Rush Limbaugh Program - May 24, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #3

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 24, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:03

May 24, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #3

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	All right, we are back, and we've got more broadcast excellence straight ahead here on the one and only excellence in broadcasting network, America's anchor man and truth detector.
	All combined in one harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
	The all-knowing, all caring, all sensing, all feeling.
	All concerned Maha Roshi, 800-282-2882, if you want to be on the uh on the program standby audio sound bites ten and up of Mr. Broadcast Engineer.
	One more thing here from the uh illegal immigration stack, ladies and gentlemen.
	Interesting column by Edwin Meese III, the former Attorney General in the Reagan administration.
	It's an op-ed piece in the New York Times in the debate over immigration amnesty, he writes, has become something of a dirty word.
	Some opponents of the immigration bill being debated in the Senate assert that it would grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.
	Supporters claim it would do no such thing.
	Instead, they say it lays out a roadmap by which illegal aliens can earn citizenship.
	Perhaps I can shed some light.
	Two decades ago, while serving as attorney general under President Reagan, I was in the thick of things as Congress debated the immigration reform and control act of 1986.
	The situation today bears uncanny similarities to what went through what we went through then.
	In the mid-80s, many members of Congress, pushed by the Democrat majority in the House and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, advocated amnesty for long-settled illegal immigrants.
	President Reagan considered it reasonable to adjust the status of what was then a relatively small population, and I supported his decision.
	In exchange for allowing aliens to stay, he decided, border security and enforcement of immigration laws would be greatly strengthened, in particular through sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants, and jobs were the attraction for illegal immigrants, then cutting off that option was crucial.
	Beyond this, most illegal immigrants who could establish that they had resided in America continuously for five years would be granted temporary resident status, which could be upgraded to permanent residency after 18 months, and another five years after another five years to citizenship.
	Note that this path to citizenship was not automatic.
	Indeed, the legislation stipulated several conditions.
	Immigrants had to pay application fees, they had to learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam, and register for military selective service.
	Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible.
	Does this sound familiar?
	They're pretty much the same provisions included in the new Senate proposal and cited by its supporters as proof that they have eschewed amnesty in favor of earned citizenship.
	The difference is that President Reagan called this what it was.
	Amnesty.
	Indeed, look up the term amnesty in Black's Law Dictionary, and you'll find it says this.
	The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already in the country.
	Like the Amnesty Bill of 86, the current Senate proposal would place those who have resided illegally in the U.S. on a path to citizenship, provided they meet a similar set of conditions and pay a fine and back taxes.
	The illegal uh immigrant does not go to the back of the line but gets immediate legalized status while law-abiding applicants wait in their home countries for years to even get here.
	And that's the line that counts.
	In the end, slight differences in process do not change the overriding fact that the 86 law and today's bill are both amnesties.
	And there's a practical problem as well.
	The 1986 Act did not solve our illegal immigration problem from the start.
	There was widespread document fraud by applicants.
	Unsurprisingly, the number of people applying for amnesty far exceeded projections.
	And there proved to be a failure of political will in enforcing new laws against employers.
	After a six-month showdown, I'm sorry, slowdown that followed uh passage of the legislation, illegal immigration returned to normal levels, and continued unabated.
	Ultimately, some 2.7 Million people were granted amnesty, and many who were not stayed anyway, forming the nucleus of today's unauthorized population.
	So here we are, twenty years later, having much the same debate and being offered much the same deal in exchange for promises largely dependent on the will of future Congresses and presidents.
	Will history repeat itself?
	I hope not.
	In the post-911 world, secure borders are vital.
	We have new tools like biometric technology for ID and cameras, sensors, satellites to monitor the border that make enforcement and verification less onerous.
	And we can learn from the failed policies of the past.
	President Bush and Congress would do better to start with securing the border and strengthening enforcement of existing immigration laws.
	It might also try improving on Reagan's idea of a pilot program for genuinely temporary workers.
	America welcomes more immigrants than any other country, but in keeping open that door of opportunity, we also must hold uphold the rule of law and enhance a fair immigration process.
