All Episodes
Previous Next
March 27, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:33
March 27, 2006, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Do you see this uh Zacharius Missawi says uh uh he knew about the plan to fly the planes into the uh World Trade Center in the Pentagon, but he was not part of it.
He's testifying today at his in the penalty phase of his trial.
Greetings, my friend.
Of course he said Bush knew.
Bush knew everything, but No, he didn't say Bush knew, but I wouldn't have been surprised if he did.
Bush knew, Bush lied.
Greetings, folks, welcome back.
Uh Rush Limbaugh.
Happier now than I have been since two months ago.
Uh well, no, happier in the last two months than I can ever remember being.
Uh that according to a caller uh in the previous hour, who wanted me to keep it up.
Uh 800 282-2882 is numbered.
That's Professor Hayeslet's laugh.
800 282-2882 and the uh email address rush at EIB net.com.
We congratulated George Mason for their victory over UConn.
But uh and and Professor Hayes that was upset.
We forgot to watch the game.
We were having so much fun doing other things.
We did watch uh who was it?
You UCLA and who?
Was it George Mason UCLA?
We did watch that.
It was pretty low scoring game.
Um I'm just wondering, did anybody who watched George Mason in UConn did anybody cry after the game?
Did you watch it, Brian?
You didn't watch it.
Los Angeles Times editorial today making their voices heard.
Downtown Los Angeles hosted the most awe-inspiring political rally in recent California history on Saturday, as an estimated half a million people came together peacefully.
The ostensible reason was to protest harsh anti-immigration legislation being considered in Washington, but the rally's broader purpose was to celebrate immigrants and reclaim the initiative in the debate from strident anti-immigrant voices.
Is that really what we uh is that that's the I told you this is going to be the take.
The broader purpose was to celebrate immigrants and reclaim the initiative in the debate from strident anti immigrants.
Nobody that I know is against immigration.
Nobody has anything bad to say about legal immigrants.
We're talking illegal immigrants.
This is flat out amazing.
You have 500,000 people, a vast majority of which are here illegally.
And what they do, they're going out there and they're they're they're they want to portray themselves as a backbone of America, but they're out there shaking their fists at the law.
In this case, proposed legislation in Congress.
Here's the final paragraph of the brilliant editorial in the LA Times.
At the end of the day, the United States needs to bring its immigration policies in line with reality for its own sake, not for the well-being of foreigners.
Not even those earnest marchers at Saturday's rally.
All Americans benefit from the labor of millions of hardworking immigrants, and all Americans see their democracy's moral firmament, not to mention their security erode when the nation willingly relies on an undocumented and even fugitive underclass of uh millions.
Okay, then sounds like they're a little confused here.
The reality is that the borders are way too insecure and something needs to be done about it.
Because as I say that, 500,000 people uh that you saw in Los Angeles on Saturday, that's uh according to best estimates.
That's the number illegals that get in the country every year.
A couple stories here about um one of my all-time favorite U.S. Supreme Court justices, Antonin Scalia.
The first is in the uh Boston Herald today.
And if nothing else, Justice Scalia is a man with guts.
Minutes after receiving the Eucharist at a special mass for lawyers and politicians at Cathedral of the Holy Cross.
Now why would that happen?
Why would why would there be a special mass for lawyers and poly they need more forgiveness?
Do they do they need more uh and I don't look, folks, I come from a family of them, don't misunderstand here.
They need special attention.
Is it that's uh maybe confession takes longer, that's what it is.
Thank you.
Confession takes line, knew there was had to be a reason for this.
You can't tie up the rest of the parishioners if you have the lawyers and politicians showing up at mass.
You'd be there all day.
All right, so uh Justice Scalia was at this special mass, and he had uh special blessing of his own for those who question his impartiality when it comes to matters of church and state.
Justice Scalia is now seventy, by the way.
He said, You know what I say to these people making an obscene gesture under his chin when asked by a herald reporter if he fends a fends off a lot of flack for publicly celebrating his conservative Roman Catholic beliefs.
That's Sicilian, the Italian jurist said after his uh gesture, interpreting uh for the Sopranos challenged.
