Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
One of the two biggest movies out right now.
The two biggest movies is anime.
Well, Shrek 3, Shrek 3 is big.
And number 2, Spider-Man 3.
Spider-Man 3 was number one before Shrek 3 came along.
And it just, it made me think, we don't do sequels on this program.
We don't do three quels.
When you get the news, it's the news.
We don't do the same news over and over and over.
Hollywood losing its creativity.
Great to have you back, folks.
Great to be back with you.
We are at the EIB Southern Command, Rush Limbaugh, firmly ensconced in the prestigious Attila the Hun chair here behind the golden EIB microphone.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program today.
800-282-2882.
The email address rush at EIBnet.com came in this morning, asked snerdly because I didn't see it.
And I knew what it was going to be.
I was zapped.
I got a late last night from Los Angeles, played golf yesterday.
Why tell you, what a weekend out there.
Filmed a couple of nine hours in the studio, two locations on Saturday for the half-hour news hour.
And then played golf yesterday with a couple buddies at Bel Air.
Rolled in here about 10.30 last night.
Had to do some work because I'd been out of pocket on the news for most of the weekends.
I went to bed about 1.30 or 2 o'clock.
So I didn't get up to see what the Today Show did today, but I knew what they were going to do before they did it because I predicted it to you on Friday.
We sent them.
I just want you to know what happened.
We sent them reams of data.
HR spoke to the producer three times Friday afternoon.
They interviewed Michael Medved about it to get a voice agreeing with my side.
They didn't use him at all.
They just used this hack from the George Soros-funded front group for the Democrat Party, Media Matters for America.
And it's pathetic.
You know, they're posting the lowest ratings they've posted in years.
They're just barely ahead of Good Morning America.
It's bad.
They've got a smaller audience than we do.
They had to try to get this wrong.
There's no other way this could happen.
And they don't even understand the point of the parody, Barack the Magic Negro.
It's a piece on Al Sharpton.
It's not even a hit piece on Obama.
And everything in it was originated by Liberal.
You know all this.
Here I am.
I'm doing a three quill now.
This is about a 14 quill trying to explain this.
And they just don't want to get it right.
I've got the piece here, the audio of it.
I don't even know if I want to play it.
Well, it's just giving more attention to today's show and the stupid reporter that they used.
It's just a smear.
I mean, this hat's every day to me.
All right, well, I'll think about it.
We got the immigration bill going out there.
Here, get this.
While NBC Today is airing two and a half month old news, which the Barack the Magic Negro controversy, of which there is none, over on NPR, Cokie Roberts is doing a story on the immigration bill.
And she quotes Democrats, she quotes Republicans, and she quotes Rush Limbaugh.
And the quote from me that everybody's using is that this immigration bill is the comprehensive destruction of the Republican Party Act of 2007, which it is.
It's not only the destruction of Republican Party, it has a chance, if this thing were to ever be signed into laws that exist now, it has a chance to effectively eliminate the conservative movement as a powerful, relevant force in this country.
And I will explain that as the program unfolds.
Now, the people of today's show, as you will hear, speculate, well, how come nobody's mad about this?
Limbaugh getting a free pass?
How come nobody's mad about this?
They conclude that with my audience, which they also get wrong, they have it 15 million.
The audience is a little over 20 million now.
They conclude it's a niche audience.
It's a niche audience.
And you people out there, you're racist sexist bigots too.
And that's why you didn't have any objection to it.
It's a niche audience.
In other words, nobody outside my audience has any idea what's happening.
It's so niche.
It's so odd.
All these excuses, but clearly they're trying to stir it up out there.
And they think that that's what I'm trying to do.
Like last week, well, there's Rush trying to get noticed.
Like, I don't have that problem, folks.
Have you seen the pictures on the Drudge page of Al Gore and his office at his little mansion there in Nashville?
Folks, if you haven't seen this picture, you've got to go look at it.
He's telling the rest of us how to live our lives, telling all the rest of us how we have to cut back on our carbon footprint.
He's telling everybody what we've got to do to eliminate all of pollution and so forth, while he's doing the exact opposite.
He's shown there sitting at his desk.
He's got three huge flat-panel computer monitors.
