RUSH/EIB: Here’s Nancy in Bergen County, New Jersey. Hi, Nance. Great to have you on the program. Hello.
CALLER: Hi. Rush, since July 4th, ’88, when my husband told me, "This is the best guy that’s ever been a hit radio and he’s gonna be giant," I made a lot of drive-by calls and I’m horrifically nervous. But there are two things I wonder if you had time to think about.
RUSH: For somebody who’s been here since literal day one, I have time. July 4th, 1988 was my first day in New York, and it was just on WABC. On that day, an Iranian jetliner had crashed, and the Iranians had put a bunch of dummies/mannequins around to make it worse than it was to try to blame us. I’ll never forget that. What a day that was, July 4th, 1988. I was scared to death. I can’t tell you. It was make or break that day, and you were there. I appreciate that.
CALLER: Well, my husband said he listened to 20 minutes of you. He said, "I listened to 20 minutes of this man, and he’s gonna be the biggest thing that ever happened to radio." It took me a little time (giggling) to get it ’cause I am a woman, but I got it, and I’m actually probably more fanatic a Rush Babe than he is a Rush guy. I mentioned just two quick points, one about Benghazi. I don’t think it’s wrong that it’s both incompetence plus politics, but I think it’s an even deeper version of both. Because when else in our history…? Where are the 30 survivors?
When have you ever found, in this country, 33 people who survived any kind of a thing? Look at these three girls that are being found today. How long is the media gonna let that sit? There are 33 people who wouldn’t have been free probably without those brave guys who went in against orders. They would have been hostages or they would have been murdered. Who knows? This is how many months, and we haven’t heard a word from one of these 33 American people? That just says to me, "Deeper, deeper, and there’s more to it."
RUSH: Well, hold your thought right there, because it’s now 2013. Bill Clinton left office in January of 2001. Has there yet been a single tell-all book written about anything that happened during those eight years? There hasn’t been one, from anybody inside. The only on effort was made by an FBI agent named Gary Aldrich, and they summarily dispatched him and nobody in the media took that seriously. It is entirely believable to me that this political operation can get hold of those people and demand (and get) silence. That’s how this political party operates.
CALLER: I fear for them. That’s exactly right. I fear for those 33 people. I think that we are doing them a big injustice not to at least seek them out to find out that they are, in fact, okay. But the other thing I wanted to mention: You know, when we repeat the same thing hoping for different results, that’s insanity. Well, this immigration thing, with all due respect to Senator Rubio, is insanity times 10 in our lifetime. I remember President Reagan negotiating on this. Go back.
He understood that we had a problem with immigration but he wanted to make sure that if they made an attempt, that it didn’t become more of a magnet than an adjustment, than a fix. He kept sending them back, and they came back with legislation. They came back with laws that were attached, they came back with regulations, and then the regulations were never followed. It doesn’t matter. I want to say, "Senator Rubio, do you hear it?
"Listen to your commercial. Everything you’re saying — regulation, regulation — what does it matter if they’re not enforced?" I remember when I worked for a job in ’88, I had to, for the first time in my life, present documents. I had to find my marriage license, all kinds of documents. That was me because I was a legal person! But we have groups of people standing on corners just over the border in lower New York waiting for everybody to pick them up. You didn’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that those people were undocumented waiting to get picked up for day work.
So why, Senator Rubio, do you believe that any regulation that you pass is gonna be followed? That’s why — before you said it — I find him, unfortunately, to be naive. He is young. I think it’s a little naive to believe in these people. Look at recent history. That’s all I want to say to him is, "Look at recent history. First, close the borders. Second, look at anything that’s like a magnet and see that it’s taken away," and I don’t see how they do it. Looking at what happened in ’86 with all the precautions that Reagan put in, with all the warnings — even at signing it he warned — and it still, what did it make?
We made a giant magnet.
RUSH: Well, forget Reagan.
Let’s go back and listen to what Ted Kennedy, who was one of the proponents, said. Ted Kennedy said this would end it. There would never, ever anymore be any illegal immigration if we just did amnesty this time. Chuck Schumer made the same promises in 1986. He was in the House back then; he made the same promises. Ted Kennedy was saying the exact same thing in the Senate. "If we do this now, we will never, ever have to do this again."
The truth of the matter is that they were lying then, and they’re lying now. The Democrat Party needs a permanent underclass in order to thrive. The Democrat Party cannot survive with upwardly mobile people rapidly moving out of poverty and into the trenches of the middle class. Because when they get to the middle class and they see the possibilities of upward mobility, that’s when they resort to hard work, self-determination, and they try to really become the best they can be.
