All Episodes
Previous Next
April 13, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:37
April 13, 2006, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ha, how are you?
Greetings, my friends, and welcome back.
Great to have you with us the award-winning, thrill-packed, ever-exciting, increasingly popular, growing by leaps and bounds, dominant excellence in broadcasting network of the Rush Limbaugh program.
Our phone number, if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882, the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
Let me tell you why I brought up this Masawi business, because there's a larger lesson to learn here, and it is what I have been focused on.
It is at his sentencing that the issue of whether he can be put to death for not telling us what he knew came up.
That's what some people are arguing.
The real issue is whether he is responsible for the outcome of his conspiracy.
The government is arguing to bolster their case that if he'd spoken up, if he'd have just told us, that this could have been stopped.
Now, on the face of it, cool.
But what does this say about our government back then?
Now, this is August of 2001 when all this has happened.
We tracked this guy down.
We found he was going to flight school, didn't care about learning to take a plane off the ground or land one.
All he wanted to learn how to fly one.
Well, that caused red flags.
The real issue to me is we had this guy dead to rights.
We had his computer, but we couldn't search his computer.
The probable cause requirement was not met.
You see, the Libs demand that we follow the FISA court.
We followed the FISA court in this case, and look what happened.
And before you start blaming Bush and all this, these are Clinton-era Justice Department rules.
We're back to this wall that Jamie Gorellik built.
And it was because of that wall we couldn't share data from one agency, such as the FBI, to another agency, the CIA, because the Clintons were prosecuting all these sorts of things in court.
Grand jury testimony, that by law is secret.
Nobody can know what it is, unless you're reporters for the San Francisco Chronicle.
It's a sports grand jury and they blab somewhere.
But that's not supposed to happen.
We had the guy dead to rights.
We had his computer.
We have since looked at the computer.
He had the names of all the other hijackers.
He had the name of the paymaster.
He had the email address and the phone number of the paymaster.
He was part of it.
The only thing I don't think that was on his computer was the date.
I'm not sure.
I don't think he knew what the date was, but he knew the targets.
And it was right at our fingertips, but we couldn't find it.
We couldn't legally go there because of the wall.
The Justice Department under Clinton, before you said, what, Rush, this is 2001.
This is Bush.
Yeah, this is Bush's eighth month in office after this contentious recount.
They still haven't got all of his cabinet members confirmed by then.
They're still arguing over Ashcroft.
The place is a mess.
It's the same old thing.
Whenever a Democrat ends up in the White House, a Republican has to be elected at some point to clean the mess up.
And so Bush was cleaning the mess up after 9-11.
The Patriot Act was established.
It was voted into law and signed.
The Patriot Act got rid of the wall.
The NSA intercept program got rid of the bureaucratic and untimely process that prevented us from acting quickly with Masawi.
And now Bush is attacked for fixing the problem.
Bush, and this is the larger issue here with this whole Masawi episode.
The idea that our government, this is embarrassing to me, that our government is going to say, well, he didn't tell us.
Name for me one conspirator who comes forward before the act and says, hey, guess what's going to happen?
It might happen if we find out who they are and find ways to pressure them and so forth.
I'm sure it happens in rare cases, but to make it almost an act of the law and policy.
Well, he didn't tell us.
Well, what are you doing?
Well, you're sitting there, your hands are tied because you've got Clinton-era Justice Department rules that don't let you look at the guy's computer because the probable cause thing wasn't.
And here's the probable cause requirement wasn't met.
Colleen Rowley, the famed whistleblower from Minneapolis, a Time magazine woman of the year, I think she was, or at least she ended up on the cover.
She said, I got this computer.
I want to find out what's on it.
Nope, you can't.
The FBI back in Washington said, you can't.
What's the crime?
You've got a guy with a computer taking flying lessons.
Where's the crime?
Well, but what he's doing in these flying lessons, we've got, plus with the thing from Phoenix, we had a memo from Phoenix about things that were going on out there from another FBI office, but none of these could be used.
