All Episodes
Previous Next
May 16, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:24
May 16, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, how are you?
Host for life, Rush Limbaugh executing assigned host duties flawlessly.
Zero mistakes.
That's because I assign the duties.
And whatever I do is okay and right.
800-282-2882.
If you like to be on the pro.
What was that?
Yes, I host a great debate.
The Vice President thanked me for hosting these great debates.
You know what he meant.
I mean, we're sitting here.
We're talking about this illegal immigration controversy.
And he was thanking me for being willing to discuss it openly with the American people here on the program and with him.
Anyway, we're glad to have you with us.
We'll have the transcript and the replay of the audio of the interview with Vice President Cheney when we update the website later this afternoon to reflect the contents of today's program.
But right before the break ended at the previous hour, right before the previous hour ended, a woman from Acton, Massachusetts.
What was her name, H.R.?
Hang on, mental block.
No, it wasn't.
I forgot.
Beth.
Yes, it was Beth.
And Beth.
Why don't we just use the same techniques that we use in the IRS to enforce illegal immigration?
Well, that's a valid question because the IRS doesn't catch everybody.
But they do succeed in creating the largest voluntary compliance in paying income taxes anywhere else in the world.
It's astounding.
When you look at how really few quote-unquote agents that they have, they've got everybody scared to death.
And this just crossed the wire here.
Richard Hatch, the original Survivor winner, sentenced today to 51 months in prison for tax evasion.
He was convicted in January of failing to report income of $1.4 million to the IRS.
That figure included the $1 million payday he banked for winning Survivor in 2000.
During this morning's sentencing hearing in U.S. District Court in Providence, Rhode Island, Judge Ernest Torres gave Hatch additional prison time after prosecutors argued that he perjured himself during the trial.
Well, you know, it just takes one or two of these every now and then to cause everybody else a snap too.
And, you know, you'll notice that now the IRS will put out, Presslet, we are increasing our audits this year.
We've been lax in previous years.
We've been auditing primarily the nation's wealthy, but we're going to start auditing more of the middle class.
And guy will go home.
Did you hear the IRS are going to do?
They're going to start auditing.
Oh, no.
The worst thing in the world, people fear an IRS audit.
They do because you turn your life upside down anyway when you prepare your return.
When you get audited, you've been audited, Snerdley.
You've not been audited?
You haven't been audited?
You don't know what you're missing.
People don't want to go through it.
Do you realize a lot of people pay more than they should, hoping to stave off?
You do that, Snerdley?
All right.
Now, what is it?
Because Beth had a good point.
What is it that's created this in terms of paying taxes?
Why can't something like this be done in terms of hiring illegal immigrants?
Well, no, that's not true.
Snerdley says once they get you, they keep coming back.
I've been audited once.
I got a no-change recommended letter.
It was during the Clinton years, but I don't think it was a political audit.
But it was, you know, took a while, but I got a no-change recommended letter, which is as good as you can do.
And it was a long time before the next one came along.
So, I mean, it's, I think you're in the, once, once they catch you underreporting income or trying to fudge, that's when they don't let go of you.
So, a lot of people, you know, overpay just as a means of insurance and never getting that letter.
You have been audited, you are subject to.
Please send details of your life to Agent Martinez at blah, People just don't want to do it.
So, why can't we do that with illegal immigration?
Why can't, well, we've tried.
Do you forget the stories from Georgia and Nebraska?
Back in the days where it was the Immigration Naturalization Service, they'd go conduct raids, like an onion farm complex in Georgia, and meat packing houses in Nebraska.
And then the INS would get a call, or senator would get a call from businesses in these states: hey, what is this?
You're trying to destroy my business before I pick all these onions?
Whatever.
And a congressman or senator would call the INS guy, you like being charged with the INS, then drop it.
There's no fear.
Obviously, there's no fear.
And it took a long time for this IRS fear to build up.
It takes years and years of reporting people being caught, being sent to jail, having liens on their property and their wages, having their wages garnished.
