All Episodes
Previous Next
May 30, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:31
May 30, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know those two whales that were stuck out there, supposedly stuck in the in the Sacramento River, up there in the Delta?
All that effort was made to try to get those two whales back 70 miles down the delta to the Pacific Ocean.
So I get in here this morning.
I'm feverishly doing a show prep, getting ready for today's excursion into Broadcast Excellence.
And they got cameras posted by the Golden Gate Bridge.
Apparently the whales slipped out of there last night and made their way back to the ocean.
Nature works once again, despite our best efforts to control it.
Two lost whales seen just before sunset nearing their ocean home after a two-week sojourn through inland waterways may have slipped back into the Pacific overnight.
They had the cameras out there trying to find the whales coming back through the Golden Gate Bridge.
They couldn't find any whales.
They think they gave them a slip overnight.
And here we've done everything we could to befriend these whales, did everything, and they didn't even stop to give us a couple flippers goodbye.
Didn't even give us a couple bangs of the tail.
Greetings, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh.
Cutting-edge societal evolution, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Again, documented to be almost always right.
98.6% of the time.
Phone number if you want to be on the program today and who wouldn't?
800-282-2882.
The email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
Just a funny story here in the Washington Post today.
Debate could turn on a seven-letter word.
Calling proposal an amnesty rouses foes, confounds backers.
When organized opponents of the immigration bill being debated in the Senate want to rally the troops and get the emails churning and a congressional switchboard is lighting up, they almost invariably invoke the A-word, amnesty.
Websites, speeches, news releases, critics of the legislation attack it as a form of amnesty.
They argue that blah, When organized supporters of the bill respond, they consistently deny that it offers anything remotely like amnesty or blanket forgiveness.
Instead, they use the L word describing an orderly process of legalization that would take at least eight years.
The process would include a series of temporary visas.
And they go through those big, long story.
Why does this work?
Opponents are able to successfully invoke amnesty in part because of the historical record.
The U.S. government's offered seven amnesties to various categories of illegal immigrants in the past 20 years.
And it hasn't worked.
I mean, there's a reason this stuff, you know, I guess the people in the drive-by are just going, we own the language here.
We own this catchphrases that work.
Why are the opponents being so successful?
Because it's true.
Because it is an amnesty.
You know, I'll tell you what, Barry Bonds and the San Francisco Giants went into New York last night to play the New York Mets.
Now, Bonds was not in the starting lineup.
He did pinch hit.
He didn't do anything.
He had nine home runs away from Hank Aaron.
He's the most hated man in baseball right now.
Mets fans are brutal last night.
They had all kinds of signs.
When he did come out to pinch hit, he was getting all kinds of grief.
And, you know, one sign I saw called him Barroids, Bonds.
And so, well, why not amnesty for Barry Bonds?
Why can't we just forget it?
Look at what he's done to the game.
Look at what he's meant to the game.
Why not just have amnesty for the guy?
And how about these poor football player, Pac-Man Jones, suspended for a year for his extracurricular off-the-field behavior?
Come on.
How about amnesty?
Let's just forget it.
Why impose all of these penalties?
If it works here in illegal immigration, now we're talking illegal.
Let's begin a process granting amnesty to any number of people here who find themselves on the wrong side of the law.
Yeah, Barry Bonds being forced to live in the shadows, ladies and gentlemen, the shadows of Major League Baseball because of the taint of the allegations that he has bulked up using illegal and banned substances.
And so why wouldn't amnesty be called for here for Barry Bonds?
I mean, Barry Bonds, you talk about contributing to the economy.
I talk about the great work, all the ancillary benefits that Barry Bond's appearance in Major League Baseball has meant to the game and to the teams for which he has played.
You use the same arguments on virtually any criminal and just say it's stigmatizing them.
These are decent people.
These are good people.
They're just trying to make it in America.
They're just coming here to seek their fortune, do the right thing.
Yeah.
That's just another way of illustrating how ridiculous it is.
I mentioned earlier in the program, about an hour and a half ago, that a lot of people are angry with President Bush for his...
In fact, we've got those soundbites.
