All Episodes
Previous Next
May 22, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:33
May 22, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back.
Great to have you folks here on the EIB network, Rush Limbaugh, meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis.
That's because I'm a highly trained broadcast specialist and because I care to surpass expectations that you, the trusted and loyal audience, have of this program.
Latest opinion audit has me documented now to be almost always right 98.6% of the time.
If you want to be on the program, telephone number 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Now, I get to this immigration stuff in a minute, but there's a story on the Reuters wire from yesterday that I have to share with you.
Now, the slug line, this is their wire service.
I don't know if this is – well, that's part of what's frustrating.
This won't show up in the newspapers.
And this is not going to show up on your cable channels.
And this will not be featured as something that enraged senators speak about on the floor of the United States Senate.
The headline, the little slugline here is boy among five tortured in Iraq, dash, dash, U.S. military.
And I saw the headline.
I said, oh, no, don't tell me we got another one of these things where U.S. military is in there torturing kids.
It's clearly the intent of the headline.
What the headline ought to say is this.
Boy among five tortured in Iraq, not by U.S. military.
Here's the story.
The U.S. military said on Monday it had found five Iraqis, including a boy, who had been kidnapped and tortured by militants.
The captives described as foreign fighters.
How about terrorists?
But Reuters can't use the word terrorist.
It's not in their style book.
They're not allowed to use the word terrorists.
The four unidentified men and the boy were found during raids against an al-Qaeda network in Garmitz about 20 miles west of Baghdad in Anbar province.
They were found inside a padlocked room.
They'd been beaten with chains, beaten with cables, and beaten with hoses.
The boy stated that terrorists had hooked electrical wires to his tongue and shocked him.
They didn't give his age.
The hostages indicated that their captors were foreign fighters who spoke with different accents.
All five were from different tribes, the military said, but no other details were available.
They would receive medical treatment and then be handed over to tribal leaders.
Now, when you hear this story, I don't know what your reaction to it is.
Mine's a little bit of a slow burn.
You remember when Abu Ghraib hit?
And then Club Gitmo.
And by the way, speaking of Club Gitmo, you know, this sicko himself, this Michael Moore, who is, there's something not right about the guy.
And I'm getting fed up, by the way, with every time this guy waddles onto the stage at the Cann Film Festival, whatever crap that he produces, guaranteed to be anti-American and anti-capitalist, gets the biggest rounds of applause from those phony baloney plastic but had a good time rock and roller movie people over there and it frosts me.
One of this, this new movie, Sicko, it's being getting rave reviews.
It's all how wonderful it is.
It's an expose of the horrible aspects of the American healthcare system, that you live longer in Canada, that you live longer in Great Britain, and that the Cuban healthcare system is far better than ours.
And it's what I mean about these leftists no longer trying to hide their love and devotion to communists and dictators.
They openly covet public recognition by these dictators.
Anyway, as part of his scam here to make his movie, Moore got on a boat and had some victims, some rescue workers, some from 9-11, who were upset with the health care they got in the United States, tried to get into Club Gitmo.
Now, why did they try to get into Club Gitmo?
According to Michael Moore, they're trying to get into Club Gitmo because the health care at Club Gitmo for our prisoners, the al-Qaeda prisoners, is the best anywhere can be found.
And I looked at that and I said, whoa.
Well, I thought we were mistreating all these people like putting underwear on their heads at Abu Ghraib and putting leashes around their necks.
Why, I always thought that we were the worst examples of civilized human beings on the face of the earth.
I've heard that from Ted Kennedy.
I have heard this from the left-wing media sites that are plugged, paid for, and sponsored by the Democrat Party.
I've heard it from Dick Durbin, who compared our people to Nazis and Pol Pot types, Soviet gulags.
I've heard it from Ted Kennedy.
I have seen Ted Kennedy and his fellow Democrats conduct inquisitions of U.S. military personnel on how we are treating our prisoners of war.
We are told that we were the absolute scum of the earth.
Now, this was always pure politically, purely political.
Always, it's just like global warming is.
None of this stuff.
We didn't hear about any torture.
We didn't hear about any undue behavior on the part of U.S. troops when we were in Bosnia under the Clinton administration.