I mean, it doesn't take much of that, but it did take some time.
There's never been that aspect of dealing with illegal immigration.
So still, it's a good question because it leads to the conclusion that if somebody wants it to happen, it can happen.
If you want to instill fear, if there's going to be real penalty, if it's going to be real hassle to get caught hiring illegals, it could have been done.
It could have been done if that was ever the intention.
But you've got to go back, folks.
This is a problem.
You remember 20 years ago in 1986, Simpson Mazzoli, had the same problem.
He said, well, let's legalize the ones that are here.
It was like 2.3 or 2.4 million.
Let this legalize them, give them amnesty, and it'll solve the problem.
Well, never dealt with the border security, never dealt with enforcement.
And once you grant amnesty, the message gets transmitted around the world.
Hey, grabing those not take care of us.
They're going to know how to mess this.
Go ahead and go.
And so now that's why I say the horse is out of the barn.
The horses are gone.
You can lock the barn, but it's going to require something else now to deal with it.
All right.
No, the horses are gone.
The horses are out of the barn.
What do you mean?
If the horses were in the barn and we locked the barn, we could keep the horses in the barn, but we wouldn't have lost the issue.
The horses are the issue, and they're out of the barn.
Well, no, the horses are not the illegals.
The horses are the issue.
You know, and we don't have our arms around it anymore.
We can lock the house, we can lock the barn, but the horses are gone.
It doesn't matter.
What would my ideal solution look like?
Immigration or the horses in a barn?
My ideal situation, the first thing I would do is whatever it takes to stop illegal immigrants crossing the southern border.
That's the first thing I would do.
Whatever it takes, fence, what have look at, especially with what I know the Senate's trying to do, this Hegel Martinez bill.
You know, I think there's a legal way.
We have legal immigration established.
There is a way for this country to grow by way of immigration.
And I have no intention to shut that out.
My desire is not to stop immigration.
It's to promote it with the proper assimilation, with the right numbers that we can absorb economically and so forth.
And then I would elevate the number of qualified immigrants that can get into this country, high-tech graduates, specialists, and so forth.
I would double that.
As to what I would do with the 11 or 12 or whatever here now, I'd recognize they're here.
I wouldn't talk about deporting them.
I would do what's necessary to find them and put them through a process that makes them legal, hoping that would be the last time we have to do it.
If we get tough on the border, there aren't going to be 11 or 12 million in the next 20 years or another 200 million in the next 20 years.
We'll have some control over it.
The idea that if you don't have a border, you don't have a country.
And if we're not going to enforce our borders, we're not worried about having a country.
And then after I did all that, then I would go to Washington during the daytime only.
I'd leave every night to find out what the hell is really behind the asinine thinking that's been going on in this issue for 20 years.
Aside from the obvious we need votes, the Democrats need victims.
We want to try to show the Hispanic community, Latino community we don't hate them.
There's something more to this than all of that.
And I want to find out what it is.
I don't know how I could, but I mean, that's the last thing I would do.
It might have to be the first thing I would do in order to establish the other two planks in my platform.
But I think given 9-11 and everything else, the security of the border and getting that handled is project number one.
I think if you did that, people who are roiled and upset about the 11 to 12 million illegals in the country, you'd have a lot easier time dealing with them and solving that if the border was secure.
You'd have a much easier time coming up with an enforcement plan that people would go along with.
As long as that border remains a sieve and there's no end in sight to an 11 or 12 million always here, always illegal, people aren't going to, it's going to continue to be an issue that they're not satisfied on.
That's off the top of my head, that's my ideal situation.
I got to go.
Quick timeout, back after more, back with more after this.
Stay with us.
It doesn't matter.
I gave you the wrong name anyways.
Forget the question.
Stop the research.
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network.
All right, I don't have the audio of this.
I thought I did.
I don't think I've got the audio there.
I don't.