He has a flat-screen TV hanging on the wall.
All of them are turned on.
All of them sucking energy.
Look at how crowded and busy the desk is with all of that paper.
You know how many trees had to be cut down to make all that paper.
The only people who need three 30-inch monitors turned on at the same time are people like me, radio hosts, stockbrokers, and the men and women at the CIA's Op Center.
But a guy like Gore does not need all that.
Plus, and he's got a big deal about the windows being open, the air conditioning turned off, saving energy that way.
Of course, this picture was taken.
I don't know when it was taken, but the amount of heat being produced by all that equipment's got to be that room he's in, got to be a sauna.
No wonder he's losing all that weight.
Now, it's a total slide.
That's not slobby when you, no, no, no, that's busy.
That's relevant.
Look at all he's got going on.
That's the image of that picture.
Look at what Al Gore's got going on.
But anyway, when you look at the picture, this is from the guy that wants us to unplug all of our cell phone chargers when we're not using them.
Talked about this last week.
How prescient am I?
This is what I mean when I say you are on the cutting-edge societal evolution.
Poll.
American satisfaction at new low.
It's an AP story.
It's gloomy out there.
Men and women, whites and minorities.
It's not women and minorities.
It's whites and minorities.
It's gloomy.
Men and women, whites and minorities.
Oh, and there's a piece in the stack.
A feminazi from salad.com just takes out after Michelle Obama for giving up her job and giving up her career to become his official hostess.
Oh, does this, this, when I share the details of this with you, you will understand exactly why I have said what I have said about all this in recent weeks.
Only 25% of Americans surveyed say things in the U.S. are going in the right direction, according to AP Ipsos this month.
This is about the lowest level of satisfaction detected since the survey started in December of 2003.
Rarely have longer-running polls found such a rate since the even gloomier days of 92 ahead of the election of Bill Clinton.
It's widely blamed on public discontent with the war in Iraq with President Bush.
It is striking for how widespread the mood is among different groups of people.
Yeah, they break it down here.
9% fault of the economy, 8% a loss of moral values, 5% gasoline prices.
We need to get out of war.
We need to get our economy back up.
We need to quit spending money outside of America and bring it here, said Democrat Lisa Pollard, 45, an insurance company analyst in Arlington, Texas.
Let me tell you something, folks.
Be gloomy too if I was stuck at home talking to a pollster on a landline.
If that was my life waiting for the phone to ring for a pollster to ask me questions, who are these people talking to?
The pollsters doesn't matter, I guess.
This is their poll.
They are creating this poll to create this news.
And by the way, who's responsible?
Who is it that I was watching?
I was having breakfast this morning and I did turn on the Today Show.
I knew the piece had already run.
So I just had turned it on, see if there's any late breaking news out there.
And when did those shows in the morning stop doing news, by the way?
You know what I was watching?
I was watching some woman, some expert, telling people how to lose weight.
And if you have to have crunch in your diet, like potato chips, go out and buy the little small bags.
That'll help you with portion control.
And go out and buy little small bags of Oreo cookies that only have 100.
And I'm thinking, what a bunch of children they think.
When it snows, they send a reporter out there to stand there telling us it's snowing and they remind us to drive carefully and put on the chains if necessary.
And every year, it's the same thing.
Now we're going into summer.
Now it's the requisite obligatory diet stories.
And so, and they routinely pepper people with all of this doom and gloom and chaos.
It's no wonder that everybody out there is glooming.
So here you have the lying Associated Press telling us that you and I, that we're unhappy with our country.
And these are the same people that criticize their own country, then tell me the rest of the world has lost respect for us.
Who is it that's out there bashing this country each and every day?
The drive-by media, the Democrat Party, then they give us the world has lost respect.
Anyway, Hillary Clinton, the New York Times story, two candidates to roll out domestic proposals.
Have you seen what Hillary wants to do?
Something like $5 billion to $10 billion for pre-K four-year-olds.
Head start, I know, but this is universal babysitting.
She is touting universal babysitting here.
It's all because you don't know how to raise your kids, folks.
Only schools and the government.
All this is, Hillary and the Democrats want one more year than they already have with your kids.
Having them from K through 12, and then if they go to college all those years, that's not enough.