None of these could be used.
We had terrorist acts all during the 90s, starting in 93 with the World Trade Center.
And we had the embassy bombings in Africa.
We had a bunch of acts of terrorism against the United States.
The Clinton administration was doing diddly squat about it.
Clinton administration was offered bin Laden two or three times by Sudan.
I don't think we have a reason to hold a guy.
I don't want to deal with this.
I don't want to deal with it.
I want to make people think I'm dealing with this, but I don't want to deal with it because I keep my approval numbers up there at 65% for my legacy.
Okay, so we get hit on 9-11.
We find out later that we had the guy in custody who knew exactly what was going to happen, just didn't know when.
Couldn't do anything about it because he wouldn't tell us.
Now, how embarrassing is that?
In other words, the policy of our government was: in order to prevent acts like this, the people that are going to do it have to tell us in advance and play fair.
Well, I'm sorry.
In the world of crime and terrorism, it simply doesn't work that way.
Now, after it happens, Bush goes in: okay, we've got to get rid of this stupid wall and we're going to do the Patriot Act.
We're going to be able to find these kinds of things out now that we have had happened what happened, 9-11.
And the Democrats have been, they got on board the Patriot Act at first, and everybody was rah-rah.
But for the past three years, they've been trying to destroy Bush for fixing the problem.
The NSA intelligence program, foreign surveillance.
They're trying to portray it as domestic spying.
These people, literally, folks, cannot be trusted.
And next time a Democrat's elected, it's going to happen.
Next time a Democrat's elected, the military is going to go to hell.
We're going to find ourselves in all kinds of problems around the world, and a Republican is going to go in there and have to fix it.
And the Democrats are going to try to destroy him for fixing it.
And the cycle just ends up being repeated until enough of the American people, and this is happening, are educated and informed and understand exactly what this cycle is.
And when enough of them learn exactly who the Democratic Party is, what the Democratic Party is, who's a member, and who they own their allegiance to, then their permanent minority status will be achieved.
But that's going to take some time.
But I still think it can happen.
We're in the process of making it happen.
Yes, I'm optimistic.
I'm always optimistic.
You would be too if you were me.
I mean, I'm even optimistic in the face of idiocy like this.
This is from live science using, yeah, the Conyer stuff.
I'll do it in the next segment, I promise.
Sturdley's in there chomping at the bit to hear the Conyer stuff.
Using several models that project habitat changes, migration capabilities of various species and related extinctions in 25 hotspots, scientists predict that a quarter of the world's plant and vertebrate animal species will face extinction by 2050.
Biodiversity, hotspots, some of the richest and most threatened biological pools on earth.
A report detailing all this was released today.
In the most dramatic of the scenarios, for which carbon dioxide levels grow to double that of today's levels, the models forecasted a potential loss of 56,000 plant species, 3,700 vertebrate species in these hotspots.
This is, well, I guess this was done at the University of Toronto.
So we got a quarter of the species gone by 2050.
It's all going to be due to global warming.
I mean, how many kittens are going to die?
How many bunnies, how many, what, what, what, this is just, people, I tell you, it is just stunning to watch.
Pat Michaels had a little speech or article the other day, and he did a study of media reporting on global warming.
For every one story that discounts the conventional wisdom, there are 15 who promote it.
So the ratio is 15.
We're doomed stories to one.
Hey, wait a minute.
There may be some problems with this.
15 to 1 ratio.
It's a journalism crusade.
It's a drive-by media crusade to get you thinking you are destroying the planet.
Quick timeout, folks.
The John Conyers tapes coming up.
You see, where the families of the lacrosse players at Duke University have brought in Uncle Bob.
Uncle Bob helped to defend President Clinton against charges of sexual harassment by Paula Jones.
By the way, on this program, we don't say harassment, as the journalistic style book now requires.
We say harassment because that's the way the word was originally intended to be pronounced.
Well, Uncle Bob's been, he's been, it's interesting, he's been hired by the families to help manage the distorted media image.