I was hoping that we have the audio of Dave Evans, the team captain, La Crosse, the Duke La Crosse team, because he went out there yesterday and he really hammered the prosecutor.
And he said, hey, I worked with these guys.
I even talked to the cops without counsel, without lawyer.
I didn't think I was anything wrong.
There was nothing to highway.
Helped them search for things.
Nobody here raped anybody.
Rape didn't happen.
Bam, bam, bam, bam.
Lawyer got up, basically said the same thing.
Last night on ESPN's Sports Center, after playing Dave Evans' statement, the anchor, Neil Everett, interviewed a legal analyst, I think from Philadelphia.
Her name was Deborah Robinson, and asked for her reaction.
And this is unbelievably what she said.
It has no significance for the trial whatsoever.
Basically, it's significant because it's unprecedented.
I've never seen a defendant have a press conference before the trial even begins.
What it's doing, it's setting up cross-examination points for the prosecution.
In addition to that, it's tainting potential jurors.
And that's what I think is the most significant thing about this press conference.
The defense is trying to paint a picture for those jurors who will eventually hear the case about the defendant before the case even begins.
All right.
Now, my whole family is lawyers, folks.
I know a little bit about this.
I'm stunned.
It's okay for this DA down there to conduct press conferences and press interviews that total 70 or more.
He can go ahead and announce before he's even filed charges he believes the victim.
He can do all that.
And that's not tainting the jury pool.
He can, in fact, build his whole case around his reelection, his primary campaign, in the middle of the first part of May.
And that's okay.
The prosecution can go out and taint the jury and they can leak and they can put out all they can try their case in the meeting all they want.
But the guy, the defendant, can't come up and proclaim his innocence.
Where does this get written in a rule of law?
And I want to know if, can you ever remember a defendant who came out and said, I didn't do it?
They all say they didn't do it.
Now, it's true.
One thing I did find pretty gutsy yesterday, most defense lawyers will not let their clients talk because once they start, you don't know where they're going to go and you don't have them on a leash.
But they obviously had this one pretty prepared.
He'd memorized it and he did it pretty well.
Mostly it is the defense lawyers that do the speaking of this.
But the idea that some sort of great travesty of justice is taking place here, like jury tampering or tainting, just because the defendant stands, I didn't do this.
The thinking on that is just boggles the mind.
And Thomas Sowell has an interesting point or two about this.
He says, if there is a smoking gun in the Duke University rape case, it's not about the stripper who made the charges or the lacrosse players who've been accused.
The smoking gun is the decision of the DA, Michael Nyfuong, to postpone a trial until the spring of 2007.
Did you know this trial had been postponed until 2007?
Well, that makes no sense from either a legal or social standpoint, whether the players are guilty or innocent.
But it does tell us something about District Attorney Nyfu.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the players are guilty.
What's the point of letting a bunch of rapists remain at large for another year?
What about the dangers that they would pose to women on or off the Duke University campus?
Now, suppose the players are innocent.
Isn't it unconscionable to have this damning charge hanging over their heads for a whole nother year?
The Constitution of the United States includes a right to a speedy trial, keep people from being jerked around by unscrupulous or vindictive prosecutors who can't prove that they've committed any crime.
Prosecutors have to put up or shut up.
But this isn't a federal case, and the laws of North Carolina don't require a speedy trial.
Justice delayed is justice denied, whether the players are guilty or innocent.
And then Saul has this interesting observation.
If the truth about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky had come out the very next day after he made that dramatic declaration, I did not have sex with that woman, it would have been far more of a shock than it was months later, after more and more bits and dabs of information came out, leading many to suspect the truth long before it all did come out.
One of Clinton's press secretaries called these delaying tactics telling the truth slowly.
Now, it was lying and lying and lying until you had no choice but to tell the truth, but it was, strategically, delay this, get it, because once the news did hit, it was no big deal because everybody knew it then anyway.
Now, the announcement that the trial of the Duke lacrosse players has been postponed until the spring of 2007 may be Nyfuong's way of beginning the process of telling the truth slowly.