I think let's listen to those 12 and 13.
Grab 12 and 13 because the New York Times has a story here that kind of makes the point that I made when I first talked about this.
This is President Bush's federal law enforcement training center speaking about comprehensive immigration reform.
Two bites.
This is the first.
Oh, I'm sure you've heard some of the talk out there about people defining the bill.
It's clear they hadn't read the bill.
They're speculating about what the bill says, and they're trying to rile up people's emotions.
This is a good piece of legislation.
It addresses the border security needs and it addresses the employment needs of our country.
If you're serious about bringing hardworking illegal immigrants out of the shadows of our society, it makes sense to support legislation that will resolve their status without animosity and without amnesty.
I just don't.
This is so painful.
So put out of the shadows.
Employment needs of our country make sense to support legislation to resolve their status.
And he makes the speech at Glencoe, Georgia, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
Here's the second bite.
This bill is not an amnesty bill.
If you want to scare the American people, what you say is the bill's an amnesty bill.
It's not an amnesty bill.
That's empty political rhetoric trying to frighten our fellow citizens.
People in Congress need the courage to go back to their districts and explain exactly what this bill is all about in order to put comprehensive immigration reform in place.
And he, you know, he had some comments that, well, the Times headline here, Bush takes on conservatives over immigration.
It's our old buddy Jim Rutenberg at the New York Times writing the story.
President Bush took on parts of his conservative base Tuesday by accusing opponents of his immigration measure of fear-mongering to defeat its passage in Congress.
If you want to scare the American people, what you say is the bill's an amnesty bill.
Well, you can read it and find out that that's pretty much what it is.
Anyway, the president all of a sudden has found newfound respect among media enemies in the drive-bys because he's taken out after his conservative supporters.
And Brian Maroney, he's got a blog called The Radio Equalizer.
He says, you know, this is Bush versus Rush, and the media loves it.
The media hates Rush.
There's Bush taking on Rush.
Why Bush could end up as a new McCain, a media darling for taking on the conservative movement?
Because the drive-bys hate conservatives, and they despise the conservative movement.
And so now they're caught between a rock and a hard place.
Don't like Bush either.
But now Bush has taken on conservatives.
And the drive-bys lost their monopoly because of conservatives.
Me.
And so they're eating this stuff up.
So in a sort of ancillary way, ladies and gentlemen, I single-handedly may have helped revive President Bush's standing in the drive-by media.
And we go back to the phones.
This is Bill in Niles, Michigan.
Thanks for calling, sir.
It's nice to have you on the EIB network.
It's an honor to talk to you, Rush.
Thank you.
One quick point.
Republicans, short-sighted Republicans, shot themselves in the foot by voting against Bush to punish him in 2006.
They are eager to vote for a conservative in 2008.
And if Pelosi and Reed keep screwing up, I think we're going to have a Republican landslide and we may get some of these seats back along with the president.
I'm trying to follow this.
First place, in November last year, Bush wasn't on the ballot.
The Republicans that lost were in the House and the Senate.
That's how they punished him.
They thought they were doing punishing him and they were kicked, shooting themselves in the foot because they gave the Democrats Congress.
You think that they were punishing Bush by voting against?
Interesting.
No, I disagree as host.
I think they were voting against their own congressmen and senators because they were fed up.
They hadn't governed as they had promised to when they campaigned.
They just, they weren't conservative.
I don't know if they're punishing Bush.
I think they're trying to punish the Republican Party as a whole.
I remember saying back then, these elections have consequences.
We even had, folks, there were some of the elites in our own media were out there.
Well, it might be wise if we lost to teach these guys a lesson.
Remember that?
I said, you go do that.
Go ahead and vote against them.
Go ahead and vote against your own interests just to teach these guys a lesson.
And take it.
You're going to have Pelosi running the House.
Who knows whatever else is going to happen?
And we've got it.
I don't know if that has anything to do with what Bush is doing on immigration.
This came up before the 06 elections anyway.
But even if they were voting against Bush, you still deal with the consequences.
But I don't see how it follows that the Republicans are going to sweep in because you're essentially saying that it worked, that Pelosi and Reed are making huge errors.
