All Episodes
Previous Next
April 4, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:10
April 4, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know, the French, the spoiled Brett French are out there rioting again.
There's a philosophy in France, and it is it's not the employee's responsibility to work, it's the employer's responsibility to pay.
And really, I mean, that pretty much sums up their work attitude over there.
Hi, folks.
It's great to have you with us.
Great to be with you on the one and only Excellence in Broadcasting Network, El Rushbow, America's Anchorman, America's Truth Detector, play-by-play man of the news.
And as an added bonus, we tell you what to think about it all in our constant, never-ending commentary on the news.
800-282-2882, if you would like to be on the program.
I want to share with you two stories for the Associated Press.
One was posted at 3.16 this morning, both the same writer, Suzanne Gamboa, and the other one posted a little bit less than an hour ago at 12.19.
Here's the first one.
Senate Republicans.
This is the one from 3.15 this morning.
Senate Republicans searching for a compromise on whether more than 11 million illegal immigrants should be allowed to eventually seek citizenship move toward limiting that opportunity to those who've lived in the country at least five years.
Negotiators, who met for about an hour late Monday evening in the office of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, seem to have settled on five years as a demarcation for those who could remain and work and eventually earn citizenship.
Details were to be provided to other Senate Republicans at their closed-door Thursday morning meeting.
We're looking at the roots concept, and that is if they have been here more than five years, said Senator Specter.
If they've been here less than five years, they don't have roots to the same extent and can be treated differently, and that is what we're looking at.
Now, the fate of those with less time in the country was unclear, but Spector suggested they might be asked to go to ports of entry.
Pardon me, folks.
I just love it whenever the word ports shows up in any story.
Send them to ports of entry, like the Texas border city of El Paso.
And they would not have to return to their native countries.
What, they stay in El Paso?
We're going to send them all to El Paso?
You didn't think of El Paso as a port of entry, did you?
Opponents consider the Judiciary Committee bill amnesty.
Senator John Cornyn and John Kyle would give illegal immigrants up to five years to leave the country before they can return legally to apply for permanent residence.
Cornyn was not at the meeting at Frist's office, but his spokesman Don Stewart was skeptical of the suggested compromise.
It's a matter of giving amnesty to 8 million people or giving amnesty to 12 million.
It's still amnesty to millions of people.
All right.
Now that's the story at 3.15.
Let's go to the story that was just posted at 1219 this afternoon.
I have that story right here in my formerly nicotine stained fingers.
Supporters of a guest worker program that would let illegal immigrants stay in the United States said Tuesday they don't have enough Senate votes to overcome objections from conservatives who oppose the measure on grounds it amounts to amnesty.
As negotiators worked on a compromise to let those who have been here longest remain, that's the roots concept.
Senator McCain, the maverick from Arizona, said a majority in the 100-member Senate support his and Ted Kennedy's proposal to provide green cards to illegal immigrants after they've worked in the U.S. for six years, but it takes 60 senators to overcome opponents' parliamentary tactics, the old filibuster, and McCain said he didn't have that many.
More than 11 million immigrants are believed to be in the U.S. Senator Mel Martinez said he and Senator Chuck Hagel are pushing a fallback plan that would put those who have been here the longest on a track towards citizenship, but treat more recent arrivals differently.
Similar approach rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, but it was revived Monday night during the meeting in Bill Frist's office.
About 30 Republican senators huddled for more than an hour Tuesday.
No consensus emerged.
McCain and Kennedy denied that their proposals amnesty, saying illegal immigrants would have to pay $2,000 in fines and any back taxes and clear background checks before they could get in line for a green card.
I still want to know how we're going to find these people.
How are we going to collect the fines?
What are they going to be?
You know what's going to happen.
The word's going to spread in the illegal community that this is a trick.
Don't turn yourself in because it's secretly a plan to deport you.
And if you go identify yourself, that's what's going to happen.
I guess what I'm getting at is where are the enforcement mechanisms in even this?
I mean, if they're afraid to enforce the current laws of the books for fear that they will lose politically in terms of Hispanic votes, then isn't any kind of enforcement going to upset this community and impact negatively the possibility they would vote for Republicans down the line?