Now they want to get your kid at age four.
And how many of you out there are still fretting, fuming, bothered in angst, gloomy and doomy over gasoline prices?
Well, try this headline: frozen federal gas tax leading to more toll fuel levies, fund to build and fix highways near shortage.
AP again, a cash crunch is fast approaching for the government trust fund that pays to build and repair highways and bridges.
The federal tax on a gallon of gas has not risen in 14 years.
Congress reluctant to increase it.
People demanding more fuel-efficient vehicles, which means fewer dollars in the fund.
People using getting more miles per gallon with these little lawnmowers they're drying out.
There, states are looking for other places now for road building money.
And they're talking raising the gas tax.
You just aren't driving enough now.
You just aren't.
This story's been done before, too.
You know, they did all this great work, they thought, in California to get all this increased gas mileage and the new formulations of gasoline.
They found out that it worked and that people bought these new cars that got more mileage.
The state realized, hey, we're getting short shrifted here on our tax revenue.
Can't can't, it's like people quitting smoking.
If everybody that smokes actually quit smoking, you realize what panic there would be at state, in state capitals, and so forth.
So I just want you, get ready, folks.
And this idea that there's a shortage of money anywhere is absurd.
$2.9 trillion budget.
We're not short of money anywhere, but the idea here that the gas tax now is not enough to fund road and bridge repair and building and so forth.
So, and of course, when this tax goes up, and it will, this is a precursor to it, the tax will go up, the gasoline tax will go up.
The Democrats are going to raise taxes all over it.
That budget that they submitted, the $2.9 trillion budget, is the largest tax increase in American history, and it's not just on the rich.
They're going to go out and tax other income levels.
We're going to raise the rate on capital gains.
This is how they get the White House if they get in power.
This is what they're going to try to do.
But for those of you all there, just sitting here wringing your hands over the price of gasoline, prepare yourselves for down the road the gasoline tax to go up.
And that'll be your government once again profiting without one penny of investment.
We'll be right back.
One more little thing here based on the story I have in a stack of stuff today about Al Gore, a true visionary, right?
Al Gore is said to be the creator and inventor of the Internet and a visionary on a number of things, a man who sees the future.
And what did he do?
He went out there and he made a huge deal about wiring all the schools for internet.
And when did he do it?
Right before Wi-Fi came along, right before wireless networks came along.
It wasn't necessary to wire all the schools.
The wiring of the schools has been rendered pretty much, well, maybe it's not irrelevant because a story from the UK Telegraph.
Wi-Fi risks in schools must be reviewed.
The head of Britain's leading health watchdog today urgently calls for a review of potential health risks linked to wireless internet screws, networks in scruels.
Sir William Stewart, the chairman of the Health Protection Agency, spoke after emissions at a school were found to be three times those of a mobile phone mast.
The Stewart report concluded that while there was no current proof of health dangers, some studies suggested possible risks and that precautions should be taken with children because they are more vulnerable to radio frequency radiation emissions than adults.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, do you understand something?
Do you know how many radio waves are bombarding us on a daily basis?
Let's say you live in New York.
The television stations, the radio stations, every one of them is broadcasting radio waves.
Your brain just doesn't have the necessary ingredients to and understand it.
That's why you need a radio.
It's why you need a television.
In addition to that, who knows what other kind of broadcast or non-broadcast, you've got the cops, you've got the fire department.
I mean, it's limitless.
The number of times, number of gazillions of radio waves that you are being cell phone radio from the cell tower, not from your phone.
We're being hit with these radio waves like you can't believe.
Now, all of a sudden, and it's been happening since radio was invented.
Now, all of a sudden, Wi-Fi with no evidence whatsoever is going to pose a tremendous health risk to our children.
Philip Parkin, General Secretary of the Professional Association of Teachers in the UK, said, I think school of emparent will be very worried about Vifmether Limbaugh.
I'm asking for school to consider very carefully whether they should be installing these Wi-Fi networks.
And it even says here, radio waves, other non-ionizing radiations have been part of our lives for a century or more.
And if such effects were occurring, then damage or other untoward effects would have been recorded and studied.
So once again, just a great example of how they're trying to get you all worked up.
Your kid's going to die.
