RUSH: Man, do we have some See, I Told You So’s today! Not just See, I Told You So’s, but some proofs of predictions made long ago, specific predictions and generic predictions. Maybe the generics aren’t even predictions; maybe they’re just me defining for you what liberalism is and where it’s headed and why things happen in liberalism. One of the most amazing things… Do you realize in Australia…? Let me just give you a little teaser.

In Australia, the left is asserting that parents reading to their children at bedtime is unfair because not every kid has parents who can read or who will read to their children at bedtime. And since not everybody can, they’re thinking about banning letting parents… (interruption) You’re laughing in there, and this is dead-serious stuff. I know it sounds hilarious, and these are crackpots, but these people are winning! They are dominating, they are intimidating, and this is how they get what they want.

But that’s just half of it. That’s just half of it. The other half of this is… This is the headline: “Is Having a Loving Family an Unfair Advantage?” This is also in Australia. Is having a loving family an unfair advantage to kids that don’t come from loving families? So they’re thinking about ways to penalize — well, not penalize, eliminate — the advantages that loving families have. This dovetails with the parents reading to their kids at bedtime. Now, let me take you back.

That’s just the tease. Wait ’til you hear the details of these two stories. They dovetail. They’re separate stories, but they dovetail. Do you remember this has to be 10 to 15 years ago now, a story out of Half-Baked Moon Bay in California when they banned homework on the premise that not every student had a decent home in which to do the homework? Therefore, it was humiliating and embarrassing for some students. And they were dead serious!

It was humiliating and embarrassing for some students to be assigned homework because not every student had a home that was conducive to studying and learning, and so they wanted to ban homework. Now, there’s all kinds of liberalism that’s contained in that. It’s unfair. Never elevate to equalize, but always penalize from the top down. Never make people better, but always take the people at the top and bring them down so that everybody is equally disadvantaged, equally miserable or what have you.

This is who they are.

I know the reaction I’m gonna get. I can see it across the glass here, people laughing. It’s the same thing as when I warned you that the Sierra Club was coming for your SUV, and you can’t deny they tried. Now, they failed on that. People are turning in, selling their electric cars and hybrids in droves now. But you remember the effort that was underway to demonize SUVs and to guilt trip people out of buying them and driving them. They went so far that Ford even canceled production of their big one. The Expedition, I think it was.

But that’s who these people are. They are constantly on the march, and they do not stop, and they do not let up.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: The Washington Post has a story… These are just teases for what’s following on the program. There’s a theme for today’s program, and that is: Everything I’ve told you about liberalism is being demonstrated. It’s on parade in the Drive-By Media today. All you have to do is notice it and take note. A Washington Post story today is very, very worried about all of the new skyscrapers going up in Manhattan. The reason they are very concerned about all these new skyscrapers going up in Manhattan is that they are for billionaires.

They are residential towers.

One of them, the Nordstrom Tower, is gonna be the tallest in the city, residential tower, maybe in the country — residential, not business — and it’s gonna have Nordstrom’s and others in the bottom floors. The rest of it is gonna be condos, living space, and it’s gonna open in four months, and it will exceed by a few feet the current record holder, highest skyscraper, residential skyscraper in the city. It stands to reason that these condos cost way more than your average, ordinary middle-class American would ever even earn in a lifetime.

They’re being snapped up left and right. The buildings are gonna be fully occupied before they open. A penthouse apartment at one of these buildings is $75 million, and it’s not particularly big. It’s the view. But that’s only half of the problem. You know what the real problem is? Shadows! All of these skyscrapers are creating shadows, and they are blocking out precious light. The middle class is getting shafted yet again this time by skyscraper shadows.

“These new buildings … are changing more than the cityÂ’s famous skyline, though. They will also transform New York far below, further darkening city streets and casting long shadows that will sweep across Central Park. Together, these towers, and new additions in neighborhoods undergoing a building boom from San Francisco to Toronto to even low-rise DC, have revived a long-simmering urban tension: between light and growth, between the benefits of city living and its cost in shadows.

“For cities, shadows present both a technical challenge … and an ethereal one. They change the feel of space and the value of property in ways that are hard to define,” and get this: “TheyÂ’re a stark reminder that the new growth needed in healthy cities can come at the expense of people already living there.” (Gasp!) “And in some ways,” stand by now; wait for it, “shadows even turn light into another medium of inequality — a resource that can be bought by the wealthy, eclipsed from the poor.”

So, you see, not only are the rich building these skyscrapers and living in them, these skyscrapers are creating shadows that the poor and the middle class must live in. They are light deprived. Their days will be comprised of even more semidarkness and less light, and this is yet another sign of inequality — light inequality — that the Washington Post says results from the construction of these major skyscrapers.