I think the Democrat Party is sowing the seeds of its eventual landslide defeat.
I don't know that it's going to be in 08, especially with this immigration thing going.
If you think people ran away from Republicans in 06, I shudder to think what's going to happen in 08 if this thing gets rammed down everybody's throats.
Peggy in Tucson, Arizona, great to have you on the EIB network.
And I am absolutely thrilled that I got through.
Actually, this is the third time I've gotten through, and you may have fun with my city because it's Oral Valley.
And I don't know if you remember that or not.
Just a quick comment.
How could I forget a place like Oral Valley?
We'll see.
I was hoping you wouldn't.
Yeah.
I have a good memory anyway, but I would never forget a place called Oral Valley.
Well, Rush, you're phenomenal, and we'll leave it at that.
But you do help keep me sane, and I'm one of those.
My husband and I both listened to you just about every day.
Yeah, you said that the last time you called, did I keep you sane?
You did.
And see, see, I remember that too.
So we're batting a thousand here.
Briefly, on the morning talk show here, Conservative Talk Show, Senator Kyle was on regarding the immigration.
And I only heard part of it, but two of his points were that under existing law, we can't quite enforce the way we'd need to, and part of that was because of how the employers have to verify.
So he was saying that was one of the positives of this new bill.
And then the other thing was...
Except the employers don't like it.
Yeah, well...
Well, that's the thing.
They don't like the responsibility of having to be the government agency, if you will.
Yeah, yeah.
Why should they be, by the way?
Well, you know, my take on it is they really should be able to verify if they're illegal or not, and it should be made easy for them.
And I think that would be highly possible by coordinating human services and INS or whatever they are now.
Talking about federal immigration law here, the federal government is charged with enforcing its own laws, and they're passing this off to business, knowing full well business can't.
And again, now you're hitting on the point that I sit back and I look at this, and bottom line is, so what's different?
How are they going to enforce this when they couldn't enforce before?
But I really wanted to tell you the other thing that he said that I found was really interesting.
And I'm upset with Kyle.
I'm not alone here.
I've called his office.
I feel like we are getting this jammed right down our throats.
But he did.
In Oral Valley, yes.
Yeah, in Oral Valley.
Very good.
I'm not surprised.
He said that if amendments come up to this bill that affect the core of it, then all bets are off, and the coalition that he has of Republicans won't vote for it, which I still feel the bottom line is this thing is going to get rammed through.
But I wondered, since you've read the bill, if these points, especially the first one about the existing laws not quite handling, they're not enforcing.
There's no enforcement mechanism in whatever they're coming up with.
We've got all kinds of immigrants.
Look, we already have a law that determines that the people that arrive here the way they are arriving are illegal.
Yes.
It can't be any more clear than when you use that word that we're in violation of the law here.
It's crystal clear.
The enforcement mechanism, all they're saying is that there's no way we're going to deport 12 million people.
What they're saying is we've lost control.
We've lost control of a number of people coming in, and there's nothing we can do about it now.
It's too late.
And the only way we can fix this is to just say, okay, the 12 million or 20 million that are here are legal.
And then they're telling us for like the seventh time that this next piece of legislation, that's going to have the tough enforcement provisions, and that's going to have the tough border security.
And if people, after watching Ted Kennedy be wrong on this for five or six times in 42 years and everybody else be wrong on this, the most recent time Simpson Mazzoi, the evidence is not, the confidence is not there that the government, whatever new law they write, is going to have some magical ability to be more enforced than previous laws have been.
You know what?
I heard another caller call in on the local show and he pointed out that as soon as any of the current illegals step forward and I don't think they have to pay money, but as soon as they step forward, then essentially they're legal.
They don't have to go down the path to citizenship or pay the fines or anything.
That essentially makes them legal, which just drains the color from my face.
Well, that caller no doubt heard that from me because I have been mentioning this since last week.
A lot of other hosts have, too.
Maybe I heard it from you.
Well, you probably did.
You just don't have as good a memory as I did.
Well, I'm older than you.