He's not, I don't yet know that he's going to be, I don't know they can afford him as a billable hour lawyer.
I don't know.
But clearly, he may be hired as a defense lawyer if charges are brought.
But right now, he's been hired to help manage the distorted media image that has developed around the case.
People think the case is beginning to unravel.
Well, there's some people that would think that hiring Uncle Bob makes him look guilty because we all know Clinton was guilty.
So, yeah, it's a good point.
Let me get on this Conyers business because if I don't, I'm going to keep pushing it back and people are going to say that I'm tricking them.
I'm teasing them when I'm not.
Two former staff members, John Conyers, D. Michigan, said the longtime Detroit congressman made him babysit his children, run errands, and work on political campaigns while they were on his congressional payroll.
CNN has an investigative unit, and they went after this.
We first heard about this story and told you about it two months ago because you, as a regular tuner-inner, are on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
So the investigative correspondent is Drew Griffin, did a story on Conyers, the second most senior member of Congress, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.
Here is former legal advisor Sidney Rooks talking about her experience as Conyers babysitter.
Several times he just brought them into my office and said, I'll be back later.
Later could be a few minutes.
Later could be hours.
Later could be frantically calling around trying to find him because it was now eight or nine o'clock or later in the evening and not knowing what to do with the children.
It was common.
It was ubiquitous.
And it wasn't just me.
I wasn't the only person who got stuck with the kids for the day.
I wasn't the only person who had to take the boys to the bathroom, change a diaper or anything like that.
We would also take them to doctor's appointments, other things too.
If they had to go, they had to go.
Somebody had to take them.
And there was no reimbursement for gasoline or anything like that.
Did you feel like a servant?
Like a house servant?
Many times, I frankly did, yes.
Yes, well, I'm not surprised.
And then the correspondent spoke to formerly deputy chief of staff for Conyers.
Name is Dina Marr.
And she said this about babysitting his kids.
He handed me the keys to his car and his house and said, take care of my child, Carl, and everything.
Make sure, in other words, I had to stay at the house and take care of him.
And that was for several weeks.
Now, this is not supposed to happen.
And they filed ethics complaints, these two women have against Conyers.
Now, this is really gutsy for CNN, and I don't know what's happening over there, but their investigative correspondent caught up with Conyers on Capitol Hill to ask him about this, said to him, Congressman Conyers, I'm Drew Griffin with CNN.
Hello, Drew.
I've been trying to meet you for several weeks now to discuss these allegations by your former staff members.
Ethics violations.
Just a minute, sir.
I've been told not to discuss them because we haven't examined them and I have an attorney.
Well, can I just ask you if you have required your staff members to babysit your children?
No, no.
Look.
Is that not?
May I say, I told you I could not discuss it.
That's like a yes or no question.
Have you required your staff to babysit your children?
And at one point, babysit your children for six weeks.
Oh, come on.
Now, you can see the reporter's a little timid doing this.
It still wasn't the same as if it had been a Republican.
But it still went after him.
Still went after Conyers.
The House Ethics Committee does have the power to vote on starting an ethics investigation against members of Congress.
In the case of Conyers, it hasn't yet happened.
CNN made several attempts recently to reach Conyers to answer these allegations.
Last week, he declined to answer questions about duties assigned to the staff.
CNN also called his lawyer, Stanley Brand.
Their calls were not returned.
The employees say that they use congressional staff time to work on local elections in Michigan, including a campaign for Conyers' wife, Monica, who is the Detroit City Council's president pro tem.
So this is interesting in that now that it's out there, it makes it even tougher for the Democrats to move forward with their culture of corruption.
So I wonder what I saw this on their webpage at CNN.
I said, this is two months old.
But at least they followed it up.
Nobody else, other than where it first appeared in the Hill, Capitol Hill newspaper, and this program, did it get discussed nationally.
I mean, there might have been others, but in terms of the drive-by media, this is the first.