So I don't see any kind of enforcement mechanism here that's going to work.
But McCain says that there's not enough backing in the Senate for his and Ted Kennedy's guest worker program, folks.
It just isn't there.
This is maybe a little early to suggest that there's movement taking place here on this in the right direction, but it appears so.
I have some other immigration stories here.
We'll get to them in just a second.
But since we've talked about Senator McCain, and one of the things that I predict, we got some audio soundbites you got to hear.
We put together a couple of montages of recent times and in the distant past to illustrate for you what I predicted, that McCain's status as a maverick and the loved and preferred member of the Republican Party by the drive-by media has come to an end or is in the process.
First, the media is in mourning over the fact that John McCain is a maverick no more.
This is just a montage of media figures from the drive-by media in the past two or three days.
Here's a guy who's known as Mr. Maverick.
Now he wants to be the made man of the religious right.
Is he going to get away with it?
He's not a Maverick candidate anymore.
E.J. Deion in the Washington Post has this a maverick no more.
Does he lose some of that maverick quality?
The people who really love John McCain, his loyal followers, like him because they see him as an iconoclast, a maverick, and he's forfeiting a lot of that by sliding over to the right.
Told you this is going to happen.
It's going to be real interesting.
Stu Rothenberg has a piece.
He's a pollster and analyst.
He says, it says this, all this is setting McCain up perfectly for 08.
The Republicans are going to end up having some trouble in 06.
The party is going to want somebody that can win in 08, setting McCain up.
There's just one thing about all this, though.
While McCain's professed base, the drive-by media, is now starting to scratch his heads and maybe trickle away from him.
And they're starting to ask him pointed, tough questions, like Russert did on Meet the Press on Sunday.
The real question is, how will McCain deal with this as it intensifies down the road?
I mean, these people, he's cultivated them.
They loved him.
And now they're turning on him.
And you have to think.
You just have to think he knew that this was going to happen at some point if his strategy was to go after the Republican base.
Just had to know it.
Now, maybe he fooled himself and thought that he could still hold all these disparate groups by tacking to the right here, but I'm not sure.
Anyway, let's go back to the happy days, just so you can compare the montage we just shared with you.
Go back to the happy days when McCain was the maverick that the media love, the rightful president of the United States, who had the office stolen from him by George Bush in South Carolina.
This is dating back to 2001.
As Democrats prepare to retake the Senate, new questions about Maverick Republican John McCain.
The Maverick from Arizona, often at odds with the president and his own party.
What's John McCain really up to these days?
John McCain spends a social weekend with Senate Democratic leader Tom Dashell.
What is the Maverick Arizona senator up to?
What is the Maverick McCain up to?
Is that what this is?
Sort of a personal feud between the leader and the maverick.
GOP leaders worried about John McCain and Maverick Republican senators' political plans.
The new majority leader of the Senate spends the weekend with this man, Republican Maverick and Emesis John McCain.
This weekend, Maverick Republican Senator John McCain had a very interesting House guest, Maverick Republican Senator John McCain.
Maverick Republican Senator John McCain loves the spotlight.
Is McCain another Maverick outsider?
Bush is having dinner at the White House tonight with Maverick John McCain.
Well, there you have that from 2001.
Let's go back and play just the recent days montage for contrast again.
Here's a guy who's known as Mr. Maverick.
Now he wants to be the maiden man of the religious right.
Is he going to get away with it?
He's not a Maverick candidate anymore.
E.J. Deion in the Washington Post has this a Maverick no more.
Does he lose some of that Maverick quality?
The people who really love John McCain, his loyal followers, like him because they see him as an iconoclast, a maverick, and he's forfeiting a lot of that by sliding over to the right.
So the bloom's off the rose.
Honeymoon's over.
You can see it beginning to happen here.
I got to go.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back in just a moment.
Don't leave.
I have some other interesting immigration stories in the immigration stack today.
One of them from The American Thinker by Herbert Meyer.
Herb Meyer served during the Reagan administration, special assistant to the director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
He's also vice chairman of the CIA's National Intelligence Council.