But Whoever you heard say it is right because, you know, one of the ways they're selling this is, we're going to put these people on a path to citizenship.
No, we're not because they don't have to become citizens.
I mean, you look at all the people up here, and I work, I live right here in the belt, and I don't see where those people want the citizenship.
And you have a lot of the people, the Hispanics here in our population, that have gone through the right road to citizenship, and they are as angry as we are.
Yeah, the anger crosses the board here.
It crosses the political divide, left and right, and legal versus illegal.
It does.
But the dirty little secret here is they talk about the fines and they talk about the back taxes and they talk about going to the end of the line, maybe even going back home, the touchback provision, you're going to go back home to your country, then come back.
That's only if you want citizenship.
If you don't want to be a citizen, you have to do diddly squat because the moment the bill's signed into law, you're legal.
Pure and simple.
This is not about citizenship, and it's not about assimilation.
It's just a way of wiping failed policy since Simpson Mazzoli, 86, off the books.
It's just a tacit admission that it hasn't worked.
We'll just wave a wand here, make them legal.
That's why I said yesterday in another brilliant monologue that it's important to find out what the illegals want.
Do they want citizenship or do they just want to be legal?
And I don't think anybody that's behind the authorship of this bill and trying to get it passed cares.
That's not the objective.
Look, the Republicans on this, I'm just at a loss.
The Democrats, I understand fully what's in it for them.
They're trying, and pardon me for sounding like a broken record, but it is clear here with Peggy's call that this stuff needs to be pounded and pounded and pounded.
The Democrats, who are they?
They're liberals.
What do they believe in?
Giant government.
They believe in the redistribution of wealth.
They want as many victims in society as possible.
And there aren't as many victims in America anymore because our economy is so good, the prosperity and opportunity for it in this country has never been better.
So they need an influx of new voters.
They need an influx of new victims to continue to build the welfare state on redistribution of wealth.
The Republicans are looking at this out of fear, as I said yesterday.
They're looking at this through the prism of defeat and how they will lose Hispanic votes if they are seen opposing this.
They risk being called racists and nativists and bigots and so forth.
And so they're telling themselves that if they're seen as being compassionate and understanding and supportive of this, that they'll somehow end up getting a lion's share of the votes of these 12 or 20 million people.
The Democrats already have dibs on them, pure and simple.
There will be no need for them to become entrepreneurs en masse because the Democrats can take care of them.
All right, look, folks, there are other things out there.
The phone board's full.
People want to talk about illegal immigration, but this is the case recently.
I'm going to have to force the other issues and news out there.
We're sitting here and we're beating up on our own Republicans, and understandably so.
But look, it's all not sweetness and light out there on the liberal side either.
Last Friday, the original airing day, in HBO's real time with Bill Maher, he had as his guest, the actor-activist Ben Affleck, who is a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance.
And this soundbite that we have from this show of Affleck, it is rife with obscenities.
The F-bomb is in here.
We've done our best to bleep all this out.
It got started with this question.
Marr says, Now, what did you think of the Democrats, you know, caving in on this Iraq spending bill, Mr. Affleck?
These are people.
You know what it is?
Democrats, this is a problem with them.
Because you know how much money I could give away?
The Democrats live in fear of basically, you know, being called cowards, of looking soft on military, looking like pussies, basically.
Right.
We're afraid that somebody's going to call us a, that someone's going to criticize us.
And these people got elected basically on opposing the war.
They got sent to Washington to oppose the war.
They went there to make a vote on opposing the war.
You're either going to vote for or against this measure that says you have to, if you want this money, you have to give us timelines to get out of Iraq.
Are you going to be for this or against it?
They were afraid that if they basically sent it back to the president and said, no, we need the timelines, and they left for Memorial Day vacation.
That when they left, they were afraid of being criticized.
So rather, out of fear of being criticized, they sacrificed their core political beliefs and they wonder why people call them weak.
There you have it.
That's been affleck out there.
And that's, you know, we don't, we don't, you're not hear much about this.
The drive-bys do not report what's going on.
The moveon.org people are livid.
The Democrats are falling apart.