By the way, in the case of Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington released an ethics complaint yesterday against Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, charging that he played a role in a conspiracy and bribery scheme and misused federal resources in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, is one of a few congressional Democrats who've come under fire lately from misconduct charges.
Story also mentions Conyers and his staff being treated like personal gophers, federal investigators looking into the finances of Democrat Congressman Alan Mollahan, West Virginia.
Story said that he helped steer $178 million in federal money to nonprofit groups, and his net worth is now up to $11.4 million on a salary of around $165.
Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, is the subject of an ongoing investigation in which his former aide Brett Pfeffer pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery of a public official and aiding and abetting such bribery.
And it also talks about the things that we learned at Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, commandeering National Guard troops and vehicles to go to his house to remove a microwave-sized box and other items while there were still citizens needing to be literally saved.
The first vehicle that Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana commandeered, got stuck in the mud outside his home.
They had to bring in another one to get him out and his box, whatever was in it.
Then we learned later that there was cash.
He had stored the FBI alleges that he had stored cash for his bribery scheme in a freezer, which you've heard the term cold hard cash.
I mean, it makes a perfect place to hide your cash.
Here's Carl in Munster, Indiana.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hi, Rush.
Great to be able to talk with you.
Thank you.
That's my point.
I think that the Iraq war is eclipsing the overall good economic news.
By the way, sustained good economic news.
We've had good overall job creation numbers, relatively low unemployment.
But because the Iraq war is eclipsing the news, I think that the Republicans are hugely vulnerable and disgruntled Republicans will stay away from the 2006 or 2008 elections and give power back to the Democrats.
And obviously, the main concern in all of that is that once the Dems reassume power, forget about sustaining tax cuts.
They'll be sunsetted, reduced.
And the big thing, potentially even more expensive, bigger, comprehensive, pre-health plans that have costs that make the current drug plan look cheap.
Yes, but see, if you can figure this out, a lot of other people can, and it will be enough to get them to the polls.
There's a stark enough difference, even with these incompetent Republicans, between them and the Democrats, to incite enough fear in the Republican base.
You wait, wait till we get closer to the election.
Don't go negative on me.
Don't go pessimistic on me now.
The tax cuts being made permanent, national security, all these things are going to come to the forefront.
And while there may be some upset, I'll give you a little economic statistic.
I don't expect it to mollify anybody.
I found this out today.
Do you know with all of this spending, with all this spending that we're so upset about, that the federal spending as a percentage of gross domestic product is lower today than it was in 1984?
When Ronald Reagan won a 49-state landslide over Walter F. Mondo, it's the percentage of GDP federal spending is less than it was in 1984.
It just means the economy is growing like gadgets out there.
We will continue in mere moments.
Now, remember out there, my friends, Monday is tax day.
Please pay your taxes.
12 million illegal aliens are depending on you.
Try this.
U.S. Representative Patrick Kennedy was hit in the face with a hammer when an entrepreneur demonstrating shock absorption accidentally set the hammer's head flying at Kennedy's mouth.
Patrick Kennedy received six stitches in his bottom lip after the incident yesterday during an economic development meeting, said his spokeswoman.
The entrepreneur Matt Creasel of Wisconsin produces a shock-absorbing gel used as sports shoe inserts, tennis rackets, and horse saddles.
He was hitting some gel with a hammer to demonstrate how it reduces vibration when a hammer's head flew off.
At Congressman's a Class Act, he didn't make a fuss, said Michael McMahon, the executive director of the Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation, who attended the meeting.
Kennedy was bleeding, so the staff took him to Memorial Hospital in Pawtucket, where he got the stitches.
Had a killer hammer out there.
Rep Kennedy hit in mouth by hammer.
Well, that's the headline.
I mean, and then get this.
A Boulder woman, Boulder, Colorado woman, was out of jail yesterday after being locked up over the weekend for installing a new garage door.
The Boulder Daily Camera reported in its Thursday editions that Megan Forbes, I've always loved that name, Megan, always have, was arrested and taken to jail on Sunday for failing to show up on a court summons that she received for replacing her original garage door with a new one.