Your kid's going to get sick.
Wi-Fi, wireless internet, all the other radio waves, no damage.
It's something about Wi-Fi.
We've got audio soundbites from Mrs. Clinton here on this universal baby city sitting idea.
She was on the Today Show today with Matt Wauer, and he said, let me see if I can paraphrase the initiative.
Basically, you're going to call for universal pre-K, universal babysitting.
My term.
You're going to say that states need to spend a lot more money to expose students, particularly low-income children, to high-quality pre-K because studies show that they greatly enhance the education experience down the road.
Is that accurate?
Well, that's right, Matt.
I want every four-year-old, regardless of parental income, to have access to high-quality pre-K because it not only enhances their academic preparation, they stay in school longer, they have fewer behavioral problems.
And, you know, Matt, there's a lot of evidence that this saves money over the long run.
And economists and others have validated what experts in early childhood education have told us for a long time.
What evidence?
We don't have this.
What evidence is she citing that this is going to help out?
And by the way, what does this say about you parents?
Hillary doesn't like the way you're raising your kids.
Your kids, if you listen to the next bite, your kids are turning into human debris riffraff and ne'er do well because you are horrible at raising your kids.
You need to turn them over to a government-run babysitting place sponsored by Mrs. Clinton.
Here's Lauer's next question: Isn't there another study or group of studies that says, hey, if you spend this money on high-quality pre-K, but you don't then invest more money on high-quality education down the road, fourth.
We are already doing that.
It's not the money.
Some of the results of the pre-K are lost.
Isn't that true?
No, because if you don't invest early, you don't get the results that you need in those later grades.
You know, there's a lot of corrections officials who use reading scores from third and fourth grade to make predictions about how many prison beds they're going to need.
We know that the dropout rate goes up.
If kids get to third grade and they don't feel comfortable in school and they can't read well and then they just feel like their failures.
Timeout!
Timeout!
Stop the tape!
So we're going to fix the reading problem with K-4 or yeah, whatever it is, K-4 babysitting.
We're going to fix the reading problem.
She's indicting the education system here, and she's indicting parents and claiming that the only solution to this is the government.
So, folks, just be on the lookout.
The liberals are prowling, and they're doing it out in the open now.
They're making no bones about what their agenda is.
They're no longer fearful of hiding it like they were before the election last November.
They want the government to be as large and as intrusive as it can possibly be.
They want to get a hold of your kids now one year earlier so they can have a little bit of a head start, if you will, in indoctrinating them, despite the fact that there already is a program called Head Start.
This is just going to be another redundancy.
And of course, it'll work if they ever get into power because people know, oh, education.
Education.
We must be concerned about education.
Of course, we should, but there are many problems with it now, and the people have screwed it up and the ones telling us how we ought to fix it.
And it makes no sense to listen to the failures when we get solutions.
Saying more in five seconds than your average host says in a week.
Rush Limboy, your guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, doom, gloom, chaos, torture, humiliation, and even the good times.
And yes, my friends, I remain a man you could and would totally trust with your wife, your daughter, and your pets overnight in a motel 6 while you're on a business trip.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882.
The email address Rush at EIBnet.com.
Let's move on to illegal immigration here and where we stand today.
We know that we've had the McCain-Cornyn blow-up, and McCain, by the way, in that blow-up, typified precisely what I pointed out to you in a brilliant two-hour analysis last Friday.
McCain wants to get this thing done.
He wants to have no debate on it because the extracurricular politics will stand in the way.
This thing needs to be put together behind closed doors in a back room with activist groups giving Democrat activist groups having veto power.
Nobody will ever be able to see the whole thing.
It needs to be rammed through.
McCain doesn't want you getting involved.
That's what extracurricular politics is.
He doesn't want you debating it.
He doesn't want anybody having a chance to stop in the way.
And I keep hearing this phrase: it's the best we can get.
What a way to sell it.
It's the best we can get.
I mean, it's, this has got an email.
Why would you go to a Motel 6?
I'm just assuming that's where most people who would ask me to stay with their wife, their son, their daughter, and their pets would stay.
I wouldn't, you know, at any rate, the bottom line, ladies and gentlemen, is that this cannot stand scrutiny.