Nancy Pelosi over there looking at Greenland, finding global warming out with all the snowstorms that are happening, more deaths in Nepal, in sub-Saharan Africa, a cold snap that people can't remember having happened in a long, long time.
You know, if anything's going on out there, I mean, it's global cooling.
So, anyway, and then there was a Supreme Court decision yesterday, and the New York Times and the Washington Post write about this in curious ways.
For example, the Washington Post headline: over Ginsburg's dissent, court limits bias suits.
She was in the minority.
Her side lost.
And yet the perspective is over Ginsburg's dissent, court limits bias suits.
New York Times headline, justice's ruling limits suits on pay disparity.
The Supreme Court once again split by the thinnest of margins, ruled yesterday that workers may not sue their employers over unequal pay caused by discrimination alleged to have occurred years earlier.
The court ruled 5-4 that Lily Ledbetter, the lone female supervisor at a tire plant in Gadsden, Alabama, didn't file her lawsuit against Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company in the timely manner specified by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The decision moved Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to read a dissent from the bench, a usually rare practice that she has now employed twice in the past six weeks to criticize the majority for opinions that she said undermine women's rights.
Speaking for the three other dissenting justices, Ginsburg's voice was precise and emotionless, as if she were reading a banking decision, but the words were stinging.
In our view, the court does not comprehend or is indifferent to the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination.
Well, this is classic.
And this is important, by the way.
It's important.
The decision was important.
It was right, but it's important because the way this is being covered, over Ginsburg's dissent, court limits bias suits.
Why is it important?
Because the New York Times and Washington Post are taking the dissent in this opinion and amplifying it.
They're not reporting what the decision was.
They're not spending a whole lot of time reporting on what the majority decision was.
They spend most of their time praising and quoting Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Now, they only do this with the liberals on the court.
And Ginsburg, in her statement that in her dissent that she read from the bench, called on Congress to change the law, which is extraordinary, not because of her position on the law, but because of her activism.
Now, the law allows 180 days to make a claim.
That's six months.
That's half a year, not 19 years.
This woman waited 19 years to file her complaint.
Well, that's going to get thrown out.
I'm surprised it.
Well, I'm not surprised.
It shouldn't have gotten anywhere.
It should have been unanimous.
The law is clear.
You have 180 days.
She waited 19 years.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg descends.
And that's the whole focus of the story.
I mean, this is a lawless gang of four on the Supreme Court in the minority here.
Four justices were prepared to amend the law right there and then to extend it to 19 years.
Do you understand what that would have meant?
If this had not, if this had gone through as Ruth Bader Ginsburg wants, you could have gone back 19 years in your life.
And if you've been discriminated against on pay basis, think you have, you can file suit.
You've got 180 days to do it.
And this woman wanted the law to be changed from the bench, not in Congress, with a Supreme Court decision, which, my friends, is what we've been warning you about with activist courts, judges, liberal judges.
This is striking.
None of it's being reported the way I just imparted it to you.
It's all being reported.
What a great activist.
What a great, sensitive woman she is.
She's caring for human rights.
This is the kind of people we need over her dissent.
Court.
Stunning.
Lori Bird, a blogger, works on the internet, found this quote from Tony Blair.
Tony Blair said, I was stopped by somebody the other week who said that it was not surprising there was so much terrorism in the world when we invaded their countries, meaning Afghanistan and Iraq.
This guy said to Tony Blair, no wonder Muslims feel angry.
Tony Blair said, I said to him, tell me exactly what they feel angry about.
We removed two utterly brutal and dictatorial regimes, Taliban and Saddam.
We replaced them with a UN-supervised democrat process.
And the only reason it's difficult still is because other Muslims are using terrorism to try to destroy the fledgling democracy in Iraq, and in doing so, are killing fellow Muslims.
Why aren't they angry about the people doing the killing?
The odd thing about the conversation is I could tell, this Tony Blair talking, I could tell it was the first time the man I was talking to had heard this argument.
I know this is beating a dead horse here, but it's no wonder this is a Brit talking to Tony Blair.