And the title of his piece, Why Americans Hate This Immigration Debate, simply put, the debate in Washington isn't about immigration at all.
And that's the problem.
To ordinary Americans, the definition of immigration is very specific.
You come here with absolutely nothing except a burning desire to be an American.
You start off at some miserable, low-paying job that at least puts a roof over your family's head and food on the table.
You put your kids in scruple.
You tell them how lucky they are to be here and make darn sure they do well, even if it means hiring a tutor and taking a second or third job to pay for it.
You learn English, even if you've got to take classes at night when you're dead tired.
You play by the rules, which means you pay your taxes, you get a driver's license, and insure your car so that if it's yours, if yours hits somebody else's, that you can recover the cost of damages.
And you file for citizenship the first day you're eligible.
You do all this, you become an American like all the rest of us.
Your kids will lose their accents, move into the mainstream, and retain little of their heritage except a few words of your language.
And if you're lucky, an irresistible urge to visit you now and then for some of mom's old country cooking.
That's how the Italians made it.
It's how the Germans made it.
It's how the Dutch made it.
It's how the Poles made it.
It's how the Jews made it.
And more recently, how the Cubans and the Vietnamese made it.
The process isn't easy, but it works.
And that's the way ordinary Americans want to keep it.
But the millions of Hispanics who've come to our country in the last several decades, and it's the Hispanics we're talking about in this date, not those in this debate, not those from other cultures, are in fact two distinct groups.
The first group is comprised of immigrants, just like all the others who've put the old country behind them and want only to be Americans.
They aren't the problem.
Indeed, most Americans welcome them among us as we have welcomed so many other cultures.
The problem is the second group of Hispanics.
They aren't immigrants, which is what neither the Democrat or Republican leadership seems to understand or wants to acknowledge.
They've come here solely for jobs, which isn't the same thing at all, and many of them have come here illegally.
Whether they remain in the U.S. for one year or 10 years or for the rest of their lives, they don't conduct themselves like immigrants.
Yeah, they work hard to put roofs above their heads and food on their tables.
And for this, we respect them, but they have little interest in learning English and instead demand we make it possible for them to function here in Spanish.
They put their children in our schools, but they don't always demand as much from them as previous groups demanded of their kids.
They don't always pay their taxes.
They don't always insure their cars.
In short, they aren't playing by the rules that our families played by when they immigrated to this country.
And to ordinary Americans, this behavior is deeply, very deeply offensive.
We see it unfolding every day in our communities.
We don't like it.
This is what none of our politicians neither understands or dares to say aloud.
Instead, they blather on and on and on about amnesty and border security without ever coming to grips with what is so visible and so offensive to so many of us, namely, all these foreigners among us who aren't behaving like immigrants.
No desire to become Americans.
If we hadn't always had a huge number of these miserable jobs available that none of quote us unquote would do, there wouldn't have been a way for immigrants throughout the 19th and 20th centuries to step off the boat and find work.
A willingness by immigrants to start at the bottom so they can move up the economic ladder or at least give their kids a shot at the higher rungs is precisely how the system is supposed to work and it always has.
My own family is one of the tens of millions that did precisely this.
My grandfather came from Poland.
He found work as a pocket maker in New York's garment district.
The pay was low, the hours were long, and when the old man finally retired, he could hardly move his fingers or see without thick glasses.
Yet one of his sons, my uncle, became a lawyer with a fancy practice on Manhattan's Upper East Side.
His kids did even better.
His son wound up chairman of Stanford University's history department.
His daughter became a famous art critic, moved to London, married an Englishman who became a member of the House of Lords.
What's astonishing about this story is that it isn't astonishing.
It's the sort of thing that happens all the time, and it's why ordinary Americans don't want to change the system that made it possible.
Until our elected officials come to grips with the real issue that's troubling ordinary Americans, not a growing population of foreigners among us, but rather a growing population of foreigners among us who aren't behaving like immigrants who don't want to become Americans, public frustration will grow no matter what bill Congress passes in the coming weeks.
It could lead to the kind of political explosion none of us really wants.