It cannot stand the light of day.
It does not have broad-based support in the Senate.
I think that all of you have been heard and you will continue to be heard on this.
It's clearly amnesty.
It is giving up.
It is caving in.
We can talk about the Republican side of this all you want, but frankly, that's not the side of this that interests me the most because it's probably easier to sum up.
They're stupid.
They're just blind on this.
They have no clue what the result of this, if it were enacted as written, would do to them.
They have no idea what it would do to their party.
They can't.
They can't have any idea.
Otherwise, they wouldn't be supporting this.
They wouldn't be for it.
They wouldn't be out there.
The Republicans who are wouldn't be out there trying to push it.
The interesting thing to me on this is the Democrats.
And I have a piece here from the AmericanThinker.com today by Stephen Warshowski and a fascinating paragraph that I happen to agree with totally.
Because we mentioned last week on this, that the big all these numbers that are being thrown around are very low, 12.5 million illegals.
You look at their family members, they're allowed to bring in 400,000 new every year.
There's no stopping this.
If this were to be signed into law as it is, the numbers are so significant.
We're talking about a total demographic shift in this country.
And here's the pull quote from Steve Warshowski's piece.
The demographic changes wrought by this bill.
And this is the Democrats, this is what Teddy Kennedy is after.
This is what all of the Democrats and the liberals who are for this know.
The demographic changes wrought by this bill are likely to make a meaningful conservative movement in this country, one dedicated to the traditional American principles of limited government, private property, free enterprise, personal responsibility, strong national defense, and patriotism, a practical impossibility.
We are going to import so many people who will be by their economic necessity, and they're going to be pursued and they're going to be tied up.
They're going to become Democrat voters.
And this brings about in these great numbers, were this to happen, a genuine threat to the viability of a conservative movement in this country as having any practical reason to exist.
It would be so small.
And this is the thing the Republicans don't see.
This is precisely why the Democrats are for this.
If you look at it the way they look at things, they look at this like they look at everything else through the prism of politics and how it can best benefit them, secure their power and keep it for many, many, many moons.
Little Indian lingo there.
And the point of this is to make it just impossible for the conservative movement to have any practical reason to exist in terms of a majority movement in this country.
Some of the highlights of this piece, out-of-control immigration represents the greatest existential challenge of our time.
And by existential challenge, I mean a public policy problem that goes to the heart of what it means to be American and which threatens to fundamentally and perhaps permanently alter American society for the worse.
Everyone agrees that something needs to be done, quote unquote, about the immigration problem.
Yeah, there are strong disagreements over what that something should be, but few Americans believe that what we need to do is enshrine the current broken situation into law and then expand it.
Yet that's exactly what this comprehensive destruction of the Republican Party Act of 2007 will do.
It's, folks, it is an utter disaster and it must be defeated.
There's no middle ground here.
And the best they can say, well, it's the best we can get at the time.
Something has to be done.
And that is perfect Washington mentality.
Something has to be not the best, not something smart.
The unintended consequences of the Mark Stein has a column, and there's the best, he has written the best definition of legislation that I have ever come across.
You can look at the, I'll tell you what, this piece of legislation is going to erase America.
That's the word of Selwyn Duke writing on a blog, it will erase America as we currently know it.
And the Democrats are fine with that.
They're trying to remake the country in their own image anyway.
The process of tearing down as many of the traditions and institutions as possible.
And then they want to rebuild the country in their own image, once and for all.
None of this debate stuff, none of this argument stuff, none of this having to win elections.
Let's get all these people in here, vote Democrat and make this something this is to fait a compli every four years.
Here's Mark Stein's definition of legislation.
As John McCain declared, this is what the legislative process is all about, meaning you get behind closed doors, nobody knows what you're doing.
When you finish it, you ram it through so that nobody can see what you've done, and you tell people, no, we don't have time for this.
This is so important.
Something must be done.
We don't have time for the usual procedures.
We've got to get this done now.
That's what the legislative process is all about to people like McCain, not letting you know what's going on.
Also, legislation, in the sense it's a sloppy, drafted, bottomless pit of unintended consequences on a potentially cosmic scale whose sweeping reforms will inevitably require even more sweeping reforms of the reforms in a year or two's time.