	As Ronald Reagan said, to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people, American citizenship.
	So there you have it, somebody who was there in 1986, basically sounding the warning bell.
	What we're hearing today is what we heard 20 years ago.
	It's the same gobbledygook.
	It's recast and rehashed, but it is the same stuff.
	And the reason 86 didn't work is because none of the enforcement procedures and provisions were dealt with, carried out, and they won't be in this one.
	This is this simply to redo what was done in 86, except instead of talking about whatever it is, 2.9 million back then, we're talking eleven to twelve to twenty, depending on various estimates today.
	And it is simply uh, folks, uh an outrage uh that that we're being dealt with uh in this way on this basis, uh, with so many uh of the same arguments being made as though we have short memories and we've never heard it before.
	It's an insult to our intelligence.
	We're called names, lab uh labels, nativists, restrictionists, uh, and so forth.
	And yet, the proponents of all these plans to fix this problem, are citing and proposing plans that we know have failed in the past.
	And as I keep saying, there's a reason there has to be a reason for this.
	Because we make jokes about Congress all day long.
	They're not stupid people.
	They, well, there are exceptions.
	But on bound, they're not stupid.
	There is something else guiding this, motivating this, and I think it's actually a combination of things, things that we have previously discussed on the program.
	One more thing here before we go to the break, and then we'll get on to Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, Thomas Sowell, another brilliant piece on this.
	This was yesterday.
	The immigration bill before Congress has some of the most serious consequences for the future of this country.
	Yet it's not being discussed seriously by most politicians or most of the media.
	Instead, it's being discussed in a series of glib talking points that insult our intelligence.
	The highest concentration How many times have we heard that illegal aliens are taking jobs Americans won't do?
	Well, just what specifically are those jobs?
	Even in occupations where illegals are concentrated, such as agriculture, cleaning, construction, and food prep.
	The great majority of the work is still being done by people who are not illegals.
	The highest concentration of illegals is in agriculture, where there are twenty-four percent of the people employed.
	That means that three-quarters of the people are not illegal aliens.
	But when will the glib phrase monger stop telling us that the illegals are simply taking jobs that Americans won't do?
	The fact that there are requirements for getting American citizenship is a separate issue entirely.
	Illegal aliens who do not choose to seek American citizenship are under no more jeopardy than before.
	They have de facto amnesty.
	Why are people who are so gung-ho for punishing employers so utterly silent about needing to punish government officials who openly and deliberately violate federal laws?
	The real question is What we do with whatever illegal aliens we do find.
	Right now, there are various communities around the country where local officials have a policy of forbidding the police from reporting illegal immigrants to federal authorities.
	So we can talk all day about punishing employers, but what about punishing people who write the laws who do not enforce them and do not allow them to be enforced.
	Employers, after all, are not in the business of law enforcement.
	And if law enforcement won't enforce the laws, why don't we turn our heads to them?
	Well, we've dealt with that too.
	We've had that explained to us on this program.
	It is not to rehash it, it's the onion story and a meat packing story out of Nebraska.
	The INS back in the 90s tried to get tough, both circumstances and uh ended up doing checks and then doing raids, social security number checks and so forth.
	And in both instances, the businesses called their senators, complained that they were unable to do business because the INS.
	The INS got a phone call from Senators and Congress, you better not stop, you better you better stop enforcing this.
	Uh if you want if you like your job at the INS.
	And so members of Congress undercut the then INS from doing what it was supposed to do.
	It's convoluted set of circumstances.
	It's clear that uh the current crop of people writing in uh immigration legislation in the Senate have no intention of solving the problem.
	They're simply uh recreating it.
	They're simply duplicating the problem uh as it was not solved in 1986.
	Hi.
	Welcome back, El Rushbo surfing humanity, saving America, one citizen at a time.
	Someone has to do it, and I'm not retiring until the job is done.
	800 282-2882 is the number to the audio sound bites.
	William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, uh says there's been a selective release of information.
	Uh we know that he had $90,000 in his freezer.
	We just don't know why.
	He had a press conference late Monday in Washington.