Again, Herbert Meyer served during the Reagan administration, special assistant to the director of the CIA.
Yeah, they'll call him a nativist and other such things.
Rich Lowry has a piece today.
I'm going to the bottom of the stack here.
But it dovetails nicely with Herb's piece.
And by the way, Herbert Meyer's piece I just shared excerpts of with you as found AmericanThinker.com.
Forget the long-running bipartisan concern about creating an educated, highly skilled workforce.
What the U.S. economy desperately needs is more high school dropouts, so desperately that we should import them hand over fist.
Such is the logic of the contention by advocates of lax immigration that the flow of illegal labor from south of the border is a boon to our economy.
And it doesn't make intuitive sense that importing the poor of Latin America would benefit us.
If low-skill workers were key to economic growth, Mexico would be an economic powerhouse and impoverished Americans would be slipping south over the Rio Grande.
The National Research Council reports that an immigrant to the U.S. without a high school diploma, legal or illegal, consumes $89,000 more in governmental services than he pays in taxes during his lifetime.
An immigrant with only a Haskruel diploma is a net cost of $31,000.
80% of illegal immigrants have no more than a high school degree and 60% have less than that.
Steve Camerada, Washington, D.C.-based Center for Immigration Studies, estimates that illegal immigrants cost the federal government $10 billion a year.
State and local governments lose even more.
Illegals pay some taxes, but not enough to cover governmental expenses like Medicaid and treatment for the uninsured.
Whatever benefit illegals provide the economy in general has to be minuscule.
All workers without a high school education, illegal otherwise, account for only 3% of economic output.
Even if illegal immigrants were dominant in low-skill industries, their broader impact would be small, but they aren't dominant, and that includes job categories associated with immigrants.
Nearly 60% of cab drivers, for example, are native-born, and only four of 473 job classifications are immigrants, a majority of the workers.
Now, Lowry's point is this.
With the U.S. population aging, don't we need highly fertile immigrants to replenish our working-age population?
Because our birth rate in this country is down.
Abortion and a number of other reasons, people like me not having kids, the birth rate's down.
And so there's going to have to be replacement levels here.
And Lowry's point, replacing young workers with people that don't have high school diplomas from Latin America is senseless.
If we really need more poorly educated workers here, we can always rely, unfortunately, on the public schools to produce them indigenously.
We have plenty of them in our own country.
Immigration from Latin America, in short, does not chiefly benefit our economy, government, or society, but rather the immigrants themselves.
Their motives, if not their means, are admirable.
They want to improve their lives.
Advocates of lax immigration policy should admit that their policy has a humanitarian, not an economic rationale, and its beneficiaries aren't Americans, but mainly people from rural Mexico.
And when I read this, I thought of Dick Durbin yesterday and his comment that we need these.
These are backbone of America.
These people are coming here.
They are our future.
They're neurobiologists or what have you.
But Lowry's exactly right.
If a permanent underclass with no high school diploma or education was the key to economic growth, Mexico and a lot of other countries would be ruling the economic roost of the world.
But they aren't, are they?
Back with much more after this.
Man, time is flying today.
We're already halfway through this program.
And I don't even feel like I've really gotten revved up yet.
Although I am.
This is lightning pace today.
Here's a story from New Orleans Times, Picayune, the headline, migrants find a gold rush in New Orleans.
Word spread to Latino laborers as Katrina's floodwaters ebbed.
There's work with good money and no questions about papers.
That's the subhead.
As the floodwaters of Hurricane Katrina receded in September, roads filled with residents leaving the city, their cars, SUVs, and moving mans jammed with what they had salvaged of their lives, but another mass movement was taking place on the other sides of the highways.
Thousands of men from Mexico and Central America were driving into the city.
Word had spread throughout the Latino immigrant diaspora in America, that the city had plenty of work.
Construction wages had doubled to 16 bucks an hour.
Nobody was asking for papers.
It was like a gold rush, said Oscar Calanche, a Guatemalan immigrant who lived in New Orleans before the storm and returned as soon as the waters receded in one car.
There'd be three up front and three or four in the back, suitcases and tools on top.
Look like a river of people from our countries.