And it frosts the hell out of me that virtually everything that happens during a Republican administration has a political component.
The Democrat Party gets a ball rolling, and their accomplices in the drive-by media then start amplifying the whole thing.
And they end up portraying this country as the worst collection of human beings on the face of the earth.
Then you read a story like this, where you've got these al-Qaeda militants who are hooking up electrodes to the tongue of a boy and shocking him as far as torture.
And we don't hear a damn word about it from any of the people who want to tear this country apart and tear this country down.
Ted Kennedy hadn't said a word about it and he won't.
Dick Durbin hasn't said a word about it and he won't.
Nancy Pelosi hasn't said a word about it and she won't.
The drive-by media will not pick this story up.
They will not talk about it because it doesn't fit the action line.
It doesn't fit the template.
Look at the way we treat kids in this.
We coddle our damn kids so much that we're at risk of not having them grow up.
You can't go within 10 miles of a school if you have a slingshot in your back pocket.
You can't get on a school bus if you have a little can of bug spray.
If you are a kid, you can't take a Barbie doll into school for, I mean, we're protecting our own kids here to the point that we're babying them to the point that they're not going to have any idea what real life is all about.
Meanwhile, we hear about this circumstance in Baghdad, and we don't hear a word about what a rotten collection of reprobates and barbarians and seventh century derelicts these Muslim terrorists are.
We're not even allowed to say that about them.
Because if we do say that about them, some interest group in this country is going to come along and try to shut us down because it's offensive.
In the meantime, the movers and shakers of this gun, this is president of the immigration debate, too.
We are apologizing to them.
We're apologizing to the illegals.
We're acting like we're the criminals.
We're acting like we've done something wrong.
We're begging them to forgive us.
And I hear Ted Kennedy talk about how, well, that way we need to have them be able to come out of the shadows.
They're out of the shadows.
They're giving interviews, Senator.
They're not afraid at all of being identified.
And then when they come out of the shadows and give these interviews, they talk about how unfair this country is to them.
It's just one of these circumstances, situations, and there are many of them, where everything's upside down.
Everything's 180 degrees out of phase.
It literally makes no sense.
The left in this country, the Democrat Party, the drive-by media are all joined at the hip in trying to convince as many people in this country that we suck.
This is the worst example of humanity and civilization on the planet today.
And when real examples of depravity and torture occur as committed by our enemy, we don't hear a word about it.
We don't hear one condemnation.
We don't hear Senator Kennedy getting on the phone, getting on the Senate floor or Durban, speaking to whoever, Bin Laden or Muki Al Sader and demanding that this stuff cease.
No, they blame Bush for it.
They blame Bush for going in there in the first place.
They even go so far as saying, well, we understand these people's behavior.
We invaded their country.
There was no reason.
They had nothing to do with 9-11.
Of course they're acting this way.
We must learn who these people are so as we don't offend them any further.
It makes me want to throw up.
All because I happen to see this story about a kid tortured with electrodes attached to the tongue, and I know damn well that I'm not going to hear about it anywhere else.
And even if I do, I won't hear any outrage expressed over.
In the meantime, a slug and dishonest movie maker is over getting more accolades for an attack on his own country by a bunch of people who wouldn't know what this country is really all about.
In fact, most of the people over there wouldn't be who they are if it weren't for this country.
They wouldn't have the prosperity and the wealth they have if it weren't for this country.
Quick timeout.
Back in just a sec.
Look at, folks, it boils down to this.
Your friends in the Democrat Party and your friends in the drive-by media and your friends on the left do not believe in the concept of American exceptionalism.
They believe in a deeply flawed and corrupt, unjust, illegitimate America, and they are heading about their way to make it that way in their image.
Or actually, I should better say, they're going to take what they see as this corruption and the illegitimacy of our society and all this, and they're going to get rid of it in their own way, and they're going to try to clean it up.
And it will not have anything to do with American exceptionalism whatsoever.
It's about squelching freedom.
It's about raising taxes.
It's about growing government.
It's about empowering themselves.
And how anybody with an honest view of history, how anybody with an honest, an ability to honestly assess the country as it is today and then compare it to any other country in the world cannot conclude that there is the concept of American exceptionalism is beyond me.