	This would be Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana.
	Unidentified reporter said the search warrant for your office says that you took 100,000 in cash of a briefcase from Laurie Mody's car.
	What can you say to that allegation?
	You know, I can't talk about any specific allegations that are made in an affidavit on any other place.
	So I will not.
	I will simply say to you that there's two sides of this story.
	They will have a chance in the right forum to express outside of it, to say what it is.
	But uh that's the this is a a uh selective uh uh release of information which is incomplete and therefore um we think uh uh uh not uh what it should be.
	Uh-huh.
	Uh next uh question for Congressman uh William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana was Congressman uh William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana.
	Are you going to resign?
	No, I don't think we're when you say incomplete, did you take a hundred thousand dollars in cash?
	I have certainly said to you that my lawyers have about to talk about facts, and I will not talk about facts.
	I will simply say that two sides of the story, and uh we'll get our chance to make our stuff in the proper form, and this isn't it.
	Kind of makes you wonder why they uh did the press conference there for Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, if not going to answer the uh questions.
	The next question unidentified reporter at said to uh Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana.
	Any more reaction to the search of your office?
	Uh FBI spending the majority of the weekend in there looking around.
	No, I've just said that I believe that it's uh completely uh inappropriate to use the police powers of the federal government to uh come into uh the uh offices of Congress that has hadn't happened before.
	And uh uh frankly uh has a there's a way to make a response to uh inquiry for information which um uh my lawyers will carefully follow to do.
	But uh this isn't the way that you do.
	Well, from what I understand an interesting source, too.
	Brian Ross of ABC News, when I got uh, you know, when I see that, I said, well, you're gonna take this under advisement.
	But he says they did try to go through.
	They they called William Congress, Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana's office.
	They said we're what we want, we're gonna come in and look.
	Uh, and and they were ignored, told no, we're uh uh screw you, blah, blah, blah.
	So the FBI went to a judge and got a warrant.
	Congress cares so much about warrants uh with phone calls and searches and so forth, they got a judge to issue a warrant.
	They went in there and looked and they they found the stuff.
	Now, this this idea that members of Congress are above the law.
	That that's that's what's emanating from all this.
	Members of Congress are above the law, and the House leadership is actually singing that song.
	Denny Haston, I don't like the way this is being done.
	Newt Gingrich said, I don't like the way this was done.
	And they're all upset here about the separation of powers.
	This is the same bunch that can subpoena anybody they want for the executive branch and demand that they come over and answer all these questions about things.
	Now I know those are not those are not legal investigations.
	Um and so but the House has subpoena power.
	What do you think the Democrats want to win the House for?
	So they can use subpoena power to start impeachment proceedings.
	They don't have anything.
	They just want to go fishing with a bunch of subpoenas.
	Uh but the the the notion here why why is no one mad at Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana in the House of Representatives.
	Well, I offered three reasons for this at the outset of the program.
	One of them is this separation of powers thing.
	The other is we're all a bunch of elites here, and in that we're one.
	We're together here.
	We're above it.
	We're members of the United States Congress, and you can't come into our offices.
	My gosh, do you realize the precedent here?
	Members of Congress could could could could hide the evidence of any crime that they or any of their family or friends committed.
	Hide that evidence in their office and thereby prevent anybody from ever getting it.
	Yet those of us who are mere lowly average citizens have our private records rifled through on television.
	We have uh we have search warrants presented to us all the time.
	Oh uh people uh throughout this country are not immune to this.
	It happens each and every day.
	But a member of Congress is somehow um above the law in these kinds of matters.
	Uh one more soundbite here.
	James Carville was on uh Wolf Blitzer's show yesterday.
	They had this exchange about Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana.
	William Jefferson, Democratic Congressman from Louisiana is being investigated under uh allegations of bribery.
	They found apparently allegedly some $90,000 in cash in his freezer.
	Doesn't look good for him, uh, James Carvel, but you never know, he says uh there are two sides to every story and his words certainly in this story, although he can't get into discussing the facts based on the advice of his counsel.