It's none of their business, continued Scalia, who was the keynote speaker at yesterday's Catholic lawyers guild luncheon.
This is my spiritual life.
I shall lead it the way I like.
None of your business.
I tell I just I just love this guy.
And then there's this.
This is from Newsweek.
It's on the MSNBC website.
The April 3rd, 2006 issue.
The Supreme Court this week will hear arguments in a big case, and that's whether to allow the Bush administration to try Guantanamo detainees in special military tribunals with limited rights for the accused.
But Justice Antonin Scalia has already spoken his mind about some of the issues in the matter during an unpublicized talk on March the 8th at the University of Fieburg, Freeburg in Switzerland.
Scalia dismissed the idea that the detainees have rights under the U.S. Constitution or international conventions.
He added he was astounded at the hypocritical reaction in Europe and uh uh uh elsewhere around the world to uh Club Gitmo.
He said war is war.
It's never been the case that when you captured a combatant, you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts.
Give me a break.
Challenged by one audience member about whether the Gitmo detainees don't have protections under the Geneva or human rights conventions, Scalia shot back.
If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that's where he belongs.
I had a son on that battlefield.
They were shooting at my son.
I'm not about to give this man who was captured in war a full jury trial.
I mean, it's crazy.
Scalia was apparently referring to his son Matthew, who served in the U.S. Army in Iraq.
Scalia did say, though, that he was concerned that there may be no end to this war.
The uh the comments provoked quite an uproar, said Samantha Besson, a member of the Freeburg law faculty who had invited Scalia to give his talk, which was mostly about his originalist interpretation of the Constitution.
She said, I can't recall an instance where I've heard a judge speak so openly about a case that's in front of him without hearing all the arguments.
That's what he's saying.
There are no arguments for this is a purely bogus issue to try to take war powers away from the president of the United States on behalf of a bunch of liberal lawyers and liberal judges.
It is absurd.
It's always been absurd.
The whole notion that captured and by the way, why is this case even at the Supreme Court?
Because some lower courts and liberal judges have just taken it upon themselves to rule against the concept of military military tribunals, meaning we capture somebody on a battlefield and we're going to do our own version of a trial there.
We've military tribunals are part of the history of this country at war.
But we live in such a royal and partisan political age with Bush and conservatism so hated and uh America so hated by so many people that live here over being imperialistic or what have you.
They're trying to take power away from the executive, in this case Bush, by suggesting that uh uh you can't do these war tribunals, military tribunals, because these detainees, these terrorists captured on the battlefield.
Remember, they're captured in the battlefield.
They're not captured at Club Gitmo.
Or they're not captured at Abu Ghrab.
They are taken to both of these places after being captured, and to assume and to assert as lower courts and liberal judges, ACLU types that these people have constitutional rights are and are entitled to a jury and civil trial in the United States is flat out absurd.
It would it it's i i i if this is upheld, it would it would fundamentally be the end of war.
I mean, it would it's it capturing prisoners anyway.
I it's just it's absurd.
But the anti-war movement in this country is so ingrained and growing in the left, and they uh they hate this president so much that they don't care what they wreck in order to get their power back.
And that's been the case for quite a while.
Quick time out.
We'll be back and continue here in just a sec.
Just found out about this today.
I didn't, I I've lived in California for four years, and I never knew there was a Caesar Chavez Day.
I don't know how old it is.
I all I we can't have a Lincoln Day.
We can't have George Washington Day, but California has Caesar Chavez Day.
Well, Hugo Chavez Day, that'll come when he invades us.
Yeah, I folks, I'm telling you, culture's uh they got some red flags uh waving over here about the culture.
Caesar Chavez Day, we can't have an Abe Lincoln Day, we can't have George Washington Day or I I I have to go back to this because I just I can't get over how the left has to be feeling since these protests began on Saturday.
Do you realize that all of the protests they've attempted to mount the last five years have fizzled all the anti-war protests?
They've tried to get people out there protesting the uh the the small size of the minimum wage that tried to get people out there protesting living conditions and nothing and can't get anything done.
They can't motivate their their their believers and followers to get out there in the streets.
But this thing happens, and and you just know that they're looking at this.
Where have we gone wrong?
Why?