You have to want to miss it.
You have to dislike the whole notion of American exceptionalism because it's unavoidable.
You can't miss it.
It is as plain as the sky is blue when there aren't any clouds up there.
And that alone irritates them.
The fact that we are exceptional because they think we're unjust and illegitimate in all this burns me up.
Ryan, in Charlotte, North Carolina, you're first on the phones today.
Great to have you with us, sir.
Hi, thanks for taking my call, Rush.
Yes.
You know, I listen to you all the time.
I don't agree necessarily with everything you said, but I appreciate you giving me a chance to actually disagree with you.
I think that's great.
You had made a statement earlier about how Hillary and Bill don't spend a lot of time together.
And trust me, Rush, there's no love loss between me and Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton for that matter.
I think he definitely shouldn't.
Wait a minute.
I didn't make the statement.
Oh, you didn't?
No, it was Chris Matthews talking and two news reporters talking about it.
I just played the audio soundbite.
My only comment was that if it was true, it sounds like great marriage.
You're only together 70 days a year.
It can't fail.
Right.
Well, I see what you're saying, but the point that I was just going to make was that when I was in the military, I hardly got to spend any time with my wife at all.
But it didn't mean I loved her any less.
And when you pursue a career in politics, you know, between her being a senator and then campaigning for president, I just thought the statement was inflammatory.
Look at it, I think they've redefined a happy marriage.
I don't have any quarrel with this.
I was just playing the audio soundbite.
You want to hear it again?
Look at your reaction.
Why not?
I didn't say it.
Well, here, you don't want to hear it again.
Fine.
We'll end the call because I do want people to hear it.
It's been about an hour, and you're calling to talk about it.
It took us a while to get to the phones.
And it was two reporters talking.
Chris Matthews is not buying this.
He doesn't think that he thinks there's trouble in paradise over this.
Most normal people who are not in politics and not in the military and so forth and don't go through these prolonged separations doesn't compute.
I think many would love to find out what it's like, but it's not possible because most people don't have two homes.
Maybe a vacation home, a little apartment somewhere, but get married, you're stuck there.
The best you can do is have two bathrooms, maybe two bedrooms.
Here's the byte.
Grab Sunbite 18 again, Mike.
Let me know when you have it ready.
All right, let me get the transcript.
I think the question that was asked.
The guest, Lois Romano, Washington Post, and Jonathan Darmont of Newsweek.
And Matthew says, Lois Romano, how do you explain a comment by the former president?
I talk to Hillary almost every day.
Now, that's it.
I talk to Hillary almost every day.
Even spouses that don't spend a whole lot of time together generally talk, but to say at least I try to, let me get the quote again here.
I don't want to mess this up.
They're out there monitoring every syllable I say.
That's what this means.
I talk to Hillary almost every day.
He does.
What does that mean, though?
What does it mean to say you talk to your spouse almost every day?
What does that mean to say something like that?
I think they're extremely close.
They're of one mind.
I'm not asking about that.
Are they living on the same planet?
Do they ever see each other physically?
Oh, yes, yes, yes.
Come on.
They're a partnership.
Because, look, she's a senator.
She goes home on weekends.
He's traveling around.
But they are, they are, make no mistake about it.
They are a partnership and they are a love story.
I mean, regardless of anything else that's happening.
Oh, how many?
Is it 20 days a year?
How many days are they actually together in the same roof overnight, if you will?
I think that I saw a report that said it was about half a month.
A year.
Yeah.
Well, half a month every month.
So whatever happens.
I would recheck the reporting.
Is that what you got, Jonathan, and you're reporting that they're together half the time overnight?
This is not, again, something they like to talk about that much, but that it's a little bit less than that.
I seem to recall a figure that was 70 days a year.
Okay, Ryan, are you still with us?
Yes, sir.
Why do you think Chris Matthews even brought this up?
This on Hardball last night.
I don't even know.
This hasn't been in the news.
I can't for the life of me figure out the peg that made him talk about this last night.
Honestly, Rush, I try not to wear a jersey, a blue jersey or a red jersey, even though I think that you conservative Republicans are really the last line of defense for our personal freedoms here in America.
That's why, honestly, that's why I didn't want to hear the clip.