	I have been wrecking my brain all day in calling people wanting to know what could be the other side of the story if a Congressman having $90,000 of cash in his freezer and the collective wisdom of our friends have not been able to come up with anything.
	But if somebody can think, if he can come up with a reason for this, I'm waiting here, man.
	I want to hear it, because I can't think of it.
	Now, notice how the the drive-by media just yucks it up when one of their own is stuck in the muck.
	Oh, yeah, it's getting a little funny here.
	Oh come on, man, come clean.
	Now we've got to be an answer for this out there.
	Why are you hiding 90 grand and cold cash in the freezer?
	Been racking my brain trying to figure out.
	Can you imagine the different tone this interview would have taken had the Congressman been Tom Delay?
	Uh note that William Jefferson is not being forced to resign, says he's not going to resign from Congress, and nobody really appears upset with what uh Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana has done.
	Everybody's focusing on law enforcement, the FBI, and how you know it's it's interesting.
	Nobody focused on law enforcement when it was Tom DeLay.
	Nobody focused on law enforcement, how they may have been overreaching uh when it when it comes to uh Republicans that get in these messes.
	So it's uh it's just curious.
	But the thing, and I know the separation of powers argument that they're making uh Bill Frist expressed concern about the search.
	Trent Lotts and his rules committee was looking into this.
	There's a right way and a wrong way to do everything.
	We don't want a situation where the FBI just shows up at will and starts rummaging around here like it can for the rest of us, Senator.
	I tell you, folks, I don't think these guys understand how they sound when they make this argument.
	The search of the separation of powers is a serious thing, and it's a constant battle that the executive and legislative branches uh engage in when it comes to political power.
	But here we're talking about allegations of uh law breaking and bribery and so forth on the part of a single congressman, and obviously uh he put stuff in his office under the belief that nobody would ever, ever be able to get to it because of the separation of powers, and yet a judge, a judge, they keep forgetting a judge is involved here.
	A judge signed the search warrant, which allowed all this.
	They I get they just don't get that they sound above the law and insulated from all the other factors of day-to-day life that the rest of us are not insulated from.
	Back in a moment.
	I know.
	I know.
	Thank you, uh, ladies and gentlemen.
	Rush Limbaugh.
	Documented to be in the latest opinion audit almost always right, ninety-eight point five percent of the time.
	Here's that ABC report on the inside story of the FBI's historic raid on Capitol Hill.
	Here we go.
	The FBI's raid on the office of Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana, was the first such raid on Capitol Hill in history.
	It came about only after lawyers for the House of Representatives refused to turn over the material the FBI sought, according to officials familiar with the case.
	At the request of the FBI, the House General Counsel's office had secured copies of the documents and computer files being sought in the bribery investigation from the office of Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana.
	But officials say the House lawyers then refused to turn over the documents to the FBI.
	A refusal by the House Counsel led the FBI to seek a search warrant from Judge Thomas Hogan to send agents into Jefferson's Rayburn building office about uh it's a room 2113.
	Uh left with uh no other method, the government's proceeding in this fashion states the search warrant application filed by FBI agent Timothy Thebo.
	Uh the warrant uh was issued by Judge Hogan last Thursday, instructed Capitol Hill Police to provide immediate access to the office of Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana.
	So the FBI agents went in there about 7.15 Saturday night officials say the agents used a special team to minimize the likelihood that any potential uh uh politically sensitive items were removed.
	In a statement uh uh Jefferson's lawyer called the FBI action outrageous.
	Uh course.
	Members of Congress apprehended uh process of investigation of course outrageous.
	Why, why who do they who do they think they are?
	Richard to Long Beach, California.
	I'm uh glad you call.
	Welcome to the program, sir.
	Good day, Rush.
	It's uh nice to speak to you.
	Quite an honor.
	Thank you, sir.
	Um, you know, I was wondering uh being down here in this area and seeing all the influx of the illegals and stuff like that, and I've also experienced uh experienced a bit of uh uh of being on the side of discriminated against.
	I was wondering if uh what your thoughts were about having the employers pick up the tab for the social services that are incurred instead of taking it away from uh or having it cost the taxpayers and the parents uh who have our kids in school and who don't get the equal benefits.