Latino workers have gutted, roofed, and painted houses, hauled away garbage, debris, and downed trees.
Undocumented workers have installed trailers to houses, returning evacuees at New Orleans City Park, their pay coming from FEMA subcontractors.
It's all illegals doing this work, said Ray Mendes, a FEMA trailer subcontractor from Honduras.
Nobody knows how many Latino immigrants are here, but John Logan, a Brown University demographer who has studied the city since Katrina, says there must be 10,000 to 20,000 immigrant workers in the region by now, and the number is going to grow.
New Orleans, as you know, ladies and gentlemen, is a big port town.
So I just want to throw this in.
They're looking at it as a golden opportunity as the other residents flee.
Concord, New Hampshire.
Mark, glad you waited.
You're up next on the EIB network.
Hi, Deer, Rush.
Good to talk to you.
Thank you.
One thing that Thomas Sewell brought up in an article a little while ago, and you might have read it.
It seems as though these immigrants, most of them are, excuse me, illegals, most of them work in agriculture, and a large part of them are working for farms, which my guess is are getting subsidies from the U.S. government and or getting tariffs to restrict imports.
Now, the tariffs arguably protect American jobs, which American jobs being manned by illegal aliens.
And the subsidies, if they're going to a farm that has to hire illegals to produce something, what the hell is going on here?
Particularly the sugar industry.
There's no reason they need to be producing sugar in America when they can import it for half the cost somewhere else.
But there's a tariff on there, and we have to hire illegals to do it here.
This is ridiculous.
I mean, why is nobody making this argument except Thomas Sewell?
Well, you know, we've talked about this, I don't know how many times.
The agriculture business in this community is one side of the controversy in the Republican Party on this.
It is cheap labor, and this has spawned the phrase, this is work that Americans will no longer do.
But Souls Column was right on the money.
I mean, there's subsidies, there are tariffs, there are subsidies for not growing crops, depending on the crop year to year.
And then the American taxpayer is further subsidizing by not having, by essentially allowing the cheap labor.
And this has resulted in agriculture business people calling here, defending the program.
And they do it on the basis.
You want cheap food?
Food's necessary.
Food's not an option.
We all have to eat.
And the objective of the farm community has always been to produce food at the, either processed or natural, organic, what have you, at the lowest possible price.
I mean, you know what the markup as a grocery store is on actual food?
I'm not talking when you go in there and you buy stuff that's not food.
I mean, the markup on that stuff is outrageous.
1 to 2% is the markup in your average grunt.
I'm not talking about these little trendy upper west side delis and stuff.
Your average supermarket, the markup is very little, is because people have to eat.
And one of the things they say is, well, if you force us to put all this expensive labor in there, then you better be prepared for the price of your food to go up.
And people have gotten so accustomed to it.
Farming, by the way, have you ever heard when unemployment figures or employment figures are announced, invariably you will see, if you read about it, or in some places, depending on who reports it, you will hear non-farm payrolls, this period reader, up or down or whatever, non-farm, you've got two payrolls in this country.
It goes way, way back to the day when the number one business in this, and it may still be, I mean, in one sense or another, but agriculture.
There is this, you know, the whole family farm.
That's why non-farm payrolls are considered to be different than standard get-up nine-to-five jobs.
But in the old days, before all these giant corporations owned the production of food in this country, it was little mom-and-pop farms.
I mean, going way, way, way back.
And there's almost a nostalgic tradition associated with it, and it survives to this day.
Regardless who the owners, because I mean, that was a tough, tough business.
You couldn't guarantee a crop every year if you had a Dust Bowl period, if you got wiped out by a storm, heavy rains or whatever.
It was a very risky proposition.
And that's why a lot of these subsidized programs began, was to protect these people because they were feeding not only people in this country, but they began to feed the rest of the world as well.
And farming today is still treated policy-wise, for the most part, like it was when it was a mom-and-pop operation in the 1800s.
And now those agribusiness people are very powerful and they've got a lot of political influence and so forth.
And so that's why these programs have basically hung on.
I had two stories for you last week.
