All Episodes
Previous Next
June 2, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:15
June 2, 2006, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello, friends.
I am America's real anchor man doing the job the mainstream drive by media used to do.
And doing it with half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair.
Rush Limbaugh on Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in Sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
I know, I know.
It's open line Friday.
Why don't you take more calls?
Well, things happen as they happen, folks.
Everything that happens on this program is spontaneous.
There is nothing scheduled.
There's no segment A sheet, segment B. None of this.
It just happens.
And I promise to make an effort to go to the phone sooner than usual in this hour, because people have been patiently waiting on hold.
The telephone number's 800-282-2882.
All right.
Let me let me get back to this piece.
This this is this piece is classic, folks.
I I um it's amazing.
It's it's by a member of the media who writes for Newsweek who says he's got no, he's got no, what does he say?
He's got no brief in this fight because he's not either a Democrat or Republican.
Yeah, the whole piece is advising Democrats what they need to do to win.
But it's his perspective of and how he sees the Democrats and how he sees the Republicans that is fascinating to me.
I just look, I've read you some of this already.
So let me continue here with just a few excerpts.
While nitpicking and gnattering over Bush's errors of execution, the Democrats still embrace his fundamentals.
In other words, they all continue to sound like unreconstructed John Kerries, frightened of seeming soft when they get together.
This fear is virtually all the Democrats talk about.
It's a fear that reeks from the party's new draft platform for 2006.
Where is that?
I haven't seen this draft platform.
Well, I remember.
Yeah, I guess there was talk of a draft platform, but nobody's actually etched it in stone yet.
Anyway, it is a fear that reeks from the party's new draft platform for 2006, which causes Leslie Gelb, the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, to remark to liberal hawk Peter Bynert recently, if you have to say you're tough, Peter, you're not.
Just like you say you're gonna inject spirituality into your agenda, you don't have it in the first place.
The champion of this new breed of Democrat tough guys, of course, is Hillary, who every week it seems, finds some new way of pandering to the right in her long stealth march to the 2008 nomination, all in an apparent effort to escape her own shadow, her supposed liberal excesses from the early 90s.
Now, does that how you see Hillary?
Especially this this piece is just written yesterday.
In the last three weeks, last month, do you see Hillary Clinton as as pandering to the right?
We just played you audio sound bites yesterday of her speech.
Uh her acceptance speech hammering the Bush administration all over the place.
It's just it what this piece is is another member of the media complaining and whining and moaning that the Democrats are not criticizing Bush enough, that they're frightened, that they're scared to criticize Bush on anything.
What is this guy missing?
Does he not watch and read his own drive-by media?
Really?
This is if anybody needs therapy, it's a guy that wrote this piece.
Name is uh put the name is Michael Hirsch.
He's at Newsweek, but this is only on the website.
One reason for the persistence of these democratic phobias has been the party's abysmal inability a year and a half after the fact to reckon with the real reason for Kerry's loss in 2004, once again, fear.
Kerry's campaign was driven by a fear of his shadow, his anti-war activism after Vietnam of seeming too st- What do you mean?
He opened the Democratic Convention by saying John Kerry reporting for duty, he reconquered Boston with his Swiftboat buddies going to the going to the convention, went across Boston Harbor in the attempted reenactment of his great military service.
Didn't try to hide anything here.
He was exposed as a fraud for crying out loud.
He was exposed as somebody who couldn't tell the truth.
He was exposed as somebody who wouldn't release his uh his Service records.
And yet this guy thinks that Kerry lost because he was afraid of being who he really is.
How else can one explain the inexplicable?
The spectable uh spectacle of a silver star winner made to look wimpy by two men who avoided combat.
He's talking about Carl Rove and the Swiftboat guys.
Uh simple.
Carrie was terrified of speaking out.
His campaign even toned down the convention speech of that most mild mannered of presidents, Jimmy Carter.
I hold no brief in this fight, writes Mr. Hirsch, being neither Democrat or Republican.
But here is a message to those few Democrats who retain their self-confidence and sanity, and I'm not sure who you are, but there must be some.
Come back from the shadows.
If you can look past your fears, America's entire national security apparatus is out there making your case for you.
No, what's happening out there, Mr. Hirsch, is that the Democratic Party is making the case, the American people, they're not trusted to run the national security apparatus.