They're more concerned about this than the war in Iraq.
See, they've actually got themselves believing that is the big issue with people.
And I know they're watching immigration, but the Democratic Party's vested interest in this is they see a bunch of voters.
And they see the Republican Party uh dividing over this.
So that's why they're not saying anything, like they're not they're not taking a position on on anything if they can help it.
Scotty audio sound bites on this.
Uh well, let me grab a phone call first.
Uh, this guy's been waiting a while.
Matt in uh in Redlands, California.
Hi, what's up?
Hey, Rush, I'd like to compare the growing crisis with illegal immigration to the crisis we had with radical Islamic terrorism prior to 9-11.
Yeah.
Now, prior to 9-11, neither Democrats or really Republicans were really willing to face the problem of radical Islamic terrorism head on.
Just like today.
I mean, the majority of both Republicans and especially Democratic politicians are afraid to face the growing immigration crisis.
And all of these huge marches and all of this debate that's going on in Congress, I mean, ultimately it's irrelevant because we all know at the end of the day, even if Congress passes some immigration reform and Bush signs it, nothing much is going to change with immigration.
Unfortunately, it's going to take a dirty bomb coming across the Mexican border or some bird flu pandemic that uh which is brought by people coming from Mexico before the politicians are forced to close the Mexican border and enforce the existing immigration laws that are already on the books.
What do you think, Rush?
Well, I think it's actually a uh an interesting point.
I think you have a point.
Uh the people dealing with this at the legislative level are not treating it as though they actually see a problem.
They they're reacting to uh constituent anger and doing something as little as possible to uh deal with that and allay the fears of their constituents without actually attacking the issue on a uh on a substantive basis.
I think you've actually stumbled across something.
Uh and if you know if if if something like you suggest happens, a dirty bomb or or some other type of explosive that can be traced to uh that the southern border with with Mexico, then yeah, that that of course we have the port deal all over again.
And if that ever happens, wouldn't that be something?
Here we we we we raised holy hell we went nuts as a country.
We went into a hysterica over the ports deal.
And and and that it where's the same consistency in b in two ways.
When you told your elected officials that you didn't want the ports, the terminals run by a country country from the United Arab Emirates, you got it done in two days.
Maybe a week.
You got well, three weeks.
I mean, you got it done.
You got it done so well that they are still writing legislation about reforming the whole investigation process and committing it to statute rather than just regulatory level.
Uh and and uh you people are still trying to appease and show their constituents that they heard the message and they're gonna get tough about it, and they're gonna let any Arab company or country that's ties to Terrorism run our terminals at any of our ports.
Well, uh you got what is it what is it what is an unsecure or an at-risk port?
It's an open border, is it not?
What do we have?
What are we dealing with here?
And the same people and and and by the way, you talk to the right uh elected officials, they'll tell you they're they're hearing the same intensity on this issue as they heard on the ports deal.
But this one they're just trying to placate you.
They're just trying to placate you and make you think they're doing something about it.
Uh whereas the port deal, oh, they got into gear and they were in a race to see who could be the first to make sure that deal wasn't gonna happen.
Let's listen to some audio sound bites.
Uh, the president in Washington this morning at a naturalization ceremony said this about the immigration debate.
The immigration debate should be conducted in a civil and dignified way.
No one should play on people's fears or try to pit neighbors against each other.
No one should pretend that immigrants are threats to American identity because immigrants have shaped America's identity.
No one should claim that immigrants are a burden on our economy because the work and enterprise of immigrants helps sustain our economy.
We should not give in to pessimism.
If we work together, I'm confident we can meet our duty to fix our immigration system and deliver a bill that protects our people, upholds our laws, and makes our people proud.
Well, what would a Monday be without a soundbite from uh from Senator Kennedy?
He was on what was it, Face the Nation yesterday, Gloria Borger interviewed him.
She said, Let me let me ask you about President Bush, because he says allow these workers to be here temporarily and then send them home.
Do you think you and President Bush can come to some kind of a compromise on this because he disagrees with uh lots of people his own party?
The hard right of the Republican Party is doing everything they possibly can to make it a political issue.
The real question is, will the Senate yield to uh the hard right uh and be distracted with uh in effect criminalizing the twelve million uh individuals in this country.