They go on to detail all the 3D graphics that architects, designers, and builders have used in order to make sure as best they can that the resulting shadows — particularly in the fall and winter when the shadows are longer — affect as few people as possible. There’s even a gif file in this story which depicts the shadows, their depth and their length in Central Park now versus when these buildings are complete in the month of September, when the shadows begin to get longer.

And, of course, as you can imagine, the people living on the ground and not in the skyscrapers are getting screwed. They’re getting screwed by light inequality. The rich will have all the light they want — the rich — in the daylight. They’ve have all the light, they’ll have all the views, they’ll have everything. They’ll have as much as they want. The poor and the middle class will be light deprived and will have to live even more of their lives in the shadows. I guess this is the rich trying to show the middle class what the illegals have to put up with, living in the shadows all these years.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, I erred. It is $95 million penthouse, not $75 million penthouse, 432 Park Avenue. The building will be “just shy of 1,400 feet. It will remain the tallest residential building in the Western Hemisphere until the Nordstrom Tower — high-end shopping below, lavish apartments above — goes up four blocks away. Between them are a few more audacious developments, all part of a race for ever-taller towers to distinguish luxury living in an increasingly crowded city.”

So the rich are building higher. They’re getting further and further away from the middle class and the poor. And, as a result, they are now unequally getting more than their fair share of light, and casting the middle class and the poor down on the streets into the shadows. Light inequality. That’s the consciousness-raising article today in the Washington Post. Now, I tell you what I am gonna do.

I’m gonna turn the Dittocam off and I’m gonna zoom in here. I’m gonna show you this gif. It’s not action because I printed it out. On the left side when I pop this up, you’ll see a computer rendering of the shadows in Central Park before these buildings go up, at four o’clock in the afternoon on September 21st — which is, of course, the beginning of the fall. It’s Central Park, so you’ll see the southwest and southeast corners of Central Park, Central Park South.

The picture on the right is after these two new skyscrapers — actually, more than two — go up at the same time, four p.m., September 21st. Okay, let me see if I can zoom in a little tighter here. All right. Let me see here. Now, there you go. I’ll flick it on, and there we are, ladies and gentlemen. You see that is from the Washington Post story. See those longer, taller shadows on the right? That’s after these skyscrapers go up.

That’s light inequality. You’re looking at it right there. The shadows on the left are what it is now on September 21st at four p.m., but after these buildings go up, look at all of that inequality. Look at all of that unfairness. Look at all those shadows. Central Park South is totally in the shadows on September 21. Actually it is now, too, but we’re not supposed to notice. Light inequality. Now, the fact is, it’s probably the case…

It may not be constantly true, but it’s probably the case that many of the people that buy these condos in these new buildings are not even gonna live there very often. These things are being bought by oligarchs from Russia and new gazillionaires from the ChiComs who need places to park their money. You ever heard of the CEO of Oracle, Larry Ellison? The name ring a bell? Larry Ellison has more money than he knows what to do with, and he is parking it in real estate.

I think he has something like 30 homes, and he maintains ’em all. He bought one really fashionable, old-line mansion in Newport on what was Mansion Row back in the Gilded Age. He keeps it up. He’s never been there. He’s owned it five or 10 years. He’s never been there. I know because my friend lived next door. Well, not in a mansion that big, but I have a friend that lives next door. He’s got places all over. He just bought an island. That’s just what he’s doing to park his money.

That’s what these condos are for. These are for these oligarchs, these Russian head honchos and these ChiComs that just have all this wealth, and they need places to park it. They’ll be there occasionally, but they’re not gonna live there around the clock. That’s another aspect of this. Now, there may be exceptions. There may be media moguls in New York who will buy one of these condos and make it their primary residence, don’t misunderstand.

But these are primarily vehicles for the uber-wealthy to park their money in places other than the stock market: Real estate, which theoretically never, ever loses its value. That’s another thing I couldn’t care less about. The only reason I mention this to you is because we found a new inequality in America. It’s light inequality brought on by skyscrapers for the rich, which is forcing more and more middle class, average middle class, and poor people live in the shadows while we’re gonna be bringing illegals out of ’em.

So the theme today is all of this inequality.

Children can’t do homework because not everybody has a home. You can’t read at bedtime to your kids because not every kid has a parent who can read. Not every kid has a family in Australia. They are not just thinking of banning bedtime reading, they are also planning on doing something about the family in general because the headline of the story: “Is Having a Loving Family an Unfair Advantage?” It’s a dead-serious story here. Don’t think that this is…

I mean, the people that wrote this and quoted in this (and it’s a long story), they’re dead serious about it. This is who the left is. I have been warning people for all of these years this is where we’re headed. One of the defining things about liberals is that when they see inequality, they never seek to resolve it by elevating those at the bottom. They want to punish — in some cases really punitively — people at the top and bring them down. They don’t want independent people. They don’t want self-reliant people.