It's no wonder this guy had never heard such a concept when you consider the state of the BBC these days and other international reporting on terrorism.
The second thing is they always call Tony Blair Bush's lapdog.
He's nobody's lapdog.
He is so eloquent and articulate when he talks about the war in Iraq.
He is able to succinctly, briefly convey important truths in an understandable way.
You know, this idiot comes up as no wonder Muslims hate us.
We invaded their countries?
Good grief.
And he's not alone.
There are all kinds of idiots this country and around the world who've got themselves believing the same thing.
In case you didn't know this, new study out says that binge drinking hurts judgment skills.
Duh.
Right here, it's a UPI story.
Holding in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
U.S. study says binge drinking among college students is linked to poor decision-making skills.
Could it maybe be the other way around?
Poor decision-making skills lead to binge drinking.
U.S. economy, this is from Bloomberg.com.
Consumer confidence rises more than forecast.
The experts wrong again.
An index of consumer confidence in the U.S. jumped more than forecast in May, signaling consumers will continue to spend in the face of record gasoline prices and a slumping housing market.
Speaking of that, let's go to audio soundbites 8, 9, and 10, Mike.
Well, 8 and 9.
Because the guy, the CEO of ConocoPhillips, Big Oil, James Mulva, was on the Today Show today with Matt Owa.
And Mal Oauer said, a year ago, you did an interview.
You were asked what can keep the price of a gallon of gas under three bucks.
And you said, get gasoline below three bucks will require a lower oil price.
Well, oil represents 60% of the cost of gasoline, you said.
So in the last year, a barrel of oil has gone from $75 down to $65.
At the same time, gas is up 35 cents a gallon.
How can this happen?
Well, Matt, generally, it's true that gasoline prices move with oil prices.
But what's different compared to last year is that the demand continues to go up.
Even with gas prices up over $3 a gallon, demand continues to go up.
And that's really quite surprising.
And the issue is providing supply.
We're running our refineries at capacity, but what's different today is that we are having difficulty refining and providing the supply.
And we're importing as much as we can, but our imports are down compared to last year.
We're importing gasoline.
Now he's not talking about oil.
We are importing gasoline.
We don't have the refining capacity.
So Matt Wauer says, well, oftentimes like this, the oil companies get villainized.
But the fact of the matter is it's our fault.
I mean, again, you don't want to cast the blame, but the fact is we're addicted to gasoline.
We're simply using too much of it.
Now we're paying the price.
Isn't that a fair statement?
Well, in a way, it is a fair statement because if you look at the United States, past 100 years or so, we've been blessed with plentiful energy supplies, and we've provided energy at a very affordable price.
But that's changed.
I mean, energy supplies are not as available.
And the other thing is, as a country, we really don't have a comprehensive energy policy, and that's what we need.
All right.
Now, what is this?
We're addicted to gasoline.
We are not addicted to gasoline.
Oil is the fuel of the freedom and the engine of democracy.
Oil is the basis on which our economy is going to grow.
We know it's going to continue to grow.
We want it to grow.
We want the economy to keep growing.
We want it to be such that people become more and more productive, more and more prosperous.
Nobody ever talks about wanting the economy to slow down and go into recession.
We were always wanting the economy to grow and with more people being born and influx of people.
But that's the natural state of human affairs.
You're not addicted to something that generates that.
What he means is you're addicted to use it when you don't need it.
Use far more than what you need, and you can't help it.
It's a disease you can't stop.
It's absurd to say that we're addicted to gasoline.
People cannot go to work without it.
They cannot go to the food stores without it.
They cannot take kids to school without it.
This is, it's a need far, far more than it's an addiction.
So now we're going to try to have this guilt imposed upon.
Why?
The prices aren't coming down because you people, you people are a bunch of sloths.
You people are careless.
You don't care what it costs.
You don't care what damage to the earth you're doing.
You have to have your gasoline.
You add it.
That's absolutely preposterous.
The solution to this is to get rid of all these restrictions as we can't find more of our own oil and we can't build more refineries.
Get rid of all of that.
Understand we're a growing economy, powerful, the nation's world's lone superpower.