The vast majority of Democrat leaders cannot bring themselves to say this, Hillary, most prominent of all, what can't they bring themselves to say is that the Iraq war has been pointless, it was unnecessary, it's a phony war.
No Democrat can say that.
That's all they've been saying for two and a half years.
I don't know what this guy is.
This guy sounds like a kooky left-wing blogger who says the Democrats are that's where you read this kind of stuff.
Democrats must first have the courage to strip bare the GOP's failures.
They must believe they're every bit as good on national security as their rivals.
This courage is frankly not in evidence.
Five and a half years on, we see the Republicans as brazen and full of self-confidence as ever about their national security credentials, and the Democrats as timid and full of self-doubt as they ever have been over the same issue.
Hence the need for a good therapist, one with a very large office.
Now, is that how you see the Democrats?
Do you see the Democrats as being uh uh frightened and afraid uh to uh to come out and now the only area of this that if this is what he's saying, but I'm I'm not all together certain here that this is what he's saying.
Uh but I I I do think uh that the Democrats are scared to death of telling us what they really believe and who they really are, because they know they're gonna lose if they do that.
But uh and there's no question that's why they go to these closed door meetings, come up with these policy ideas of how can we fool them today, hiring George Lacoff rhymes with uh I uh but but the idea that that the Republicans are running around as brazen and full of self-confidence as ever about their national security credentials, um.
Anyway, he then says no one looks like a wimp when he or she tells the truth, and the public is crying and pleading for someone to tell the truth.
Uh admit it, my friends, this is why you listen to me.
Because I satisfy that craving in your hearts and your minds, although I'm not seeking office.
The public is crying, pleading for somebody to tell the truth.
This guy's version of the truth is that Bush lied, Iraq was not necessary, we've goofed it up, we have uh we've left Afghanistan to the Taliban, they're running rushed out all over the place again, uh, and and it's horrible out there.
Iran's getting nukes, and we're not gonna do anything to stop it why everything's horrible.
This is exactly what they have been saying for three years, if if not more.
And I don't again, I don't know how this guy misses it.
This country, well, well, most Americans now know without being told that American prestige is on the line in Iraq, and that any withdrawal will be slow and painful.
And this is now settled U.S. policy.
It'll be followed by whoever the next president is, Democrat or Republican.
Not necessarily because that wizard of smarts, John F. Kerry, is out there harshly criticizing the Bush administration for disdaining disp uh diplomacy in favor of a confrontational and unilateral foreign policy that has hurt the U.S. In a speech yesterday in LA, Kerry warned that the mistake of Iraq must not be repeated in the current standoff of Iran, and he basically demanded that we pull all of our troops out by the end of this year.
So we got Kerry running the same campaign, the campaign that Mr. Hirsch here uh apparently missed.
Now there's a there's a a companion story to this in the American Spectator Online today, and it's by Andrew Klein.
Uh you know, I've always recently, not always recently been making the point that what's missing on our side of the aisle is an elected conservative leadership.
Well, his piece sort of confirms it because his piece, I'm not going to bother reading excerpts because it's very uh it's simple to to to synthesize this.
What he's basically saying is conservatives have got to make it plain that they are not Republicans.
And I agree with that a hundred percent.
I mean, the country club blue blooders, uh the the uh the elitist, the Rockefeller Republicans, the liberal Republicans, a whole bunch of them out there.
Uh and and they are they're doing their best to uh to to uh uh defeat the conservative wing of the Republican Party, and they're being joined in that by Liberal Democrats as well.
Quick time out, folks, back with much more.
Your phone calls are next after this.
Ha, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the cutting edge of societal evolution.
New here it is, New York State tops the country in taxes collected by the state and local governments, siphoning off this is an average, because I can assure you I am paying somebody else's twenty or thirty shares, five thousand two hundred and sixty dollars per person a year.
Uh New York's combined local and state tax burden was fifty-three percent above the national average and three hundred and thirty-nine dollars more than the uh second most taxed state, Connecticut, according to Robert Ward of the Public Policy Institute of the Business Council of New York State.
Now this study was based on two thousand four census data.
In two thousand two, the combined tax burden in New York, four thousand six hundred and eighty-four dollars per state resident.
This is why I uh well, you remember when I announced I was moving to Florida.
Yeah, you're just doing that to escape New York taxes, aren't you?
What was that make me stupid?
Is it you're challenging my patriotism here?
Check the stats, you'll see a lot of people have moved out of New York.