	It ain't gonna happen.
	Oh, I know that.
	I just wondered what your thoughts were on it.
	Well, my first thought is if we're gonna go the way the Senate's going, then it would be interesting to put it in there to see if it would fly.
	Yeah.
	Uh but it's not the way to solve the problem.
	This is simply if you if you advance that, and I know it's a it's a great think piece point.
	Don't don't misunderstand, but that's sort of a concession that we're going to allow illegals in.
	But the way we're going to deal with it, you businesses are going to pay for it.
	And the theory would be business refuse to pay for it, uh, and so no illegals get in.
	Well, the last half of that is not true.
	When businesses aren't going to pay for it, and the minute that they're th there is no, there is no senator sitting up there, except maybe then maybe there's one wacko in there that would propose this.
	But there is no senator that is going to even propose this.
	His campaign contributions from all of business would dry up overnight.
	Don't you understand that it is.
	This is this is One of the reasons for the rift, and that is that businesses are actively lobbying.
	They're not out protesting and they're not publicly marching, but they are lobbying for the continued influx of illegals.
	Cheap labor.
	It is it is the objective of every business to get people for as little as they have to pay them, uh, particularly in these kinds of jobs.
	Uh and if if they're going to have to pay all the uh safety net costs, well, that's gonna kill the whole concept of cheap labor.
	And the minute anybody proposes this, this is what's wrong with the debate.
	This is what's wrong with the whole thing.
	Anything that approaches common sense on this is immediately rejected.
	And the people that propose it are labeled all these horrible rotten things.
	Well, you restrictionist, you nativist, you protectionist or whatever.
	Uh so it's it's an interesting idea.
	It's a great question to make a point, as you have done.
	Uh, but I I don't I don't think that uh it'll something like that would i ever happen.
	Well, I know they're they're they're gonna I know tomorrow's the big day, they're gonna vote on it.
	But look, whatever they end up with there in the Senate is still gonna have to go to the uh you know the House Senate conference on this.
	And uh that'll be interesting too.
	Well, I'm I no, I I've never been certain Mr. Snurby's gonna get killed.
	I've only said I wouldn't be surprised if this thing doesn't become law this year.
	Uh, because I think members of Congress, particularly in the Senate, this being an election year, get as much value out of trying as they do succeeding.
	They don't have to succeed to get value out of this.
	Well, I am out there, and I did everything I could to make it possible for you illegals to come here and be unhassled and so you see what I was up against, but I was out there fighting for you.
	And then they can, you know, show commercials, uh uh TV spots, put out uh press releases with the text of their brilliant floor speeches and uh TV interviews on this and make the same point as if the things passed.
	So uh it it'll it'll all depend on on what they come out of the conference with, you know, what what what in the Senate bill uh the House eventually decides to accept, or vice versa.
	But it's still it's gonna be it's it's apparent now that what comes out of this, if it does become law is gonna be a mess.
	There's not going to be real serious enforcement in it, and there's not going to be an attempt.
	If you don't, if you don't make a serious attempt to reduce the numbers of inflow, uh all the rest of this is academic because you're just going to have to deal with it again down the road when it won't be dealt with.
	This is simply a rehash, a repeat of what went on uh twenty years ago.
	Richard Gephardt, uh former uh minority leader in the House before Miss Pelosi.
	In a private meeting in San Francisco last week, said Congressman Gephardt expressed doubt that Democrats will win control of the House this fall.
	Uh this is in the in the Hill newspaper.
	Uh they cite knowledgeable sources.
	Uh knowledgeable source.
	He said it or he didn't.
	I mean, he was said it to people.
	There was a it was a private meeting, but well, anyway, Gephardt's remarks about the upcoming election delivered to a group of investment analysts last Tuesday in Pelosi's district run counter to the predictions of some of his former colleagues who now occupy powerful positions in the Democrat leadership.
	During a lunch sponsored by the Gerson Lerman Investment Consulting Firm at the Omni Hotel, Gephardt said the lack of competitive races and gerrymandered districts could help House Republicans retain a narrower majority in the next Congress.