You have much more important things to do than play this kind of inflammatory stuff.
And honestly, I just think what you try to do.
Oh, I get it.
We're the last line of defense, but now, even though we're the last line of defense, you still can't commit to joining us.
You can't.
I mean, you're sitting out there in the middle and you like the fact that we're the last line of defense, but that's not enough to make you join us.
Now I, because I played it, am being inflammatory.
No, Well, I thought, and I apologize, I thought maybe you had been agreeing with Mr. Matthews, and also I wasn't even sure who it was that was playing it.
Frankly, I don't think that this is at all, what I'm telling you is, I don't know why he brought it up.
This is old news.
I remember hearing about this, this Washington Post expose, and that got raised eyebrows.
The Washington Post did this story, or maybe there's New York Times Sunday Magazine, I forget which, but it's about a year ago.
And it's that old.
And so why did this come up now?
What in the world is this about?
What caught Chris Matthews' interest?
What's Bill Clinton been in the news for lately that would peak this?
I think he's just trying to inflame John Q. Public, because John Q. Public doesn't understand.
I mean, Bill and Hillary can be on totally different sides of the globe.
I mean, that's why they didn't talk to each other this particular day.
Let me tell you, Japan.
Don't underestimate that.
See, here you are.
You're bright.
You're the new castrata.
You're sitting out there in the middle.
You won't take a position on anything.
You're above taking a position on it.
You're taking a position on anything.
That's partisan.
Can't do that.
And so you, from that positioning, you're smarter than everybody else.
And that leads you to say the American people are basically idiots and don't get it.
And they're going to be bought and paid for and fooled by this piece.
I'm going to tell you something.
The people that watch this, when you tell normal people who are very, very up to speed, one of the biggest problems that the elites, and you are a pseudo-elite, I can tell you want to be elite.
You're a pseudo-elite.
You think the average American is dunce, a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance, will be bought and paid for, fooled by all of this kind of stuff.
And I'm going to tell you, you tell the average American that a man and his wife, with all the history of these two, only spends 70 nights a year together, you telling me that they're not going to understand that?
I mean, they may desire it for themselves.
They may be jealous.
They may think, oh, that's not right.
Why stay together if you're going to only be together 70 nights out of 365?
There's going to be all kinds of questions, but it's not going to appear normal.
This is not how normal married people live.
And the average American, and the average American knows who he is, by the way, is able to figure this out.
The more relevant question to me, I mean, if you're going to bring this kind of stuff up, if Matthews really wanted to take this a step further, you know, it's common knowledge that Bill's dating.
And people out there have talked about Bill dating.
Are they making jokes about it?
And there's this babe up in Canada named Belinda Stronox, rumored to be one of his babes.
This has been in the news, too.
And even it's gotten to the point Democrats make jokes about, will Bill stop dating now during the campaign?
I mean, that would be the question.
Lois, what is this way here about Bill dating?
I mean, only with Clinton and Hillary 70 nights a year.
I'm just, you know, I realize this is inflammatory, too.
But I'm just telling you what's already been in the news out there.
Anyway, Ryan, I'm glad you called.
Remember what people like you who are in the middle of the road generally end up.
It's in the hospital.
You get hit by a car.
You stand out there in the middle of the road.
If you straddle the fence, you're going to end up castrating yourself.
Be very careful out there.
Quick timeout back after this.
Stay with us.
And as usual, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Jim in Wall, New Jersey, thank you for waiting, sir.
You're next.
I appreciate your patience.
Hi, Russ.
Thanks for taking my call.
Yes, sir.
I was listening to the Flex that stationed in New York, and the talk host this morning kind of intermingled the Iraq War and the immigration debate going on now in the context of it being polarizing.
Now, I see the Iraq War being polarizing among individuals around, you know, when I travel throughout New Jersey, Pennsylvania.
But the immigration issue only seems to be polarizing among the politicians, not necessarily the voters.
That is an excellent observation.
Immigration is, in fact, that leads me to something I wanted to talk about here for a couple of days on all of this and intensified with, you know, I've been reading some things last night today about some of the name-calling that's going on.
I know that the Democrats are full of elites and people think they're better than everybody else, snooty little arrogance.
