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 uh in the Sacramento River up there in a 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 and 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.
Um 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 to the Golden Gate Bridge.
He couldn't find in the whales, they think they gave him the slip.
Overnight, and here we've done all 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.
Uh 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 the congressional switchboards 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, blah, blah, blah, 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 to those big long stories.
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 twenty 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 uh catchphrases that work.
Why are why are the opponents being so successful?
Because it's true.
Because it is an amnesty.
You know, I 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's 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 uh 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 if if it works here in illegal immigration, now we're talking illegal.
Let's let's let's let's begin a process granting amnesty to any number of people here who find themselves on the wrong side of the of the law.
Uh yeah, Barry Bond's 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 the great work on the the 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.
I mean, you can use the same arguments on uh on on virtually any criminal.
And just say it's it's 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, but 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 uh with President Bush uh for his fact we've got those sound bites.
I think let's listen to those 12 and 13.
Grab grab 12 and 13.
Because the New York Times uh has a story here that kind of makes the point that I made when I first talked about this.
This is uh 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 hard work and 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 I this is so painful.
So out of the shadows.
Uh employment needs of our country make sense to support legislation 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.
Uh uh the 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 it's pretty much what it is.
Anyway, the president is all of all of a sudden has found newfound respect among media enemies in the drive-bys because he's taken out after uh his conservative supporters.
And uh Brian Moroney, uh he's got a blog called the Radio Equalizer, says, you know, this is it this is Bush versus Rush, and the media loves it.
Media hates Russia.
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-by's hate conservatives, and they despise the conservative movement.
And so now they're caught between a rocket of hard place.
They don't like Bush either.
But now Bush has taken on conservatives.
And the drive-bys lost their monopoly because of conservatives.
Um, and so they they're eating this stuff up.
So, in a in a 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.
Uh this is Bill in Niles, Michigan.
Thanks for calling, sir.
It's nice to have you on the EIB network.
An honor to talk to you, Rush.
Thank you.
One quick one quick point.
Uh 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.
Uh I'm trying to follow this.
First place in in November last year, Bush wasn't on the ballot.
Uh 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 I I I I uh interesting theory.
I I th no, I I d uh disagree as host.
Uh I I think they were voting against their own congressmen and senators because they were fed up and 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, re 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.
Why is 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 b you're gonna have Pelosi running the house, who knows whatever else is going to happen, and we've got it.
I don't know that has anything to do with what Bush is doing on uh immigration.
This came up before um uh the O six elections anyway.
Uh but even if they were voting against Bush, you still deal with the consequences.
But I don't see how it follows that uh that that the Republicans are gonna sweep in because you're you're you're essentially saying that it worked.
Uh that that Pelosi and Reed are making uh uh huge errors.
I I think Democrat Party is sowing the seeds if it's eventual landslide defeat, but I don't know that it's gonna be in 08.
Uh especially with this immigration thing going.
If you think people ran away from Republicans in 06, uh 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'll remember that or not.
Just a quick comment.
Oh, how can I forget a place like Oral Valley?
Well see.
I was hoping you wouldn't.
Yeah.
I have a good memory anyway, but I I would never forget a place called Oral Valley.
Yeah.
Well, Rush, you're phenomenal.
And we'll leave it at that.
I said you do help keep me sane, and I'm one of those.
My husband and I both listened to you just about.
Yeah, you said that the last time you called that I keep you sane.
You did, and see those things.
See, I remember that too.
So so we're on a uh we're batting a thousand here.
Um briefly on the morning talk show here, conservative talk show, uh, Senator Kyle was on regarding the immigration.
And I only heard part of it, but one of two of his points were that under existing law, uh, 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.
Except the p the employers don't like it.
Yeah, well, that's they don't they don't like the responsibility of having to be the the uh the government agency, if you will.
Yeah, yeah.
Why should they by 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 by coordinating um human services and INS or whatever they are now.