The problem was that Forbes' home is in the history Mapleton Hill area, the historical Mapleton Hill area, and replacing the original garage door at her 106-year-old home required a landmark alteration certificate from the city, and she didn't get one.
She was getting ready for church on Sunday when a Boulder police officer knocked on her door, arrested her, and took her to jail.
Now, how many illegal aliens do you think crossed the border during this arrest?
How many illegal aliens crossed the border and moved into the southern states, border states of the United States, while Megan Forbes was being shackled and handcuffed, arrested and taken to the local jail for not getting a landmark alteration certificate from the city of Boulder for her new garage door?
You remember Walter Mondo?
We spoke of this earlier this year.
Mondo, 1984, a Democratic National Convention, promised in his acceptance speech to raise everybody's taxes.
Well, it's happened here again.
Phil Angelitis, who, well, I know of, I think I've met him a couple of times, he's Sacramento.
He's running for office out in California.
And he's urging Democrats to vote for him over his opponent, Steve Westling.
He's running for governor in the Democratic primaries, urging Democrats to vote for him over his opponent, Steve Wesley, because he will raise their taxes higher than the other Democrat.
Republicans can only hope that Angelitis wins.
If he does, Republicans can reprise, reprise some of Wesley's rebuttals.
Angelitis has never seen a tax hike he didn't like, Wesley said, adding that only in California would you have a candidate is going out that far to endorse taxes.
Now, this generally happens when Democrats think that they're on the verge of winning.
This is the second time where I've actually known a Democrat to actually promise what they're going to do: raise taxes.
And it didn't help Mondal, and it probably, I don't know what in California anymore, that state's lost.
I don't know.
I don't know what will happen to Angelitas.
Angelitis, very, very, very wealthy man, by the way.
I should point out to you.
See this story in the Daily Mail in the UK?
Right up my alley?
Happiness is working for yourself.
Now, you people have heard me preach this sermon for 17, 16 years on this program.
The job may be long on hours and it may be short on pay at first, but working for yourself will make you much happier than those employed by others, according to research.
People who run their own businesses have such flexibility and independence that they enjoy far greater job satisfaction, according to the claims experts.
They don't need an expert.
You just need the people who do the job.
They're the experts, not the analysts for crying out loud.
Life is sweeter for those working for themselves, according to the survey.
The self-employed work longer hours for lower wages than their wage slave counterparts.
Scientists found entrepreneurs put up with longer hours because they were worried about how much money they would have in the future.
And they have to meet payroll, by the way.
The report by academics at the University of Durham also discovered numbers of female entrepreneurs have not increased since the 1990s.
Professor Simon Parker said young businessmen and women were more likely to take risks in new markets than established entrepreneurs were.
Self-employed workers were still successful in their 60s, were less likely to retire.
We found that greater or potentially greater earnings around retirement age decreases the probability of retirement of the self-employed.
Well, this only makes common sense.
This is Andrew of Philadelphia.
Great to have you on the program.
Welcome.
Rush.
Yes, sir.
Hey, it's great to finally talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
Been waiting a while.
I think I shocked you, but are you ready?
You want me to go to somebody else?
Yeah, yeah, I'm ready.
Okay.
I'm ready.
I was talking to your cold screener about how the situation in Iran is really fueled by rhetoric, because I think the revolution is dying.
You think the Iranian revolution?
The revolution?
The Islamic Revolution in Iran is dying?
Yes.
On what basis do you think this?
Well, I think the whole reason for nuclear development is to fuel American rhetoric in return to secure the clerics' position in Iran.
Well, now, it's interesting you say that because there are some people who have advanced this theory, but it's not based on the Islamic revolution failing.
It is on their economy going south.
The economy in Iran is, they're devoting so many resources to Mahmoud's fantasy here of becoming a member of a nuclear club that the Iranian economy, which does not feature freedom and it does not feature entrepreneurism, it's a typical closed state.