They look down their nose at people.
We got some of those people on our side, too.
And they, you know, they're conservatives and so forth, but they have this elitist air about them too.
And one of the things that you can see from this illegal immigration debate is a clear gap between the self-anointed elites in the Republican Party and the conservative movement versus the grassroots.
Grassroots are you and me, the self-anointed elites.
They publish magazines, they appear on TV as pundits, they live and work in Washington, think tanks, and they've self-anointed themselves as elites.
And one of the things that really embarrasses them the most is to have you and I on their team.
And they are with the Democrats on this immigration business.
I call them the open borders crowd.
They fear nothing about it.
They think it's quite necessary.
They fall back on this line that we're a nation of immigrants, a great melting pot, and so forth.
And they just, they delight in trying to distance themselves from rabble, from average Americans, the grassroots, because you and I are not elite.
And they are.
And they want to impress other elites.
And if the other elites are out there bashing us and trying to destroy talk radio, our elites are not going to defend us so much.
They're going to act embarrassed too because they don't want to be identified because they don't want the left to think they are rabble.
They want the left's elites to think that they too on the right are elites.
You can see the same thing goes on in the Democrat Party to a certain extent.
Let me put aside the Democrat Party stuff for just a second here.
We have all kinds of politicians out there insisting that they are the next Ronald Reagan.
They invoke his name, they quote him, claim to have been his friend.
But one thing that most of them do not have is Reagan's connection with the grassroots, his connection and identification with the people generally.
And this is one of the things that's sorely missing in the Republican presidential field right now.
People are weighing in on them.
They're having opinions because they are the candidates.
But there's not one of them.
Reagan was able to go over the heads of the media and he connected with people one-on-one.
He's speaking to 10,000, 20,500 or whatever.
Reagan was able to connect with people in that regard.
And there are a few people on our side that have the ability to do that.
Many of the Republican candidates, they lack this.
McCain, among others, comes to mind.
They're sort of a talk at us group rather than a group that actually connects.
For example, the base of the Republican Party, you, are being denigrated.
And me, I'm in it.
We're being denigrated because of our position on immigration.
We are knuckleheads.
We're closed-minded.
We're racists.
All these names are being thrown around.
We're Yahoo's.
We are restrictionists.
All these names are being bandied about.
They're coming and being labeled, coming from people on our side, ostensibly, on our side.
Reagan would never do that.
Reagan didn't trash his own grassroots, the people that elected him.
Now, people we're talking about here are not elected, but they do want you to buy their magazines, and they do want you to buy their reports and contribute to their think tanks.
And they do want you to vote for them for president and so forth.
But they, you know, Reagan, Reagan never once put down his own side.
Reagan never tried to distance himself from his own side.
Now, people have forgotten this.
The 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill, which is what led to this, that we are fighting now, it was intense.
Reagan didn't diminish his detractors or speak down to them, and he had them.
Reagan was openly calling Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty.
And amnesty isn't immigration.
Amnesty is forgiveness of crimes.
And that's what this is.
And there's no other way to talk about it.
But it was just as intense then as it is now.
You might not have remembered it because there was no alternative media in 1986.
It hadn't sprung up yet.
But Reagan was not dismissive of his critics on his side, tried to address their concerns.
I'm not saying he was successful because there was still strong opposition within the Republican Party and the conservative movement.
And there were people calling him a sellout back then and saying, oh my gosh, this is horrible.
How in the world could he do this?
I thought we had elected a conservative.
Much the same kind of thing is being said about Bush.
But one of the things about a great leader, one of the measures of a great leader, is how he responds to his base, to his constituency.
Does he do it with respect?
And what we're seeing in too many elements of the so-called Republican elite is contempt for those who put them in office and keep them in office and buy their magazine subscriptions and buy their think tank reports.
It's contempt.
You're embarrassing them.
You're making them look bad.
This is such a simple issue and you're gumming up the works out there.
This pseudo-intellectualism, which you would expect from big government liberals, claim to know what's best and impose it on the masses.
What's interesting about this, though, is that the open border Republicans are without strong substantive arguments.
They cannot and will not address the important issues that have been raised in this argument, including on this show.