The federal government is charged with enforcing its own laws and they're passing this off to business, knowing full well business can't.
Oh i and and again now you're hitting on the point that uh I sit back and I look at this and bottom line is so what's different?
How are they gonna enforce this when they couldn't enforce before?
But I really wanted to 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.
Um I 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.
Um 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 I still feel the bottom line of 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 about the existing laws not quite handling.
They're not enforcing.
There's no enforcement mechanism in the in whatever they're coming up with that.
We've got all kinds of immigrants.
Why look, uh we we already have a law that pr that that that determines that the people that arrive here the way they are arriving are illegal.
Yes.
Uh I it can't be any more clear than when you use that word that we're in violation of the law here.
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 twelve million or twenty 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 gonna have the tough enforcement provisions, and that's gonna have the tough border security.
And if people, after watching Ted Kennedy be wrong on this for five or six times in forty-two years, and everybody else be wrong on this, the most recent time, uh the the the uh evidence is not or the the the confidence is not there that the government, whatever new law they write, is gonna 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 um I I don't think they have to pay money, but as soon as they 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 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 think well, I'm older than you.
But the that that whoever he whoever you heard say it is right because you know, one of the ways they're selling this is we're gonna put these people on a path to citizenship.
No, we're not because they're not gonna have to become citizens.
You don't want it.
I mean, you look at all the people up here, and I work, I live right here in 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, the anger, the anger crosses the board here.
It crosses the political divide left and right and uh legal versus illegal.
The 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 are 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 is signed into law, you're legal.
Fair and simple.
It is not about citizenship.
It is 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 uh that it's it hasn't worked.
All right, we'll just wave a wand here, make them legal.
Uh that's why it 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 uh uh behind the authorship of this bill and trying to get it passed cares.
That that's that's not the objective.
Look.
The Republicans on this, I'm 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 uh with Peggy's call that that uh you know i 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 uh 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 uh getting a lion's share of the votes of these twelve or twenty million people.
The Democrats already have dibs on them.
Uh pure and simple.
There will be no need for them to become entrepreneurs.
In mass, because the Democrats could take care of them.
All right, look, folks, there's there are other things out there.
I got the the phone board's full.
People want to talk about illegal immigration, but as is the case recently.
I'm gonna have to force the other issues and news out there.
Uh we're sitting here and we're beaten up on our own Republicans, and understandably so.
But look at it's all not sweetness and light out there on the liberal side either.
Last Friday, the original airing day at HBO's real time with Bill Maher, he had as his guests, 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 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.
Mars says, now what did you think of the Democrats, you know, caving in on this Iraq spending bill, Mr. Affleck?
Fees people.
You know what it is?
Democrats, this is a problem with them.
Because you know how much money I can fucking 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 gonna call us a pussy, that someone's gonna 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 a fear of being criticized, they sacrificed their core political beliefs and they wonder why people call them fing weak.
There you have it.
That's Ben Affleck out there.
Uh, and that's, you know, we don't, we don't, you're not hear much about this.
The drive-by is do not report what's going on.
The move on.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.
Uh in uh 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 uh the 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.
What 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, justices 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 five to four 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 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 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, uh, 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 in 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.
Shouldn't have gotten any way.
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 once, you could have gone back 19 years in your life, and if you'd 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.
Um, 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 caring for human rights.
This is the kind of people we need over her dissent.
Court.
Uh, stunning.
Uh Lori Byrd, uh, 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, no wonder Muslims feel angry.
Tony Blair said, I said to him, tell me exactly what they feel angry about.
We remove two utterly brutal and dictatorial regimes, Taliban and Saddam.
We replace 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 uh, 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 lap dog.
He is so eloquent and articulate when he talks about the war in Iraq, he is able to succinctly, briefly uh convey important truths in an understandable way.
You know, this idiot comes up as no wonder Muslims hate this.
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 store.
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 from Bloomberg.com.
