dancer, okay.
Whatever happened, you know what it is down there, Duke.
▲
Export Selection