It's a typical tyrannical dictatorship run by the mullahs.
And Mahmoud, Mahmoud is actually, if you want to know the truth about Mahmoud, Mahmood is just the face of the government.
I mean, he was, quote-unquote, elected after Khomeini informed the public what would happen to them if they didn't elect him.
And so he is out there rattling cages and rattling sabers.
But I don't think the Islamic revolution is fading away at all.
That sounds like Zbigniew Brzezinski.
I think they've got an economic problem.
Now, there is, and there has been for a while.
There are people in this country very frustrated.
We're not doing more to promote it.
There is a sizable percentage of the Iranian population which wants nothing to do with the Iranian government as it is, but they're suppressed and they're tyrannized.
They're not being promoted that we know of with typical, you know, way like Radio Free Europe, the Voice of America, Radio Marty, these kinds of things.
But it's all sweetness and light, and there's no question that the Iranians' saber-rattling on nukes is designed to distract their own population.
And this big ceremony they had announcing their enrichment of uranium three and a half, that was clearly designed to instill national pride because they basically say, okay, look, people of Iran, we know we live in the Stone Age here, but look, we're coming out of the caves because we just enriched uranium.
It's supposed to make the Iranian population feel proud that they are now part of the world's power base, of course.
There's no question this is going on.
But at the same time, the Iranians have been terror masters for years, and this Mahmoud guy is genuinely unstable.
I don't know that we can afford, given recent history, to sit back and assume that they're imploding and that we just sit around and let them implode.
We can maybe help to bring about such an implosion.
It's going to involve Russia and perhaps China, as I mentioned earlier.
David and Fort Worth, I'm glad to have you on the program.
Welcome.
Hi, Rush.
Hi.
Major 50,000-watt blowtorch dittos from the big BAP here in David.
Thank you, Santa.
It's great to have you with us, sir.
Looking forward to your visit to our fair community.
Got my tickets and ready to see you at the Nokia.
Yeah, be out there on May the 11th.
That is correct, sir.
Didn't bother announcing it on this program because I knew it would sell out in two minutes once BAP announced it.
Well, they offered tickets to the BAP Listeners Club first, and I'll be surprised if there's an empty seat within miles of that place.
There won't be.
There never is.
Rush, my comment was, you know, with this illegal immigration and these people being so hardworking and so underpaid, I think the next step for the Dems is going to be a mandatory minimum wage for illegal alien workers.
What are your thoughts on that?
How are we going to enforce it?
How are we going to enforce this?
Because the businesses today that hire them are already breaking the law, but we don't track them down.
Well, I figure it'll be a badge of honor now that you show up, you announce yourself as an illegal, and you'll get a raise for crying out loud.
Except the problem is that's never going to happen.
The reason isn't going to happen because the reason that businesses hire them is because they get them at under minimum wage.
And if the Democrat, if a Democrat, yeah, that's what the attraction is.
And look, it's not entirely these businesses' fault.
You have to understand, it's a, I don't know what percentage 50-50 deal here.
True.
You have businesses.
Every business wants to keep its costs down and its profit margin up.
That's capitalism.
It's not a sin.
And it all works out because there's competition for jobs.
The more educated you are and the more talented you are, the greater bargaining power you're going to have.
The less education, the less preparation, the less skill and talent, you're up creek.
And there are certain businesses that don't need highly skilled.
They need physically dominated labor force.
And so they love the fact that they can get these people at bargain basement wages with no benefits, by the way, that all the rest of us end up subsidizing.
But one thing here, and I'm not defending them on the basis of breaking the law, but there are so many regulations that the federal bureaucracy has posed, imposed on American businesses, that this is one of the natural release valves.
When it's made available to you, as a business, you might take the risk.
If the cost of doing business in meeting all of the OSHA and all of the FEMA and whatever, take your acronym, the affirmative action requirements, all of this bureaucratic gunk.
After a while, people throw up their hands and say, screw this.