Consumer confidence rises more than forecast.
The experts wrong again.
An index of consumer confidence in the U.S. jump 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 sound bites eight, nine, and ten, Mike.
Well, uh eight and nine.
Because the guy, the CEO of Conaco Phillips, big oil, James Mulva, was on the Today Show today with Matt Wauer.
And Matt Wauer said a year ago you did an interview, you were asked uh 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 sixty percent of the cost of gasoline, you said.
So in the last year, a barrel of oil has gone from 75 dollars down to 65.
At the same time, gas is up 35 cents a gallon.
How can this happen?
Well, Matt, generally that's 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 three dollars 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 foot.
Now he's not talking about oil.
We are importing gasoline.
We don't have the refining capacity.
So Matt Wauer says, well, oftentimes uh like this, uh the oil companies get villainized, but the fact of the matter is it's our fault.
I mean, again, you don't 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 hundred years or so, we've been blessed with plentiful uh 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, uh, more and more prosperous.
Nobody ever talks about wanting the economy to slow down and go into recession.
We're always wanting the economy to grow, and with more people being born and you know, influx of people.
But uh, that's the natural state of human affairs.
You you're not addicted to something that that generates that.
What do you mean you're addicted to use it when you don't need it?
Uh 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.
Uh that this is it's it's an 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 cost, 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 since 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 the world's lone superpower.
Uh, and 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 uh of doing it.
Anyway, a little long here, so gotta take a break.
Back after this.
All right, back to the phones.
Uh Royal Oak, Michigan.
This is Warren, and I'm glad you called, sir.
Nice to have you with us at EIB Network.
Rush.
Warren.
Hey, long time listener, fourth-time caller.
Uh, I just I 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 the 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 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 you're uh you're you're nice to remind me of it.
Uh we've been aborting 1.2 million babies a year in this country since 1973.
That's quite a drain on citizens.
Uh 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.
Uh, and of course, Washington is not going to reform entitlements.
Uh, too big a risk.
So just get these bodies in.
The dirty little secret is that they're going to be a net drain on Social Security because while they may be contributing social security taxes, uh to help defray some of the Social Security, another baby boomers, they're gonna have to also receive their own transfer payments because they're not gonna have access to health care, not gonna have enough money for kids to school, this uh this sort of thing.
Uh but it's just it's easier to uh import the bodies here than to take on the serious task of reforming these problems, which by the way, is not gonna be solved by these people coming in.
This is gonna be if even works, it's a temporary fix.
But the second reason you it's very close.
The Democrats, by the same token, are don't don't discount the fact that this to them is a golden opportunity to expand the welfare stack.
Look at I'm gonna stop saying this.
I I'm 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 what is at stake here is that the Democrats see a golden opportunity to create a whole new subculture of dependence that are gonna 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 uh 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 uh 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 Ditto's from uh California.
Appreciate that.
Hey, I had another take on this, and uh, you know, maybe you can set me straight or not, but um, you know, I have a feeling that the State Department writes position papers on every type of scenario uh known to man, if Finland blows their 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 uh influx of dollars that is set to Mexico that they are scared to death that if we set 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, I don't know that we've we've we've been through periods of time where the uh Mexican economy was in dire straits, and so we've bailed them out.
I have received calls from government officials during this period urging me to support the quote unquote Mexican bailout.
You're you're you know, you strip all this away, however, it's resolved.
That's that's uh that's true too.
Uh but this is it's only gonna perpetuate the problem.
It's not n none of this is solving anything.
It is just delaying the uh the day of reckoning.
I appreciate the call, Lance.
You're on to something.
I I there's there's probably a whole lot of little reasons here that they're not ever going to tell us uh that uh inspire their support for this.
Because I it it you know there have to be folks, because they're not listening to you on this.
Uh, they're just they're gonna ram this through.
They're not listening to you.
That 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, Fini have to wrap it up.
Got this golf digest stuff today.
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