	When asked about his comments, Gephardt suggested people might have misconstrued what he said because they had expected him to predict a resounding victory.
	What I said is what everyone knows, Gephardt told the Hill, noting that many districts have been set up to favor incumbents.
	Political observers are split on whether the anticipated anti-Republican wave will lead to a change of power in the 110th Congress.
	Uh, Gephardt's now a senior counsel, a lawyer at uh at DLA, Piper Rudnick Gray Carey said he believes this year is like no other since the GOP takeover in Congress in 1994.
	We have never seen The Republicans in the political shape that they're in today, he said, if these poll numbers keep up, Republicans will lose their parents' votes.
	How does that jibe with He thinks that they won't win the House?
	Many Democrats are growing increasingly confident that their party will be setting the agenda in the House next year.
	In a recent uh National Journal poll, senior Democratic strategists were asked to rate from a scale of zero, no chance to ten virtual certainty that Democrats would take over the House, the average score five point six.
	Well, it doesn't sound like a whole lot of confidence to me.
	Five point six.
	China's military buildup has altered Asia Pacific power balances.
	It could pose threats to other forces, the Pentagon said yesterday in an annual report that repeated U.S. calls for Beijing to explain its actions.
	Explain its actions.
	The Pentagon demands that the Chicoms explain their actions.
	What do we tell us when you're gonna nuke us?
	Oh, it's all we want.
	We just want to know when are you gonna nuke South Korea?
	When you're gonna take over Formosa, and when are you gonna join forces of that little potbelly dictator in North Korea?
	We demand to know.
	What is this?
	The Pentagon has been raising alarms over China's military modernization for several years.
	Japan has joined the U.S. in calling for China's ChICOM rulers to be more open about military budgets and policy.
	Yeah.
	Go on Oprah.
	Get President Hu Xin Tao, go on Oprah, go on Larry King and confess your intention.
	What are you gonna do?
	When you gonna hit us?
	When you gonna take over?
	When you gonna try to wipe us out.
	Is this not absurd?
	It's one thing for the State Department to do this, but for the Pentagon.
	Why do we Okay bin Laden, you tell us right now where you are.
	We demand to know where you are.
	And furthermore, we demand to know when you're gonna hit us again.
	Did you hear about Pinch and his commencement address and his alma mater?
	Little Pinch, uh Arthur Schultzberger Jr. made an apology to graduates of the State University of New York New Polts on Sunday that he and his generation, I think Pinch is uh forty-seven, forty-eight years old.
	Fifty is he's a boomer.
	Uh Pinch said and apologized uh he and his generation were not able to revolutionize the world.
	Sounding more radical than any of his op-ed columnists.
	Little Pinch declared, when I graduated in 74, my fellow students and I ended the Vietnam War and we ousted President Nixon.
	Okay, okay.
	That's not quite true.
	Maybe there were larger forces at play.
	Either way, we entered the real world committed to making it a better, safer, cleaner, and more equal place.
	We were determined not to repeat the mistakes of our predecessors.
	We had seen the horror of war.
	We had smelled the stench of government corruption.
	Our children, we vowed, would never know that.
	So, well, I am sorry.
	He also said, I wasn't, it wasn't supposed to be this way.
	You weren't supposed to be graduating in an America fighting a misbegotten war in a foreign land.
	You weren't supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights, be it the rights of immigrants to start a new life, the right of gays to marry, or the rights of women to choose.
	My goodness, ladies and gentlemen, way to send the graduates out there on an upbeat inspirational note.
	Just go in there and bleed all over 'em, Pinch.
	Share your guilt with all those kids.
	That's right.
	Spread the guilt, Pinch.
	Go in there and just ladle it all over them and make them think they too are gonna be failures because their fathers and their mothers and their predecessors and even the family that owns the New York Times are abject failures.
	He said it to the graduating students at SUNY New Polts.
	Back after this.
	Okay, back to the phones.
	Uh San Antonio, Texas.
	Sean, glad you called, sir.