This bill will kill Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, and they don't answer this.
This bill is going to, the whole transfer of funds, the redistribution of wealth, is going to break the bank.
You cannot bring this many poor people into the country as fast as this bill would.
And once they're here and legal, the courts have said they're entitled to these benefits.
You can't put that many people on the benefit rolls and have a whole thing survive unless you start confiscating taxes.
I mean, folks, this bill would make almost immediate the legalization of $12 million or $15 million, whatever it is.
And then you multiply that by at least four relatives.
So we're talking 50 million people before the security provisions of the bill kick in.
I mean, Robert Rector and his gang at the Heritage Foundation have done some amazing work on this.
And they've dispelled this notion that all these people are here doing work the American people won't do.
This immigration bill does nothing to force countries like Mexico to reform their policies so as to discourage more illegal crime.
In fact, we know where Mexico is on this.
They're ready to sue us if this bill is not passed.
The fence cuts it in half, and the fence won't even get built when all this said, if this becomes law.
I frankly don't think this thing has a snowball's chance, and it's because of you.
And that's why the elites in both sides are upset.
They want this done.
They like legislation.
They think it's progress.
They think when a bill gets done and signed by the president, why we're moving forward.
Especially if they think they've been an influential part of getting it signed and moving it forward.
Makes them feel powerful.
Makes them feel like the self-anointed elites that they are.
Look, I could go on.
We've talked about the details of the bill, which is really not the point, what I'm trying to say here.
There's serious, serious issues here that go to the heart of the kind of country we are and want to be.
And these are issues that touch on the well-being of our economy, our social welfare net, the school systems, healthcare system, our culture.
There are organizations that lobby day in and day out against assimilation, against English as the official language.
This is not about immigration.
This is about the American left with the support of certain Republican elites and conservative elites trying to remake this country in their own image.
And to do that, they've got to tear down the traditions and institutions that define this country.
I mean, the demographic shift that would take place under this bill would destroy the very foundation of the way this country was established, even with all the immigration, because there's nothing in this about assimilation.
So when these people start berating, and you ask the question out there, Jim, is it as polarizing as Iraq?
It really isn't.
There are far more Americans who are up in arms about this than the elites in a drive-by media would have you believe.
And by the way, they keep saying, well, you know, our people, we're a little bit surprised.
We're taken aback by the response here of conservatives to talk radio.
Now, you're not, you shouldn't have been.
But we just have to get with them and teach them.
They just don't understand.
We'll take the time and tell them what this is really all about and how they're misunderstanding it.
So we're a bunch of dupes.
We're a bunch of idiots.
We don't really understand.
We don't have the ability, Phoebe.
You and I don't have the intellectual capability to understand the real meaning here.
Well, all you have to tell us is you want to sneak this in under the cover of darkness with no debate.
And you got Senator McCain saying we ought to have no extracurricular politics here, meaning we're not going to have a debate.
We're not going to allow the people of this country to screw up this whole bill.
Right there, red flags point straight up.
So when they berate and disparage those who raise these issues, we're talking about our country.
All we want to do is preserve it and make sure that it survives us so that children and grandchildren, people not conceived or born yet, have the same opportunities and more that we all had.
And that ain't going to be the case if the American left ever wrests total control of this country away from conservatives.
So when you and I and others are denounced and labeled by these elites on our side, and while they at the same time claim they're Reaganites and that they understand Reagan, they were a friend of Reagan and so forth, they haven't the slightest clue because Reagan would never talk to his base or his constituency or his voters in the way that they are being talked to by the current crop.
And then it's not very many, folks.
It's just they get a lot of coverage because they're on the same side of the issue with this as the liberal elites are.
So anyway, I got to take a break here.
A couple more thoughts on this when we come back and then back to your phone calls.
The EIB network in El Rushbo.
Not stopping for anything.
Stay with us.
We'll be right back.
All right, now here's a dirty little secret on this.
And I make this point when I go on to the Rush to Excellence Tour.
One of the things I assume when I sit down to do this program each and every day behind this, the golden EIB microphone, one of the things I assume is your intelligence.
Because I know I'm intelligent, and if you weren't, you couldn't keep up.
And there are gobs and noodles and millions of you out there.