At some point, this case will have to be either prosecuted or dropped.
If it's going to be prosecuted, there's no reason not to go to full speed ahead right now.
But if it's going to be dropped, or if Nyphong knows that a judge is likely to throw it out of court, then the time at which that happens is crucial.
It was out of the question for Nyphong to drop the case before the recent election, no matter how flimsy the evidence might be or how much of that evidence exonerates the accused instead of showing them to be guilty.
Even after being re-elected, the DA can't let his indictment collapse in public while there is nationwide attention focused on this case 24-7.
Well, what will be different next year?
Well, the public will have either forgotten the case or be tired of hearing about it by then.
DA can even turn the case over to some lawyer on his staff to take into court and see it either get thrown out by the judge or fail to convince a jury.
We'll all be tired of hearing about it by then.
We are the marks who will be cooled out.
Interesting point.
I did not know that he had delayed the trial until 2007.
Maryland U.S. Senate candidate Kwaizi Mfume said yesterday that Democrats risked losing the senatorial election because old-line party bosses are undermining his campaign and alienating black voters.
Imfume also would not say whether he would endorse Representative Benjamin Cardin, the frontrunner for the, I hope he pronounces his name Cardin Cardin, for the Democratic Senate nomination if he should lose to the lawmaker in the September primary.
I can say that there will be people who'll be disaffected if I'm not the nominee.
What a statement.
So he's running against Benjamin Cardin.
He says, I tell you what, if I don't get this nomination, there are a lot of people going to be disaffected.
What a statement.
I know it's not that he's got a big family.
I mean, there's got to be, that's just the arrogance of that statement.
But apparently, the state Democrats are not, and the DNC not coming forward to help Kwaezi Mfume.
Now, does this ring a bell?
Has this happened in recent times?
It happened with Carl McCall in New York.
Kwaezi called Carl.
Carl was promised help from Terry McAuliffe and the Clinton organization, and he didn't get it.
And we ended up raising money for Carl McCall on this program just so he'd have a chance to compete since the Democrats had let him down.
I asked people to send in a buck at least, and people did it.
New York Daily News actually had a columnist write about what a shameful thing it was that Republican Limbaugh had to raise money for Carl McCall.
And now the Democrats have put Kwaezi Mfume, former Congressman NAACP Grand Pubah, in the same position.
Yes, I know.
Thank you and welcome back, folks.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Here is Dave Evans, the captain of the Duke La Crosse team, making his statement yesterday that Deborah Robinson, attorney in Philadelphia, found so outrageous that it would taint the jury pool.
Over the past several weeks, I've repeatedly, through my lawyer, tried to contact the district attorney.
All of my attempts have been denied.
I've tried to provide him with exculpatory evidence showing that this could not have happened.
Those attempts have been denied.
And as a result of his apparent lack of interest in my story, the true story, and any evidence proving that my story is correct, I asked my lawyer to give me a polyograph.
I took that polyograph, and it was administered by a former FBI top polyographer with over 28 years of experience.
He's done several hundreds of sexual cases, and I passed it absolutely.
And I passed that polygraph for the same reason that I will be acquitted of all these charges because I have done nothing wrong and I am telling the truth and I have told the truth from day one.
If I can clear things up and say this one more time, I am innocent.
Reed Seligman is innocent.
Colin Finnerty is innocent.
Every member of the Duke University lacrosse team is innocent.
You have all been told some fantastic lies.
And I look forward to watching them unravel in the weeks to come as they already have in weeks past.
And the truth will come out.
All right.
So somehow that poses a great, great threat to the jury system down there.
This taint the jury pool is outrageous.
Deborah Robinson's Philadelphia never seen a defendant speak like this.
Yes, Mr. Snerdly, what is it?
What?
Mm-hmm.
Well, yeah, I know.
I've...
I think this is sort of a big bugaboo.
We missed the name of the accuser.
We've got all these other guys' names dragged through the mud.