A thousand people a day are moving to Florida.
Despite everybody here braced for hurricanes.
All quiet, by the way, on day two.
Andrew from the Sticks in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Welcome, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Well, Rush, you know, when you when you talked about that article about Omaha, Nebraska, the first the first thing that popped into my head was the Strategic Air Command.
Omaha, the there's an Air Force base outside of Omaha, and I I forget the name of it, but it used to be the home of the old Strategic Air Command, which the Air Force is reorganized, and it's it's not there anymore.
But it got me to thinking.
I mean, there there are lots of places out in the state.
You're talking about the air base, are you talking about the air base where it was off it, I think.
Uh was it?
Off it, yeah, but probably.
Yeah.
Anyway, it it got me to thinking there are a lot of little out-of-the-way places that I think we want want to make secure, like uh like maybe Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Los Alamos, New Mexico.
Um, I mean, you go down to I mean, he even here in North Carolina, I mean, uh uh research Triangle Park, I mean IBM employs close to 13,000 people out here.
Yeah.
Uh Charlotte, North Carolina, is the uh uh the home of Bank of America.
Yeah.
Uh I think we want to keep those secure too, not not only New York.
And then of course, there uh oh, another thing I I I thought of was uh uh in West Virginia, isn't that isn't there a fingerprint lab out there uh the for the FBI?
Robert Byrd did that?
Uh well the if you say so I'll accept it.
Okay.
Well, yeah, I'm uh I I know that there's a big FBI facility in West Virginia.
I think it's fingerprints.
I'm not sure though.
You have to understand though, uh you know, we've got a huge audience in New York, and they're listening to this right now, and and uh they're saying none of that matters.
Bank?
We got more banks in New York than they do in Charlotte.
What the banks?
Fingerprint centers, New York PD does more fingerprints than they do in Bob Bird's West Virginia.
Uh research trying all I do is rape people in North Carolina.
What do we need to protect against that for?
The New Yorkers, they're not they're not gonna be swayed by any of this.
Okay, well, you know, well, what about Oak Ridge?
I mean, you know, we get uh the Oak Ridge Labs.
I mean, you know, nuclear Yeah, but New Yorkers don't believe in nuclear.
Let it go.
Okay, but I mean if terrorists like break in and and steal stuff, you know, that that might be.
If they destroy Tennessee, it'd be fine with New Yorkers.
Okay.
Serve 'em right.
New York getting cut with its budget.
No, I'm I'm I'm of course uh I'm just funny with you here about twenty-five percent.
Uh there I'm telling you, New York is uh is uh everything you've heard about it is true, and then some.
But one of the great myths, I mean it is it's giant media capital, it's it's everything that you've heard and think that it is.
Uh well, it's actually not anymore.
It used to be said you could do and uh get anything you wanted twenty four seven, and you can't smoke there now.
Uh it's it's it's become a nanny state.
It's got its own welfare state.
Um it's a high tax revenue uh Mecca, it's liberal Mecca.
But it's the biggest small town in the country, folks.
It it is it is snerdily you sneer at me every time I say this.
Well, I don't it Well, what I you when I talk about small town, you know what I you haven't come from a small town, so you don't know what I mean.
But people that come from small towns know what I did.
I came from a small town, and everybody that comes from a small town knows what I mean when I say that.
Small towns are closely knit and they are unified and they are proud of every citizen that lives there, especially those that go on to big and great things, and they take it as a as a great source of civic pride.
New York is no different.
New York will latch on to anybody who spent a day in New York if they have mounted to anything and claim them as a New Yorker.
All they had to do is pass through and stay in a hotel.
If New York media finds out about it, they're a New Yorker.
And it and it uh and and the well, they claim themselves as New Yorkers, but they claim others who haven't been as well.
The the point, and I'm this is not a criticism.
See, you think I'm being critical when I call them a small town.
I'm not.
I'm saying they have the same characteristics of pride, even though the boroughs, you know, p people don't think of New York as having uh uh neighborhoods where people convene and get into chat over the picket fence in the backyard, but they do have neighborhoods.
It's uh it's just it's it's uh uh it is unique among American cities in I don't know how many ways, but it has one thing in common, and that is uh they they have as much pride in their town, no matter what goes wrong there, as anybody in any other city or town does.
Uh and so they look out.
You've seen these little posters of the United States that show New York is 99 percent of it.