This is what happens.
And this bill is full of, the question is, would the reforms take place?
Look at any, look at Simpson Mazzoli.
It was supposed to fix the problem.
The first time Senator Kennedy talked about fixing this in 65, it was supposed to fix the problem.
Anything they come up, tax legislation, look at all the unintended consequences.
Go, ooh, gee, we didn't think, ooh, we got to go in and reform the legislation.
And it's just a cycle that keeps repeating.
And people think that when legislation's passed, that progress has taken place.
This ought to show you that that's not the case.
We got enough laws.
We have more than enough laws, just adding to it.
This is to fix a mistake.
It's exactly what this is.
The unintended consequences of Simpson Mazzoli.
Now we've got to go and reform that reform, comprehensive immigration reform.
This is going to create so many mistakes.
The question is, are the mistakes, quote unquote, the Democrats are eager to see made?
I think they are.
Delray Beach, Florida, this is Marta.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Great to have you with us.
Hi, Rush.
Thank you for taking my call.
It's my pleasure.
Well, here, with the new Z visa, it's my understanding they have to go in and they pay $1,000 to get their visa up front.
Is that correct?
It's irrelevant.
It is.
They're not going to be paying anything.
Two weeks after this, we're going to speak hypothetically.
If this became law, a week or two, I think it's $5,000 in fines, $1,000, whatever it is, they're not going to have to pay it because then we're going to hear people like Senator McCain and others.
By the way, it warmed my heart to see Lindsey Graham get booed out there in South Carolina.
Warmed my heart.
Stand up for yourself, Lindsay.
Stop trying to be McCain Jr.
It's going to hurt you.
But anyway, McCain, Graham, all these guys, we made a mistake.
They can't afford $1,000.
They can't, they can't.
This is taking food out of their children's mouths.
We must be more compassionate, and they'll waive it.
There's no incentive here, ma'am, to keep the immigrants out.
The incentive here is to get them in here and get them in here yesterday.
Exactly.
But here's my point.
Even if they had to pay $1,000, who of us could invest $1,000 and get back $10,000 in interest in a year, which they cost us every year, each one of them.
That's a pretty good return on their money, even if they do.
Okay, you've just nailed another thing, but I want you to give another, look at this.
I want to give you another way of looking at this.
You're looking at it in the dollars and cents way.
What you have to look at is what is this ideologically or politically?
This is precisely the redistribution of wealth.
Even if we did charge them $1,000 for their Z visa, they're not going to be able, when they arrive here, to fund all of their necessary needs and wants themselves.
You will.
You're going to be paying for that because we're compassionate people.
We can't let these people starve.
We can't leave them hanging on the street.
They can't find a job, even if they're here.
And so your money, my money, your tax money, it'll be redistributed to these people.
It's classic liberalism right out in front of the open, right?
Right in front of our eyes.
And remember this, about your $1,000.
Everybody's missing the point.
This is not about citizenship.
They are legal.
The minute this is signed into law, they are legal, and the courts have said they're entitled to all these things that will require the redistribution of wealth.
They're entitled to it.
So forget citizenship.
And as I mentioned, this is an important point.
And there are very few people I've seen anyway talking about this.
And that is how this era of immigration differs from most of the previous eras where it has always been controversial.
And that is, there is no, nobody talking about assimilation.
The immigrants are not talking about assimilating.
The government is not talking about having them assimilate.
There is no focus on that whatsoever.
In other words, becoming, quote-unquote, American.
In fact, we got systems in place to stop that bilingual education, affirmative action.
There's no need to assimilate.
So it's, folks, it's bad.
It is a horrible, horrible piece of legislation.
And the very fact that these conferees negotiated this in secret behind closed doors don't want anybody to see this is all the proof you need of that.
Back in just a sec.
Talk about the Selwyn Duke piece, also on the American Spectator, great website today on the illegal immigration stuff.
Selwyn Duke talking about why they won't assimilate.
And there's one key paragraph.
The whole thing is good, but there's one key paragraph.
Traditionally, comma, Americans never relied on government to achieve most of their goals, and ensuring assimilation was no exception.