I'm always interested in our Republican friends because they're talking about family initiatives, and one of their family initiatives is going to mean that uh Cardinal Mahoney from Los Angeles may very well be a felon because as Cardinal Mulhoney says, my uh dedication is to helping the poor, and I don't make a judgment about whether the person is here uh as a green card worker as or as uh legal immigrant.
I want to criminalize Cardinal Mahoney.
That's that that that has been one of the techniques here that they're using to uh discredit the legislation.
Don't forget Prop 187 was about just this very thing.
Californians became fed up with ever-rising taxes in order to pay welfare and health benefits for illegals.
We're not talking about green card people.
We're not talking about green card workers or legal immigrants here.
Nobody is.
Now, I also I need to make a stipulation.
When I say the Republican Party is divided over this, the the grassroots of the parties and the people in the in the Republican Party are not divided over it.
W the the division occurs uh between the grassroots or the base of the Republican Party and the Republican Washington elites.
And the Republicans have their own elites, the blue blood country club types, and they're the ones that uh that that have a differing point of view from the base uh in their party.
Here's Senator Spector on uh this week with George Stephanopoulos.
Stephanopoulos said, Senator Specter, let's begin with you.
This is a very emotionally charged issue.
Probably the most loaded word is amnesty, because the bill that you're talking about would give a path to citizenship or legal status for illegal immigrants.
Congressman Tancredo and his allies say that's thinly disguised amnesty.
It is not amnesty, uh, George, because uh these undocumented aliens are gonna have to pay a fine.
They're gonna have to work for six years uh to uh be on the citizenship path.
Uh they're gonna have to uh go through a criminal uh background check.
They're gonna be checked out very, very carefully.
They're not gonna go ahead of people who have been waiting in line for citizenship.
They're gonna go to the end of the line for people who have uh stayed at home and uh gone through the uh normal channels.
Uh we're facing a difficult situation because we have approximately uh 11 million undocumented aliens here, and we've got to find some way to deal with them.
We have a national security problem, they've not been identified.
What makes you think they're gonna show up and be identified?
What makes you think they're gonna willingly go to the end of the line?
How are we gonna apprehend them to assess the fine?
And with what are they going to pay these fines?
And I I'm sorry, you know, I was one of the original people out of the gate here doubting that there were three million homeless.
Now, I don't know if they're undocumented.
How do we know that there are 11 or 12?
I'm not saying there aren't in this, because I know there are a lot, but 11 or 12 million is a bunch.
How do we know it's that many?
That's one of the figures too big.
George, we can't uh deal with that.
We gotta allow them to stay.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have utilizing talent on loan from God.
Welcome back, folks.
8282-2882.
All right, a question that I have, uh ladies and gentlemen.
How long will it before Zacharius Massawi gets his full scholarship to Yale uh after his sentencing?
Or might he be granted a full scholarship to Yale before he is sentenced?
Yale's got a Taliban student, why not get an al-Qaeda student in there and balance things out?
Maybe Harvard could offer a scholarship to Zuccawi.
Not to Kama Saui.
I want to go back to Senator Specter here.
This bite is literally amazing to me because it's we've heard all of this before.
Anyone remember, I think it was the Simpson Mazzoli Act back in uh the 80s, 1986.
I think it was Simpson Mazzoli.
It was the same thing.
Okay, you're upset about the borders and well, we'll control the borders, we'll come over immigration policy, blah, blah, blah.
And then that immigration policy and the sum total of all of our immigration policies has led us to 500,000 illegals jumping the fence every year.
Here is Senator Spector explaining why his bill is not amnesty.
It is not amnesty, uh, George, because uh these undocumented aliens are gonna have to pay a fine.
They're gonna have to work for six years uh to be on the citizenship path.
Uh they're gonna have to uh go through a criminal uh background check.
They're gonna be checked out very, very carefully.
They're not gonna go ahead of people who have been waiting in line for citizenship.
They're gonna go to the end of the line for people who have uh stayed at home and uh gone through the uh normal channels.
Uh we're facing a difficult situation because we have approximately 11 million undocumented aliens here, and we've got to find some way to deal with them.