Uh the Hudson River, and then uh the next thing you see is the Pacific Ocean.
Uh that's that's how they look at it.
At any rate, uh give you some details here.
Uh New York Times.
The Federal agency, Homeland Security, distributing 711 million dollars.
And by the way, New York City's getting 125 million of that.
Uh the Federal agency distributing 711 million dollars in anti-terrorism money to cities around the nation found numerous flaws in New York's application, and they gave poor grades to many of its proposals.
Uh its criticism extended to some of the city's most highly publicized counterterrorism measures.
In a report that outlines why it cut back New York City's share of anti-terrorism funds by roughly forty percent.
Homeland Security was so critical of some highly viewed local measures like Operation Atlas, in which hundreds of extra cops carry out counterterrorism duties around the city every day, that the police department and other city agencies must now seek further federal approval before drawing on the money they were given to pay for those programs.
In a flurry of charges and countercharges, federal officials said yesterday city did uh not only a poor job of articulating its needs in its application, but it mishandled the application.
Failing to file it electronically as required, they instead faxed it to Washington.
And it didn't follow procedures.
City and state officials insisted they'd made no mistakes.
Um and a state official provided a written acknowledgement from the federal government saying that the city's application for grant money had been successfully submitted.
Now, city officials have used federal money to subsidize continuing costs, like paying overtime to officers.
The federal government, on the other hand, wants the grants to pay for semi-permanent safeguards that can increase security over the long term, like improvements in communication systems, better gas masks, and increased training.
The report faltered the city for not adequately explaining why the money being requested could reduce risks.
Though the report said the city was in the top twenty-five percent of urban areas at risk, it rated the city in the bottom twenty-five percent in the quality of its application.
And as we heard yesterday, uh uh They're asking the question do you pay for what are viewed as basic capabilities, law enforcement, fire, EMS, public health, emergency management.
Whose role is it to pay for that versus whose role is it to pay for specialized training and equipment for fire, EMS, and law enforcement?
Uh I I know what's what's gone.
New York is just like any other big bureaucracy for it's just out of money and it'll take money and it'll use it for whatever purpose, like the tobacco money was supposed to go to prevention and education.
It didn't.
It went to anything the states thought that they needed help with to overcome budget deficits and so forth.
Back in just a second.
Stay with us.
Open line Friday rolls on and Northport, Alabama.
This is uh Steve.
Welcome, sir, to the EIB network.
Hey, Rush Cardettos from a 14-year listener.
Thank you, sir.
Um, just wanted to talk a little bit about the uh unconstitutionality of this immigration bill.
Um truth to tell, I think um our moderate Republican friends and the Democrats are have looked around at all these primaries that are going on and seeing these pro-illegal immigrants getting their heads handed to them.
And so they I think they finally came up with a way to weasel out of actually voting for the bill.
And they can go back home to the folks they were pandering to and say, Well, we really wanted to do this immigration bill, but that pissy little constitution wouldn't let us do it.
Well, you know, the pro the problem with that is that if they do that, they make themselves look even stupider than they did when they wrote the bill, because any sixth grader knows that spending in tax bills have to originate in the House.
Now, if they really care yes, they ever any six well, a sixth grader should know that.
I guarantee you this.
These guys in the Senate should have damn well known it.
I don't care about every sixth grader, but every every guy and you know that they did.
They might have forgotten it.
It might have been an oversight.
I don't think that this is a way to get the bill killed.
This is an embarrassment to these guys.
Here is Senator McCain, campaign finance reform, John McCain, the straight talk express.
Here's a guy who apparently uh these guys don't even read the legislation, is one thing this might point out.
Number two, uh the others don't even know what's in it even after they've written it.
But this they can't go out and say, well, you know what, we uh put something in there and it uh pesky little constitution screws us up uh because this is easily fixed if they want to fix it.
It's very you take it out.
You take it out.
What we're talking about for you, just joining us, folks.
This immigration bill in the Senate grants amnesty on back taxes to illegal aliens.
Uh they'll only have to pay three out of five years in back taxes.
Okay, you can have uh whatever opinion you want on that, but the Senate can't pass a bill that has that kind of provision because that is a tax and spend or a revenue generating provision, and those can only originate in the House.
So this goes to conference.
That's gotta come out.
Now, Dingy Harry says, well, it's just a technicality, it's not a big deal.
I refuse to have it out.