I found this fascinating bit of information at right-wing news, a blog, about two efforts back in the mid-90s by the then INS, the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
And listen at least two stories.
First story was from Georgia.
And the INS was trolling around looking for illegal immigrants and so forth.
And they came across an onion farm and they found that there had to be a bunch of illegals in there.
So they conducted a raid.
And sure as heck, found a bunch of illegals.
And when the illegals just, half of them, more than half of them just split, could never be found.
The others are rounded up and told to take a hike.
Well, the onion farmer got on the phone to his senators, one was a Republican, one was a Democrat, raised holy hell.
And the guy called his Congressman too.
And the INS director got a phone call from members of Congress saying, you idiot, you like this job?
Here's what you do.
You go round those people up and you bring them back and you let them finish picking the crop and then you run them off, preferably before the farmer has to pay them.
But you have just destroyed this man's ability to pick his onion crop this year.
So the INS doing what it thought it was charged to do gets beat up on by a couple of members of the Senate.
And like the article said, if you're a government bureaucrat making what they make with a couple kids in school, you're going to buckle to the pressure rather than make a stand on principle and get canned and probably blackballed.
The next story involved the meat packing industry in Nebraska.
It's a pretty big industry.
And so the INS, not wanting to make the same mistake they made in the onion farms of Georgia, instead subpoenaed the employment records of as many employees of the meatpacking firm as was practicable at the time.
It was about 4,000.
And they started matching Social Security numbers and they found 3,000 phonies.
They found 3,000 illegals.
And so they and they intended to do this every two to three months.
And after a while, they figured they would have the whole state cleaned out of illegal immigrants.
Before they even got to do it a second time, the meatpacking industry let their elected officials in Washington know what the hell was going on.
And the poor people at the INS heard about it again.
And so the bottom line is the INS has been told not to enforce any of this stuff when it comes to agribusiness or there will be hell to pay.
And these are the people, by the way, the senators, congressmen, these are the people that write the law.
These are the people writing the law.
And they end up telling the INS, the then INS, you better not enforce it.
Better not enforce it or be big trouble for you.
So when you hear stories like this, it sort of helps you focus on why there's not a whole lot of enforcement going on out there when it comes to illegals, because these, you know, the current existing law would fine these employers for doing this, but it doesn't happen.
And that's why the focus now is on the border and they're trying to just keep as many of them out as possible.
But that's not even a serious attempt that's being made right now.
There's call for that.
You have so many factors in this.
The bottom line is, folks, that the people who write the laws in this country really don't have any interest in this.
They're all just pandering to us.
Every 20 years, Simpson Missouli was the last time.
Same thing happened.
We were supposed to, I mean, the figure that we were dealing with then was 4 million illegals.
We were going to get rid of them.
We're going to fix the problem.
It ain't going to happen.
And it just keeps amplifying itself and growing because there's no enforcement.
Back in just a second.
Hell, all right, folks.
Well, if the left, if the left hates Walmart now, wait till they hear about this.
Walmart stores is a Reuters story.
Walmart stores under fire from a host of critics for its business practices.
Today said that it would open more than 50 stores in distressed areas and help small business around those locations thrive once the discount chain moves in.
The world's biggest retailer, often blamed for driving mom and pop stores out of business, said it would offer business development grants to nearby companies and give them free in-store advertising as part of a new economic development program.
Walmart will also hold seminars for minority and women-owned business owners on how to become Walmart suppliers, as well as seminars for all surrounding small businesses on how to compete in a community with a Walmart.
I know it is flat and amazing.
Here is Walmart, in order to tackle its critics, is going to go into depressed areas and raise them up and teach all these mom and pops in the community how to be successful.
And even if you get really big, you might someday become a Walmart supplier.
You can reach the pinnacle by becoming associated with us.
If you're a woman, we're going to train you how to run a business if that's what you want.
Now, let the left, what are they going to say here?
What can they say about this?
The only thing they can say is, this is just not fair.
Walmart is going to be going into these depressed areas and driving mom and pop drug dealers off the corners, college student hookers off their well-established corners.
And we're not going to be able to, they're going to destroy the culture of these existing communities.