We have a national security problem, they've not been identified.
Right.
Uh just one more point on this 11 million business.
You know, this number gets bandied around and yet they're undocumented.
So who how do we know this?
I mean, how do we really know it?
The r when when when the and now the number's getting close to 12 million, by the way.
So if it is that high, eleven or twelve million, even if it isn't, you put that message out there, and that becomes the basis on which you form the the argument, well, we we can't deport them.
I'm crying out loud, eleven million?
Can't do that.
We can't we uh we gotta find a way to deal with these people.
That that sets up the premise of accepting all of these additional measures and steps after that.
But the question, well, why if they're illegal, why can't you deport them?
Well, you couldn't round them all up.
How would we do it?
Uh put them on airplanes, well we do.
How do we make sure they stay out?
That's probably the best question.
How do we make sure they stay deported once we deport them?
Just get back in.
But beyond that, they would say, well, many of these people are doing work.
The American people refuse to do, and we need these jobs filled by somebody, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
But the whole notion here that eleven or twelve million are in the country forms the basis of, hey, well, we can't do anything about that.
We've got to do something.
We can't get rid of them.
There's way too many people.
As I listen here to uh Senator Specter, keep in mind Senator Spector has spent months Attacking the president's terrorist intercept program, this NSA spying program.
He thinks it's illegal.
He wants hearings.
He wants to ditch this program because he said it violated a federal law.
Okay.
He thinks it violates a federal law.
Meanwhile, here he is, you just heard him making excuse after excuse for those who come to our country illegally.
So I guess the president has to be held to a different standard when it comes to federal law than these people.
And he admits that it's a national security problem, but we got to do something about it, but he wants to stop the program that helps us identify who might be plotting events in this country from afar, and and wants to tie our hands in that national security effort, but in this case, acknowledges the national security problem, but doesn't seem to really have a plan to deal with it.
I mean, isn't he chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee?
I ask that rhetorically because as host, I know that he is.
Isn't he supposed to help ensure that the laws that Congress has passed are enforced by the executive branch?
Isn't that that's one of the oversights of the Judiciary Committee?
But for some reason, we can't enforce this.
Just too many people here, Rush.
Nobody has any idea how to enforce any proposal allowing for amnesty, even though they say it's not amnesty.
It is.
You know, we got Simpson-Mazzoli, I think it was, the same bill of goods in that piece of legislation that were being sold here.
Every 20 years or so, something happens in this issue and it gets all roiled out there, and people get all bent out of shape about it.
And so Congress moves to placate everybody.
And in the in the process of placating everybody, they say, All right, this time we're serious.
We are really serious.
We are this, we're gonna really enforce the border.
We're really gonna do it.
I mean, we are going to we're I mean, we we're not joking around anymore.
We mean it.
We're gonna get tough.
We gotta finally get into gear.
And they want you to think that they're really getting serious about it.
We're gonna enforce the border.
We just have to give amnesty to uh millions of illegal immigration immigrants.
Uh have can anybody cite for me anything Senator Spector has done that would illustrate his history effort to enforce the border before?
Obviously not.
This is why we have 500,000 coming here every year illegally.
He's been in Congress twenty-six years, he's in charge of writing these laws, he's chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Oversight grants him the responsibility of uh uh uh making sure that the federal law that Congress passes is not uh jimmied with by the executive branch or by anybody else.
It's just I don't know, and then you go back to these various things.
How are we gonna get them to sign up?
How are we gonna get them to register?
How are we gonna get them to pay the fine?
What are they gonna pay the fine with?
How do we get them to the back of the line?
How do we know who they are?
What are we gonna do?
Put out a PSA, say okay, every illegal you got until noon Friday or sundown Monday to show up, or else.
Or else what?
Well, we're gonna send Wyatt ERP after.
What are we gonna do?
If they don't show up, how are we gonna know they don't show up?
We don't know who they are.
That's one of the things they tell us that well, we can't deport them and we don't even know who they are.
Let's go to Tom Tancredo.
He was on this week with Stephanopoulos as well, and uh, after Senator Spector's answer that you just heard, Stephanopoulos said, There you go, Congressman Tancredo.