And we're being assaulted on that basis by people who want to cut us down to size, and they're using energy as a means of doing it.
Anyway, a little long here, so got to take a break.
Back after this.
All right, back to the phones.
Royal Oak, Michigan.
This is Warren, and I'm glad you called, sir.
Nice to have you with us at EIB Network.
Launch.
Warren.
Hey, longtime listener, fourth-time caller.
I just want to tell you, you had me dancing for joy the other day.
I spent a lot of time shouting at the radio, wanting you to get it right.
And when you said that they're letting the immigrants in to pay the Social Security, it came to me about six months ago why both parties want these guys to just come in here.
They want the tax money.
They want to line them up, give them a number, and have those taxes pour in to keep the Ponzi scheme running.
That's part of it.
There's no question.
I mentioned this last week.
You're nice to remind me of it.
We've been aborting 1.2 million babies a year in this country since 1973.
That's quite a drain on citizens.
We need bodies to pay the Social Security taxes for the baby boom generation.
They start retiring.
We don't have enough bodies to do it.
And of course, Washington is not going to reform entitlements.
Too big a risk.
So just get these bodies in.
The dirty little secret is, is that they're going to be a net drain on Social Security because while they may be contributing Social Security taxes to help defray some of the Social Security and other baby boomers, they're going to have to also receive their own transfer payments because they're not going to have access to health care, not going to have enough money for kids to school, this sort of thing.
But it's just it's easier to import the bodies here than to take on the serious task of reforming these problems, which, by the way, is not going to be solved by these people coming in.
If it works, it's a temporary fix.
But the second reason, it's very close.
The Democrats, by the same token, don't discount the fact that this to them is a golden opportunity to expand the welfare stack.
Look, I'm going to stop saying this.
I'm sure you're getting tired of me saying this.
I never get tired of hearing myself say things, especially when I'm right.
But I can imagine that after you've heard them enough, okay, Rush, move on.
The point of fact, what is at stake here is that the Democrats see a golden opportunity to create a whole new subculture of dependents that are going to vote for them forever.
They are going to the Democrats, the liberals in this country resent conservatism and its success and its power.
They want to take on the traditions and institutions that have made this country great, tear them down and rebuild the country in the liberals' own image, which is a giant government, whole lots of victims, people dependent, can't get by on their own.
That's nirvana for liberals.
And that's part and parcel of this whole thing.
Lance in Sonora, California, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hi, how are you?
Fine, sir.
Thank you.
Major Tom Sullivan's Dittos from California.
Appreciate that.
Hey, I had another take on this, and maybe you can set me straight or not.
But I have a feeling that the State Department writes position papers on every type of scenario known to man.
If Finland blows their nose, they have a position paper on what to do and what kind of response we may get.
And I'm just afraid that the United States may have gotten ourselves into kind of a jam with the amount of influx of dollars that is sent to Mexico that they are scared to death that if we shut down the borders completely without the influx of dollars, that that would destabilize that country.
And the last thing that we want is a revolution to our neighbors to the South.
Well, we've been through periods of time where the Mexican economy was in dire straits, and so we bailed them out.
I have received calls from government officials during this period urging me to support the quote-unquote Mexican bailout.
You know, you strip all this away, however, it's resolved.
That's true, too.
But this is, it's only going to perpetuate the problem.
None of this is solving anything.
It is just delaying the day of reckoning.
I appreciate the call, Lance.
You're on to something.
There's probably a whole lot of little reasons here that they're not ever going to tell us that inspire their support for this.
Because you know, there have to be folks because they're not listening to you on this.
They're just going to ram this through.
They're not listening to you.
Your opposition doesn't matter to them.
They're willing to risk your wrath at the expense of getting this done.
Now, there's got to be reasons that we don't know because they won't tell us for this to be the case.
Where did it go?
Where did the show go today?
It's gone, ladies and gentlemen, all three hours.
And now, Finny have to wrap it up.
Got this golf digest stuff today, an interview this afternoon, a photo session after that.
And get to go home tonight and finally relax.
See you tomorrow, folks.
Looking forward to it as always.
▲
Export Selection