And you go to the point of least resistance.
And in this case, it happens to be the illegals.
So, bottom line is, you pass this minimum wage increase for illegals, and the business community that hires them is going to say, well, screw this, and they're not going to hire them.
And then where are they?
That sort of uncovers one of the dark little secrets here.
By the way, we're getting stories of all these illegals being fired for leaving work and attending the rally.
There were 15 of them fired in Detroit on Tuesday for going to a rally.
And in Monroe, Washington, a Monroe-based home painting contractor fired more than a quarter of its employees, all of them Latino, a day after the painters left work two hours early to attend Monday's immigration rally in downtown Seattle.
A company, Latala Enterprises, said that fired workers agree.
The workers told the foreman of their desire to attend the rally.
The two sides said the workers left early and their departure did not delay the schedule of a painting job in a subdivision.
But the two sides don't agree on facts critical to determining whether what the workers did amounted to insubordination and abandoning their jobs, as the company claimed in dismissing them.
The company also said 17 were fired.
The union said 19.
The workers' union filed a grievance yesterday after the company refused to reinstate them.
That means the workers won't get their jobs back for several weeks, if ever.
So, and of course, you knew this was going to happen.
I predicted that this, in fact, this was happening when I said it was happening.
Migrants flock across U.S. border, just like in 1986 when the talk then was of amnesty at a shelter of overflowing migrants in Nogales, Mexico.
Francisco Ramirez nursed muscle sore from trekking through the Arizona desert, a trip that failed when his wife didn't have the strength to go on.
He said the couple would rest for a few days and try again, a plan echoed by dozens there.
The shelter's manager said he has not seen such a rush of migrants since 86 when the United States allowed 2.6 million illegal residents to get American citizenship.
So I knew it.
The numbers coming across the border are just, they're increasing at a rate people haven't seen in 20 years because they know amnesty awaits them.
Well, the Democratic funeral crashers are back.
Bill Clinton crashed another memorial, this one for one of his former aides, Eli Siegel.
We'll have the audio sound bites coming up for you in the next hour.
Our buddies at WorldNet Daily have the report of a Zogby poll.
8,000 people, survey of nearly 8,000 people, shows that these Coast to Coast protests against immigration proposals in Congress have not persuaded a majority of likely American voters.
Asked whether the protests have made likely voters more or less sympathetic toward undocumented workers, 61% said they're less likely to be sympathetic to the plight of illegals as a result of these protests, while only 32% of respondents said that they're now more sympathetic.
Younger respondents were more likely to be sympathetic than were older participants.
And while 56% of Democrats said the protests made them feel more sympathy for unlawful workers, just 6% of Republicans felt that way.
Not surprising, but that's a huge sample, 8,000 people.
8,000, don't know if it's likely, registered whatever voters.
The survey also shows an overwhelming majority of Americans, nearly four out of five, is doubtful that the president and Congress will find a fair and effective solution to the immigration crisis.
88% of Democrats, 85% of Independents said it's unlikely a solution will be found.
66% of Republicans agreed.
So the backlash, the backfire is continuing.
In fact, there's other poll data here.
This is the Times, L.A. Times Bloomberg poll.
Most back a tighter border with a guest worker plan.
People want comprehensive immigration solution.
The fence, building a fence, building a wall, wins 42 to 35% with the felon label.
If you ask the question with the felon labels, Americans showed markedly less enthusiasm for allowing illegal workers to continue to flow into the U.S. than they did for proposals to permit the estimated 11 to 12 million illegal immigrants already here to remain legally.
So as predicted, it was not hard to figure out.
The question is, at what point will America's elected officials decide to side with the citizens somehow, some way, rather than those who are not yet citizens?
Be back right after this and wrap up the hour.
Isn't it a sad day out there in television?
Hillary Clinton impeached after one season as President of the United States on an ABC prime time program.
We'll have details of that.
Lots of other stuff coming up, folks.
Stay right where you are.
Can't wait to get back here.
▲
Export Selection