Senator Spector says it's not amnesty.
The penalty that is supposed to be applied to that under the law that we have today is deportation.
If you say you can be here, you can do that, you can come across the border without our permission, and you will be able to stay.
And yes, there will be some you know uh a little fine or whatever.
That's it's not deportation, it is amnesty.
And and what it does is send a horrible message.
It's a slap in the face to every single person who has done it the right way, and to everybody who's waiting out there to do it the right way.
It's bad policy for the Republican Party.
Here is uh Stephanopoulos following up.
So you're saying that uh all 11 million or so undocumented aliens in the country right now should be deported.
We just go after them, round them up and send them home.
Let's try this.
Let's try enforcing the law.
We don't actually even need another law on the books.
We don't need Senator Spectors, we don't need any that I have pr I have uh introduced.
No law is necessary if we actually enforce the ones we have on the books today.
Because one of those laws that would go a long way towards solving this problem, by the way, if you enforced it, is the law against employers hiring people who are here illegally.
If you actually began to enforce that, then you would see that millions of people will return home to their countries of origin voluntarily, because frankly, there's nothing else to do.
If you can't get a job in this country, and if you are you can't get social service benefits, you go home.
Who says they won't get social service benefits?
There is another option in this country.
It's called the the the hammock.
People refer to it as the safety net.
I refer to it as a hammock.
People get in the hammock and lay around, drink iced tea, maybe sip of pina colada now and then, and think they're in the safety net.
But I understand his point.
We don't need new laws.
That's and that's probably the best point that's out there.
We don't need new laws.
We've just got a bunch of people who are trying to placate you by getting tough with these new laws to deal with these supposedly new developments that have got you upset.
But uh again, I'm telling you the attitude in in uh in Washington, both parties among the elites is okay, the natives are restless out there, meaning you.
The Hoy Poloy is getting all upset.
We gotta make sure that they think we're serious about it.
So we'll come up with some blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and show them that we really, really mean it this time, just like we did about uh twenty years ago.
More tancrato.
Finally, Stephanopoulos says, Congressman Tancredo Hillary Clinton basically says your approach is unchristian.
I am not really surprised that Hillary Clinton doesn't know the first thing about the Bible.
Her impression, her analysis, her interpretation of both the law and the Bible are certainly wrong, to say the least.
This has nothing to do, the the bill we passed out of the House has nothing to do with criminalizing good Samaritans.
Nobody is talking about prosecuting, nor have we ever prosecuted under the law while it was in existence, anyone for providing, you know, soup at a soup kitchen or a place of rest for somebody who turns out to be an illegal alien.
That is ridiculous.
Amen.
Back in just a second, folks.
Don't vanish.
A man, a legend, a way of life.
Rush Limboy, your host for life, not retiring till every American agrees with me.
And by the way, welcome to those of you watching on the Ditto Cam today.
It's been up and running for the entire program, and barring some embarrassing occurrence that will remain on.
Such an occurrence has never happened.
But I always hold out the possibility in case we have to go to the bars like that.
If you ever if you see that, uh you know that something embarrassing is happening, and it I only hope I have time to get to the bars if such an event does.
I don't expect it, you but you just never know.
800 282882 is a number if you'd like to be on the program.
Uh I'm sure that you have noticed uh in the sound bites that we've been playing today, the questions from the uh uh uh interviewers like Stephanopoulos and I've been uh reading to you to set up the answers.
Is this term undocumented aliens?
And it's not new, but it's it's being used uh more and more.
And it's the politically correct term.
Why we can't hurt these people's feelings, Rush.
You understand?
They're just they're the backbone of America.
They're out there trying to take the jobs that Americans won't do because they're getting too uppity.
We couldn't get along with others.
Insult these people.
They've chosen our country.
Of all countries in the world to come, they've chosen ours.
They're not illegal.
Why humiliate them?
Call them undocumented aliens.
Well, let's call people like uh Jesse James and Willie Sutton undocumented bank withdrawers.
And of course, let's call the NSA foreign surveillance program undocumented wiretaps.
Just so we don't hurt anybody's feelings.
But no, when you're talking about the president's domestic spying program, illegal wiretaps.