I assume your intelligence.
I do not think that you're a rabble, that you're uninformed, a bunch of idiots, mind-numbed robots, sponges or sheeps or what have you.
I have a respect for you, and this is what's missing here from the elites.
They have no such relationship with the average American, and they don't want it.
They want to be above everybody.
They don't want to be considered part of the hoi polloy.
But the American people, you, you are smart and wise, despite what today's politicians and elites say about you.
You know that this is a very, very bad effort by your government.
And you know that when government takes on something this big, those of you who've lived long enough and followed this, you know they botch it up.
This is the third attempt at this, maybe the fourth attempt at getting this right.
And they end up making it worse every time they try it.
We're the ones that have this figured out.
And you ought not be denounced.
You should be consulted and listened to.
Why do you think the left is afraid of talk radio?
The elites, including in the Republican Party and the conservative movements, hate talk radio.
They don't like it.
On our side, too.
Trust me on this, folks.
I know this.
You may not see evidence of it, but I know it.
Hate may be too strong or worse.
They resent it.
The elites on the left hate talk radio.
The elites on the right resent it.
And that's why they look down at talk radio.
That's why they badmouth talk radio.
They view you as rabble, uninformed, mind-numbed robots being led around by a bunch of Svengalis.
They like the power you give them when you support them, when you vote for them, when you buy their magazines and read their think tank reports and all that.
If you watch their television shows, they really don't like you very much.
When things like this come up, it becomes clear.
And interestingly, it's the leftists out there who understand the value of talk radio, and that's why they want to destroy it.
And that's why they push for unconstitutional laws to silence it, like the fairness doctrine and other things.
It is why they're out there smearing talk show hosts and trying to destroy their careers.
Because I'm going to say about the liberal elites, the thing they fear the most is an informed citizenry.
They can't oppose that.
They can't win in the arena of ideas.
And that's why they have set themselves up with power insulated from elections.
The judges, the bureaucracies, a lot of the academia world, the institutions of higher learning, they've had to insulate themselves from elections because they will lose most of them nationally if they're honest about who they are.
And they can't stand critics, and they can't stand people like me and other hosts who create informed masses of people.
I would think the elites on our side would be appreciative of them.
No, they have their own little resentment of it too.
Now, here's, let me describe you and me.
You and me fooled me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Fool me three times, and liberals make you an expert.
Here is Ted Kennedy.
Ted Kennedy is one of the elites.
Ted Kennedy is regaled.
Ted Kennedy is said to be the lion of the Senate, the greatest man ever to work in the Senate well in the top five.
You know what I'm talking about.
He just never, ever gets any criticism for anything.
But Ted Kennedy was dead wrong 42 years ago.
The Immigration and Nationality Act amendments in 1965.
During debate on the Senate floor, Kennedy said, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually.
And secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.
That's what he said.
That's what he promised.
That's what he guaranteed.
And he was dead wrong.
He was dead wrong again on immigration 27 years ago.
the Immigration Rescue Act of 1980, designed to remove foreign policy considerations from the formulation of our refugee laws.
Instead, it ended up laying the foundations for a massive bureaucracy that has sent phony asylum applications skyrocketing to over 100,000 a year.
Get off the plane of JFK, claim asylum, you're here.
Thank you, Ted Kennedy.
He was dead wrong 21 years ago.
Immigration Reform and Control Act, the Simpson-Mazzoli, of 1986, provided amnesty temporary status to all illegal aliens who had lived in the country continuously since before January 1st of 1982.
The result, we went from 3 million problems to 12 million problems, if not more.
And these are the people that claim you and I have no idea what we're talking about, that they're the experts, they're the elites, and what they do behind closed doors, we don't even have the intelligence to see it because we couldn't understand it.
And this is what you and I know.
They are the ones screwing all of this up.
And they come about and they do it every so often with bigger and bigger legislation that is unmanageable and impossible.
And I know as far as Ted Kennedy is concerned, this is not about immigration anyway, as we have discussed.
We'll be back.
Stay with me.
From what I've been reading lately, there's one country that's had enough of massive illegal immigration, and I got to do something about it.
And it's this new guy in France.
Who would have thunk that?
▲
Export Selection