The accuser's name remains a mystery, although it is known, and there have been some pictures published, but I don't, somebody knows the name, they've kept it suppressed.
And it's like they did find DNA.
They did a cervical swab.
They found DNA, and it's her boyfriend.
And so, well, they're not going to release his name.
They don't want to drag his name through the mud, they said.
It's okay to drag the Duke La Crosse team through the mud.
The whole team, even though only three, have been charged.
They also talked about this on Britt Hume's show on the Fox News channel last night.
And Mara Lyason said this.
It'd be cut 11.
I think that the most important thing is that the justice system takes its course and that whatever verdict comes out put an end to this in this community.
You've got now the prosecutor finally saying the indictments are finished.
I think the best thing that could happen is that this case gets tried as fast as that we put an end to it because it's ripped this community part.
Well, yeah, but it's going to be a year now before it gets tried, spring of 2007.
And she wants a verdict that puts an end to this in the community.
Well, what would that be?
Do we not want a verdict that's just, or do we want a verdict that's going to put an end to the strife in the community?
Because if there is a trial, with all of the jury tainting and stuff that the DA has done, if not guilty verdicts come back, is that the best thing for this community?
Or are they going to go nuts down there?
Well, I'll tell you that if that's your criteria, if that's the way you're going to judge this thing, it better not ever go to trial.
There better not be any verdicts, period.
Because no matter which way the verdicts go down, well, I guess if the verdicts came back guilty, they wouldn't, they might tear the place up, but they'd do it in celebration.
They wouldn't do it in anger.
But I don't know.
That's a strange recipe that she has here for ending the case.
Come up with a verdict that's going to put an end to this in the community.
Joe in Beach Park, Illinois.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Yeah, hi, Rush.
Listen, I'm a software developer, and I'm in the ATM industry.
This technology that they're talking about, this biometric card, that's actually a smart card with biometric data encoded on it.
And it's defective.
You've got two defective types of technology that have never worked.
Smart cards are not engineered to withstand the rigors of being in a man's wallet.
It's hot.
It bends a lot.
There's a lot of sweat, which is salty, which corrodes the chip.
Somebody's trying to pull a scam here.
Wait a minute.
The president talked about these in his speech last night.
I wouldn't expect him to know about it, but somebody is pulling a scam.
Either the company that's selling this is trying to make a bundle off of selling it, or else somebody who's in a position who's actually reviewed the technology and understands it knows that it's not going to work.
And there's an agenda here either way.
And, you know, I got to tell you, I do think that's what's going on.
Are you saying this kind of stuff can never work because of the reasons you've given here?
It has never been developed to the point where it can work.
Okay, I don't know if it can never work.
Nobody will ever say never.
But as far as the technology goes, even the way that they've got the flow charting structured, that's backwards.
You wouldn't put your sensitive data onto the card because anybody who can manufacture the card and can hack their way to the corner.
Well, this particular card, this particular card that I looked up anyway, based on what I think the president was talking about, uses encoded fingerprints buried deep within.
You wouldn't encode the fingerprint in the card.
You would put it in a centralized database.
That way you've got access to it in a secure location, something that is what they call tempest-certified, something that cannot be hacked, something that they know is safe simply because there's no connection to an outside line.
With these cards, all you need is the technology to manufacture it and a computer programmer who is able to hack the codes off of it, and you can manufacture up all the cards you want.
I mean, you could do it in your basement.
Really?
It sounds like it would be fun.
Well, yeah, it sure would make a lucrative business.
That's all I can tell you.
So you're pulling a scam.
Well, I don't think it's ever going to happen.
I think, because the way it's been proposed, every foreign legal worker would get one of these cards.
That's a lot of cards.
And I just, it's, I don't know if it was, the whole thing was proposed as one of five points the president wants the Senate, the Congress to consider in trying to get a handle on the problem of illegal workers and illegal immigrants and identifying the illegals.