	Welcome to the program.
	Hi, Rush.
	How are you?
	Fine, thank you.
	Great.
	Uh, just wanted to bring up that issue regarding um Hillary brought up that um issue in the Senate to provide free health care or something like that or educational No, what it is, what what it is is right now the burden of paying the safety net uh cost for all illegals falls to the states.
	Hillary said that's not fair.
	The federal government should uh should help share the burden and pay the cost.
	Right.
	She said she wanted to establish a grant program for for set aside money for health.
	Yeah, but something like that, yeah.
	That was shot down.
	That was voted down 43 to 52.
	And I was surprised at how many Democrats well, not really surprised, but so are the Democrats who voted for it.
	They were the usual suspects.
	Well, then John Corning, Senator from Texas, proposed an amendment saying, or another uh amendment to the that uh Senate Bill 2611 that uh, yeah, we'll do that, but they gotta pay a supplemental application fee.
	Which shall be used to provide financial assistance to the states for health and educational for non-citizens.
	And that passed.
	And Senator Clinton voted for that.
	Which I thought it was kind of interesting.
	And some of the other usual suspects you would think against that voted for it.
	I just I I I I I I've my my take on all of this is uh the the the it's it's absurd.
	First, we're gonna make them pay a fine.
	They're gonna make them turn themselves in, and again if they're less than a five years, they gotta go back and come back.
	They're not good where there's no enforcement.
	If they've got to pay the fee, what I I this is missing the whole point, folks.
	It's uh you you can get into the minutia of this, uh, and it just it just indicates how far the the uh the uh uh the goalpost has been moved on this on this whole issue.
	When we get down to discussing who's gonna pay for the social safety net and who's gonna pay these the the the these fees uh and so forth, what we're being told is, hey folks, uh bill's done live with it.
	Uh we're not gonna do anything about what's happening here.
	Uh we're just gonna try to make you think we are, and we're gonna go so if Hillary comes up, her bill fails, but something else comes up to substitute for it, uh, where her the basic premise of her original bill is uh is dealt with, that is relieve some of the pressure on the states.
	And I mean, remember Hillary's trying to get state party organizations on her side uh and state Democrats around the country on her side for her presidential run.
	Uh the idea that all of this is uh being dealt with in a substantive way to actually deal with the issue is uh bogus, and that's what's and particularly on the Democrat side.
	But the Republicans are uh really not much better in in some of this stuff.
	It's uh it's a it's an eye-opener, it's a disappointment at the same time.
	Before we go, I have to share uh this little bit of news.
	Thanks, Sean, for the phone call.
	As you know, Charlie Gibson is in and Elizabeth Vargas, who is with child and is cutting back, is out uh as the official anchor of ABC's World News tonight.
	Charlie Gibson moving over there, he's been he's been campaigning for this.
	Uh he wanted it.
	So basically what you have here uh uh ABC is is telling uh pregnant pregnant uh Anchorette out of there.
	Uh we don't want to deal with all the maternity leave.
	She was only gonna take two weeks anyway.
	Uh her second child is due in August.
	The doctors told her she should cut back her schedule considerably.
	Now that's uh that doesn't happen.
	That's unique.
	Women can do it all.
	They don't need to cut back.
	Oh, I'm sorry, it's it's it's childbirth.
	That is an illness uh to the left.
	The now gang, the Nags, and their and their big time president Kim Gandhi hope that Vargas is leaving of her own accord.
	I'm looking forward to the day where a woman who is eight or nine months pregnant is delivering the news.
	Uh uh Kim, it has happened.
	Uh I've watched it a number of times on the Fox News channel.
	Those babes have gotten pregnant and they've sat there with Linda Vester and Bridget Quinn sat there until my you said just give birth.
	Just give birth, or you know, let some air out or something.
	But it's it's it's happened.
	Now that wraps it up, folks.
	Gotta hit the trail.
	Gotta head out.
	Gotta start working on tomorrow's busy broadcast, which we eagerly look forward to each and every day.
	Thanks for being with us today.
	And see you tomorrow.

▲