You will never hear anything to uh mask it or to soften it.
What do we have uh you have an undocumented uh car driver doesn't have a driver's license?
It's not illegally driving a because it's an undocumented driver.
Uh somebody is not paying taxes, like some of you people in Rio Linda, undocumented taxpayers.
I mean undocumented pilots, the terrorists, the 9-11 hijack.
Exactly right, undocumented pilots, not terrorists.
Who do we think we are judging these people the way that we do?
Now let's go back to Senator Specter here for just a second.
Because this 12 million figure, this 11 million figure, that forms the basis for we can't do anything, we can't deport them.
Why, that's way too many people.
What are we gonna do?
How are we gonna find them?
Why are we gonna deport them?
Where are we gonna send them?
So that is used as the basis.
Okay, we have to accept that they're here and they're not leaving.
Now what do we do?
Well, let's apply that to a number of other national efforts.
The war on drugs.
Well, we can't put every pot smoker in in in jail, so why have a war on drugs, right?
War on poverty, a demonstrable failure.
No question it's a failure.
We can't end poverty for everybody, so why have it?
Why have the war on poverty?
The war on terrorism.
I hear people say all the time, we're never gonna stop all these terrorists.
Okay, so why even have the war on terrorism?
This is the this is the the specter position on illegal immigration.
So it would have to hold true for the rest if they're gonna be intellectually consistent.
We can't get rid of these people.
Well, then okay, uh then why even worry about the illegal immigration?
And I got another question for Senator Specter and uh and his supporters.
If an illegal immigrant breaks the new law that you propose, will you deport him or her?
What if it runs in the millions of illegals who won't comply?
What will you do with them, Senator Specter, now that you've stated that we can't deport all of these people?
If we can't round them up, and if they don't willingly go to the end of the line, if they don't willingly identify themselves, they don't willingly pay the fine, then what do we do?
We have a toothless law.
What do we do?
I don't know what to prevent.
Well, we've got a fine, Senator Specter.
We've got a modest fine.
What are they going to pay the fine with?
So what this is adding up to, folks, is that the people who support Senator Spector's legislation, Senator Spector himself are arguing that we cannot enforce existing law.
We simply can't.
It's too unmanageable now.
And that that of course means ultimately deportation.
If we can't do that, then how would we enforce any new law that he or Senator McCain or Senator Kennedy will come up with?
When you when you just analyze this intellectually, it makes no sense whatsoever and it just establishes what's going on here as a bunch of pandering and placating.
And imagine how you'd have felt if they did this with the port deal.
The equivalent to the port deal would be that they're talking tough and they're going to do the 45 days and they hear you.
But at the end of the day, you know what?
So many ports, so many terminals are owned by so many foreign countries.
We can't single out these poor nice allies from the United Arab Emirates.
Well, we gave it a good look-see, America.
That's what they're doing with you on this immigration bill.
With the port deal, they heard you, and they acted with immigration, they're trying to make you think they're doing something about it.
But whatever they're going to come up with is not going to have any more teeth in it than what we already have.
And if the if if these people don't voluntarily comply with this new law, how are we going to find them anyway?
And then what are we going to do?
Quick timeout.
I've got two sound bites off.
I'll have to save them for the next hour, but Hurricane Katrina Vandenhovel weighed in on the what show was shift.
St Stephanopoul's show.
I saw the other day the ratings for that show are coming up, and I playing these sound bites, I I can't understand how.
Well, I know coming up to what, but they're coming up.
They're kind of they didn't have much room to go any lower, but they still are coming up.
Or maybe it was a spin, I don't know, but his little headline.
Stephanopoulos show gaining traction in recent weeks.
You got me.
Back in just a second, folks.
Stay with me.
You know Me by now, friends.
I don't just rant and complain and moan.
I look for solutions.
And I've I've I've I've had a brainstorm of an idea here with the the logic I'm hearing from our elected officials on why we can't really do anything about the illegal immigration problem.
That's what they're telling us.
We can't really do anything about it.
Well, what else do we not like that we would like to fix?
But they say they can't do anything about it, but we could force them to fix it our way.
That's the brainstorm that I have had.
▲
Export Selection