And to do that, we're going to give the legals these cards so that they are much easier to identify them and give them the cards.
Now, he made it sound like this technology is there and works.
You're saying it doesn't.
I'll look into it even more.
Naturally, the website I went to to find this particular card using a fingerprint makes it sound like it's the greatest thing since sliced bread is perfected.
It cannot be copied.
It cannot be counterfeited.
If you lose a card, it doesn't matter.
Nobody gets a hold of it, can possibly duplicate what's on it.
It's totally safe.
It's Christmas morning when it comes to security with this thing.
There are two various cards that this particular company makes.
Here's Sam in Topeka, Kansas.
Sam, welcome to the program.
Great to have you with us.
Hey, Rush, Mega Diddles to you.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, what this guy was talking about, it's already in use.
The military uses these smart cards.
My brother has one.
It has all of his personnel information, all of his records from his entire career, his blood type, religion, everything that's on his dog tag is on this card.
Everything you could want to know about him or his entire military career is on this card.
How big is the card?
How big is the card?
It's the size of a driver's license.
It's got a little, like a metallic-looking chip on the front, and it's got his name, rank, his picture, and everything they do.
They just take it and slide it in the machine.
It brings up his entire military record.
All right, this is the first thing.
Now, Joe from Beach Park, Illinois, said that these cards cannot withstand normal everyday usage, such as being in a wallet, being in a pocket.
It's hot, can't stand the heat.
I can guarantee you that it's working just fine because he's been to Warren Beck a couple times, and it's still ticking.
So I don't know what Joe's talking about, but I can tell you from the military's point of view, they're up and working just fine, and they are the greatest thing since life's bread.
Okay, well, there you go.
We already got controversy over the smart cards.
Now, does this particular card have his fingerprints encoded for ID purposes?
Well, yes, because it has every piece of information that the military has on you.
All your personal information, your fingerprints, your blood type, like I say, your religion, everything that's on the dog tags, social security number.
Favorite radio show.
Okay.
Sam, I appreciate thanks so much.
I will research this even more, but there's pretty strong testimony here if the military can use these and they withstand that.
Sounds entirely plausible.
Got to run.
We'll be back and continue right after this.
All right.
Welcome back.
Great to have you.
Here is Rush Limbaugh.
More fun than a human being should be allowed to have half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Interesting story today in the New York Sun.
It's that time of year when New Yorkers start making their summer vacation plans.
Renting a place in the Hamptons?
Nah, I've been there, done that.
How about a Parisian jaunt?
Ooh, too many riots.
Well, how about visiting a country that's ancient, that's historic, beautiful, and exotic, like Iraq?
Sure, there's a little war going on there, but when you look at the violent death statistics of the world, Iraq is safer than a number of other popular travel destinations, believe it or not.
It happened to catch the eye of Representative Steve King, a Republican of Iowa, on C-SPAN last week, and he rattled off some startling figures that demonstrate how off-based journalists are when it comes to reporting of the war in Iraq.
According to Mr. King, the violent death rate in Iraq is 25.7 per 100,000.
Now, may sound pretty high, but not when you compare it to places like Columbia, which has a 61.7 per 100,000 death rate, violent death rate.
South Africa has a higher violent death rate than Iraq, 49.6 per 100,000.
Even Jamaica has a higher violent death rate per 100,000 than does Iraq, 32.4.
And Venezuela comes in at 31.6 per 100,000 violent deaths.
How about the violent death rates in American cities?
New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina had a 53.1 violent death rate per 100,000.
FBI statistics for 2004-2005 have Washington, D.C.'s violent death rate at 45.9 per 100,000.
Baltimore at 37.7 per 100,000.
And Atlanta at 34.9 per 100,000.
The figure, again, from Iraq, 25.71 per 100,000, and that includes the war.
So Iraq, I mean, if you're just going to roll a dice and take your chances, Iraq's a much safer place to go than Washington or Jamaica or New Orleans pre-Katrina or Venezuela.