Of course, even a depressed neighborhood has a culture, Mr. Snurderly.
They all do.
But Walmart's going to go there and they're going to upset it.
They're going to upset.
You think I'm making this.
You, you, wait a sec.
Wait a second.
You think you.
Do you remember shortly after Hurricane Katrina, the left, there were people in this country actually suggested that some of the I'm having a middle block on the names, but some of the more depressed areas of New Orleans were Just lovely and beautiful that New Orleans had a lot of its identity from that.
And it's a shame that they are not going to be there anymore.
There actually were people.
You people in New Orleans may not know this because you didn't have any communications down there.
And it was right after the hurricane and the three-week aftermath of it.
But there were people lamenting that the culture in these deprived areas was now forever lost.
I mean, that's right.
Exactly right.
The same thing happened in Washington, D.C. People tried to go out and paint the schools and fix up some houses, and the left came in there.
You can't just do this.
You're destroying the cultural identity of the neighborhood here.
Can't do this.
So, but I mean, this is how many people, how many businesses move into a community and help the competitors?
Never seen this happen before.
And this is, I just, I can't wait to see the left's reaction to it.
Here's Ed in Carefree, Arizona.
Ed, you're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hello.
Great to talk to you again, sir.
This is my honored and third time speaking with the great old El Rushbo.
I'd just like to tell you, sir, I'm quite concerned down here on the border.
I am a Minuteman.
I spend a lot of time down there.
However, they're doing these protests.
They're having one here in Phoenix April 10th.
And I've heard they're going to have another one from my Mexican-American friends.
They're going to have another one May 1st.
And they're actually planning on keeping the children out of school, not buying anything.
And apparently it's being organized by the Mexican radio stations with help from the three nonprofit groups from Los Angeles.
But the most scary part of it is, sir, I've spoken with people who are American citizens who have gotten their citizenship, and they are still going to the protests, even though they're citizens.
It's very troubling, and I really appreciate you bringing this to the forefront.
Well, I'll tell you, in fact, it is the next story here at the top of the immigration stack.
But if any of you doubt that there is a huge political movement involved and behind this, this should change your mind.
Immigration rights organizers today will call for a nationwide boycott of work and school and shopping on May 1st.
Now, you know what May 1st is?
May 1st is May Day.
It's an old communist holiday.
That's when the Soviet leaders, every May 1st, they'd parade their nukes and their armies and their soldiers in front of the reviewing stand in front of the Kremlin, goose-stepping in unison in perfect timing, and the world would shudder in fear as these Gorbachev-like, Brezhnev, Khrushchev-like people in their hats would stand up there and salute as the Soviet Red Army showed its muscle and attempted to intimidate the world.
May 1st is a communist holiday.
Anti-war kooks are now outsourcing, and they have co-opted the immigrant movement here.
The Great American Boycott of 2006, it's being called, is only one in a series of large-scale events that protesters hope will sway lawmakers to put millions of illegal aliens on track toward permanent residency and U.S. citizenship.
So they're going to go out there and they're going to try to duplicate what they did on March 25th, the 500,000 strong in Los Angeles.
They're basically going to be saying, hey, we are here protesting your laws.
We demand to be exempted from them.
We're here.
We're illegal and whatever the phrase is.
In order to realize the goal of legalization for the millions of undocumented workers, we have the obligation to keep pressing the Congress of the U.S. to legislate immigration reform that grants full legalization for all immigrants.
The Act Now to Stop War and End Racism Coalition, ANSWER, which organized the L.A. March to win full—the communists!
These are a bunch of left-wing pinko socialists.
We've also got, in addition to ANSWER, who else we got working on this?
You have the Free Palestine Alliance, the Partnership for Civil Justice, the Nicaragua Network, the Korea Truth Commission, the Muslim Student Association, the Mexico Solidarity Network, and the Party for Socialism and Liberation, all working with ANSER to put together this May Day march, May 1st march, that's going to be basically a giant boycott of work, school, and shopping.
We'll be back.
As to the French riots that are taking place in 150 cities, we're all wondering here how long it'll be before the French police wave the white flags and surrender.
▲
Export Selection