As they succeed, they don’t need the Democrat Party, and they don’t need government — and the Democrat Party cannot survive if that’s the case. So they need a constant influx of people. Now, this is pre-Obama. Nobody’s growing out of the middle class now. But before Obama got his hooks in the economy, upward mobility was the name of the game in this country, and the Democrats needed a new influx of poor people — uneducated poor people — in order to provide the permanent underclass.
I’ll be honest: Not just the Democrats. A lot of American business likes low-cost labor, and they were also happy to see this influx coming in. It wasn’t just a political thing for the Democrats. There were a lot of people who saw benefits to an inflow of such people. But the Democrat Party pushes it. None of this happens without them providing the political impetus for it to happen, because it’s a political issue. It’s not a human rights issue; it’s a political issue. Now, without this upward mobility…
There isn’t nearly as much upward mobility. It can’t be. The Obama administration has seen to it that the private sector’s shrinking. As the private sector shrinks and more and more people stop working, there’s less and less opportunity. There’s less and less achievement. The achievement that’s taking place is being picked up by fewer and fewer people. That’s why the rich are getting richer and the poor aren’t moving at all, is because the economy is shrinking and the people that know how to maximize it are using it.
The current inflow of uneducated poor people, with no upward mobility now, is nirvana for the Democrat Party! Nancy, thank you so much. You really made my day here. You go all the way back to July 4th, 1988, and I thank you for calling. I want to tell you something. You know, I say these things, and I realize that to those of you who are casual listeners, first-timers react. I realize how really — What? — powerful or, "Wow, man, does he really believe that?" it sounds. I realize what it sounds like when you hear me say, "The Democrat Party needs a constant inflow of poor, uneducated people to make up an underclass."
They need a permanent underclass depending on government. I know how that sounds to those of you who have never thought about this before. I know how that sounds to you, people who don’t look at poverty that way. You look at poverty as a collection of unfortunate people and you can’t imagine, you just can’t conceive that people would exploit them. You believe every Democrat you hear talking about poverty, who wants to help people out, you hear them say that, and you believe it because you think that, too. Everybody in poverty ought to be out of it. And you hear me come along and say that there’s a political party that benefits from a permanent underclass, and you scratch your head, "Well, I haven’t heard anything like that. I can’t believe that."
Again, I’ve got one objective here, and that is for as many people to accept and believe the truth of things as possible. There’s nothing in it for me to make things up. There’s absolutely no benefit that I derive from being wrong. I will not maintain an audience if I lie, make things up, have no credibility. If I simply say outrageous things for the sake of it, the media countryside is strewn with the carcasses of people like that. They don’t last. I’ve got no interest in being wrong. I have no interest in lying to you. I have no interest in having you believe something that isn’t true.
So when I tell you that the Democrat Party needs a permanent underclass in order to stay in power, think about it for a second. What is a permanent underclass? Poor people, uneducated. What do they need? Food. They need housing. They need water. They need electricity. They need cell phones. Who provides that for those people? Well, you do with your tax money, but in their minds, who’s giving it to ’em? The Democrat Party, government. And that’s how the Democrats derive power. That’s how they stay in power. They become the providers. Santa Claus. And then on the other side of that, who is it that wants to take it away from them? That would be the Republicans, who are mean-spirited, cold-hearted extremists, so goes the story.
It’s the Republicans who want to take all that away from ’em. It’s the Democrats who are Santa Claus. It’s Democrats who have compassion. It’s the Democrats who understand the needs of poor people. It’s the Democrats who want them poor. It’s the Democrats who need poor people voting for ’em. And consequently, the Democrats also need for people to think that it’s the Republicans that want ’em to stay poor and Republicans who want to take that stuff away from ’em. The truth of the matter is, I don’t know about Republicans, but for me as a conservative, you know what we want? We want everybody that the Democrat Party thinks can’t do anything, we want ’em maximizing their potential. We want them being educated and learning how to be motivated and inspired to get themselves out of that circumstance.
We don’t want them in permanent poverty, underclass, whatever. We don’t benefit from that. The country does not benefit. The country does not get great nor stay great with people in that circumstance. We don’t like it, and we don’t like ’em being used, and we don’t like them being kept poor, particularly under the false guise that what they get is assistance. There’s a belief on the Democrat side that they’re not capable of doing anything else. They’re not capable of decent judgment, life decisions, and that kind of thing. The whole thing is really a bugaboo with me. But that’s why back in 1986, when Ted Kennedy said, "It’s just gonna be the end of it." They never intended for it to end. It doesn’t matter where they come from, it’s not Mexicans. It’s wherever the Democrats can pick up underclass people, undereducated, poor people, bring ’em in here and make ’em voting Democrats, they’ll take ’em. It doesn’t matter where they come from.
Great book on this subject by former welfare recipient Star Parker: Uncle Sam’s Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America’s Poor and What We Can Do About It, Revised and Updated Edition