Speaking of Venezuela, there's that loco weed down there.
Hugo Chavez is going to sell his F-16 fleet to Iran.
We sold this guy a bunch of jets, F-16, the Air Force, who's a Falcon, and he's going to sell these to Iran.
He's making noise about it.
So we've said, all right, well, we're going to stop selling military gear to Venezuela.
Good.
What was our first clue?
Sarah in Connecticut, welcome to the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
Fine, thank you.
I hope you're going to bear with me.
I am so nervous.
I'm hoping I don't just blank on you and completely say something stupid.
Don't swear.
Won't happen.
Okay, I'm glad you think that.
I wanted to ask your opinion on something concerning immigration.
You've been hearing a lot about how we need to be careful about deporting a whole bunch of people because the price of this, that, and the other is going to go up and make it more, or I should say less affordable for Americans that do things like buy grapes.
Yeah, yeah.
Lettuce, I've heard all this.
Yeah.
Oh, yeah.
So my question to you is: it seems a logical thing to me that should we make these immigrants legal somehow, whether it's by allowing them to become citizens or coming up with a guest worker program, wouldn't it logically follow that if we were to do that, that then they would say, well, let's get paid more.
So the price would go up anyway.
At some point, yes.
Once they've established a skill and they've demonstrated it, it's a natural human tendency to want more.
But you see, there's a lot of people that think that it's okay.
As they do that, we'll just bring in some more uneducated underclass to take over those low-rent jobs.
That's what the plan is here.
Let's be honest about this.
There's a consortium here of people in this country who want, apparently, a permanent, even though it may consist of different people, because in this country, you do, you don't stay at the same economic circumstance forever.
People move in and out of various income levels all the time throughout their lives.
But there's a clear desire on the part of some to make sure there's a permanent, low-paid underclass to go out and do these junk jobs, these so-called junk jobs.
And for that to happen, you're going to need more of the type of immigration it gives you those people.
That's why there are a lot of people cynical about this.
Here's your exactly.
Plus, the unions are going to get hold of these people at some point.
Because the unions, unions can't get anybody to join.
The unions are losing workers.
I mean, this whole thing is made to order for the Democrats.
That's why I keep telling you, they see victims, they see voters, and the unions see new members paying dues.
In addition to being a cultural and social problem for the country, it's a very serious political challenge for conservatives.
I agree.
I agree.
Well, thank you for taking my call, Rodney.
And by the way, you did marvelously.
You didn't betray even one ounce of nervousness.
Oh, thank you.
You bet.
All right.
Jim in Charlotte, North Carolina, welcome to the program.
Rush, Rush, you're the man.
You're the man.
Thank you.
Listen, here's my conundrum.
How can the president get a couple hundred thousand people overseas in a couple of months, but he can't get 6,000 or however many it's going to take to guard the border before the election in 2008?
Passe comitadas.
Oh, you beat me there.
I don't know what that means.
Well, it's a law that says you cannot use the military for law enforcement in the country.
And it would be an absolute waste to put 200,000 military personnel on the border when they can't do what they're trained for.
I'm not saying put 200,000, but they're saying that they can't get the border secure until after the election in 2008.
And that I've only voted Republican.
I'm saying that last night he said, you know, by the end of 2008, we can get this licked.
Yeah, that's because they're going to increase the number of border agents who are law enforcement and are trained.
That's the theory behind this.
The National Guard's going to be there in support roles.
The National Guard is air presence is symbolic in many ways, substantive as far as they help the border agents, but it's a symbolic gesture as well to try to show the American people that we're getting tough about it.
I got to run.
I wish I had more time to explore that with you, but I don't.
We got to go.
Back in just a second.
I have an idea.
I will announce this in greater detail tomorrow, but I think instead of the Pulitzer Prizes, we need to set up an award or two for truth in journalism.
Start awarding journalists when they tell the truth about something.
More on that tomorrow.
Have a great day.
We'll see you then.
▲
Export Selection