Many years ago, for instance, if a person insisted on dressing like an advertisement for the Middle Ages, didn't learn the language, or sought to impose strange beliefs in the workplace, he would have been fired or not hired in the first place.
What this means is that the Muslim clerks and the cab drivers, who respectively won't ring up pork and won't pick up passengers with alcohol or seeing eye dogs, would either have to change their ways or they would have had to return to where ways don't change, have to go back to their own home countries.
This enforcement of tradition through individual initiative is what almost every non-Western country doesn't make sense.
If you're so enamored of your native ways, stay in your native land.
But if you tried this today, though, you'd receive a treatment from the proctologist of government bureaucracies, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Yeah, because freedom of association has been trumped by lawless judges.
Citizens have lost control over their businesses, rental properties, and in many cases, organizations, privately owned and financed entities, can no longer determine who receives paychecks, who will be served, who will be rented to, thus removing the social pressure to conform that the common man would naturally apply via the exercise of his values in his castle.
Likewise, local school boards have been robbed of the right to set dress codes and behavior standards reflecting the surrounding community.
What this means is now that you can't refuse to hire a cross-dressing Colombian from Cartagena.
It sounds almost Jeffersonian.
Almost.
We now traded liberty for perversity.
America is being erased.
In the sense that the distinct American culture is being erased because we don't have the guts to stand up for it.
We don't have the guts to insist like we did in the past when it came to massive numbers of immigrants.
Paul to State College, Pennsylvania, I'm glad you called.
Thank you for waiting, and welcome to the EIB network.
Professor Limbaugh, sir.
It's an honor and a pleasure to speak with you.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hey, I wanted to comment on the Hillary Clinton taxpayer-sponsored babysitting service.
Yes.
As another example of classic liberalism.
You know, the point I would make, and as you probably know, is that over the last few years, a lot of schools have gone from traditional half-day daycare to full-day or to kindergarten to mandatory full-day kindergarten, and this is really just the next step.
And the point I'd make to Mrs. Clinton is what kids need at two, three, and four years old is not to be in a state-sponsored daycare with a 22-year-old fresh out of elementary education school teaching them and among six or seven other kids at the same time.
They need to be with their parents.
And until somebody comes up with a bill that tells me that we're going to get help to stay home with our kids, I just won't buy it.
I don't see it as being a good idea.
Well, wait a minute.
Do you realize what you just said?
I don't know.
What did I say?
You're a conservative guy and you're waiting for a piece of legislation to say that these kids have to stay home with their parents?
We're going to turn that over to the...
I know you're reacting because things are out of control.
Let me tell you what the problem is.
And Mrs. Clinton knows this, but doesn't dare do anything about it.
Where we are losing kids educationally is in the second grade, the third grade, the fourth grade, when they're not being taught to read.
They're not being forced to learn how to read.
They're being passed from one grade up to the next without requiring the necessary components of passing.
And so the reason for this is liberalism in the public schools.
I mean, the problems are myriad.
But what does a liberal look at this and see?
A liberal looks at this and sees, oh my gosh, we've got K through 12.
We've got, but if we're losing them and they can't read, they can't grant.
Well, we need even more education.
The idea that we might want to reform a busted public school system never occurs to them.
Because, and I tell you, I hate saying this.
I really do.
But there's a part of me that believes a lot of this is true.
I don't think that they're that upset about this at all.
The more dunces there are out there, the more people are going to be incapable of taking care of themselves.
And liberals think most people can't anyway.
And so when kids go to school, screw up and don't learn to read, that's just the way people are.
They're fulfilling liberals' own low expectations.
You've heard of the phrase of soft bigotry of low expectations.
Liberals think kids are going to go to third and fourth grade and can't read for whatever reason.
So rather than fix that, can't do that.
You'd anger the teachers' unions and all.
No, let's add another year of school and let's make the country think we really care about children and so forth.
They don't want to start talking about how the Wi-Fi, wireless, internet networks might be provoking health problems and so forth.
And you, because you think that they really mean all this, they'd be glad to surrender your kid to another government-run babysitting operation, this time at age four rather than age five or six.
And get this, there's a new group of people who are bulking at the new immigration bill.
You know who it is?
Employers, big business.
They don't like the responsibilities that have been shuffed off on them.