Now, Dinji Harry may want to keep it in so he can kill the bill, but he wants to kill the bill because he thinks the Republicans and President Bush will be forever creamed if they don't get legislation on this.
The typical Liberal Democrat, the only thing progress is defined by us if we get a bill.
They cannot, for the life of them, understand that no bill here is a good thing as opposed to what this bill would be if it were passed.
Now, there there's room here for a good bill, but this ain't it.
Uh this isn't it.
I only say this ain't it when kids are in school and will not be influenced by it, but school's out in most places now.
So I apologize for that.
Dingy Harry doesn't want to take it out.
But folks, the thing you really have to look at here.
Here's John McCain, who already with one piece of legislation screwed up the first amendment, campaign finance reform.
And now here's another one within with with that this is written within either arrogance, ignorance, or total disregard uh for the Constitution.
Bill Frist.
So he wants to save it.
Here's what we do.
We simply attach this bill as an amendment to a tax bill that's already passed that uh it came from the House, and therefore that provision will stand.
The simple thing is to take this out.
Why in the world do these people get amnesty on back taxes.
Why do any if I were William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, or if I were Tom Delay, if I'm anybody under indictment, you know, I'd point to this bill and I'd say, I want the same treatment that 20 million illegals are getting in the United States Senate.
They're being given amnesty from identity theft.
They're getting amnesty for not having to pay back taxes.
How come you're coming after me?
I'm a servant of the American public.
I've done great things.
I came from abject poverty.
I came up from dirt and dust.
And you want to put me in jail, and you're going to let these people go scot-free.
And they haven't accomplished diddly squat compared to what I've accomplished.
I'm a servant of this country.
Blake can just hear it now.
Congressman Jefferson would never make it, but it is, you know, whatever happened, equal protection.
There's an equal protection clause in the Constitution, too.
Whatever happened to that.
So I I don't believe the people who wrote this bill uh want this bill to go by the wayside and have there be no bill.
Uh some of them might.
Uh but I don't think McCain wants that.
I think McCain wants the bill.
I think Ted Kennedy wants the bill.
I think Hagel wants the bill.
I think Mel Martinez in Florida wants the bill.
Obviously, Bill Frist wants the bill.
Uh so it's this would be easy to fix without going through this rigmarole of attaching this whole monstrosity as an amendment to a house tax bill that's already passed.
You just take it out.
Uh it won't survive in the House conference anyway, precisely for constitutional reasons.
By the way, do you recall, ladies and gentlemen, uh, when we first reported to you via Jeff Session, Senator from Alabama, and Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, based on their independent analyses of the Senate bill, the numbers of emigrants, legal and illegal, that would flood this country in the next 20 years.
The range was anywhere from a hundred to two hundred million.
People say that's outrageous.
That's silly.
Why, that's the whole population of Mexico.
That can't happen.
Well, that's just common sense says that can't possibly be true.
Well, the people read the bill, looked at it and came up with it.
So they changed the bill, uh, modified some provision, and those numbers of 100 to 200 million were reduced to 60 to 90.
Well, that's still outrageous.
Why anybody will look at this and see that this can possibly be true?
Scare tactics, why I can't believe people be managing their own common sense to believe scare tactics.
Then uh Robert Samuelson earlier this week, writing in the Washington Post, said, you know what?
I just found and it's been out there for anybody in the media to find, the White House own analysis of the Senate bill.
And their number is between 40 and 60.
And how come the media hasn't been reporting this?
Well, easy, the media's agenda is to get the bill passed.
Pure and simple.
Today in the Washington Post, Senate bill would add 20 million legal immigrants report says.
Seems like this uh large number of uh immigrants, regardless of the number, is true, folks, once again on the cutting edge of societal evolution here on this program.
You are, if you listen, uh doing the job the mainstream media used to do.
Here it is, almost a week afterwards, and the mainstream press, and the New York Times still hadn't gotten to it, just arriving at the details of what the legislation actually means.
Remember, we went through a list of things that the AP had as highlights in the bill, and they left out this whole identity theft provision.
They just totally left it out.
And it's not that they investigated it and saw it and said, ooh, can't put that in there.
They relied on press releases from people who uh are proponents of the bill to tell them what was in it and reported that.
Or repeated it.
The stenographers.
The nation's population of illegal immigrants would increase by nearly 20 million over the next decade if the recently passed Senate immigration bill becomes law, and taxpayers would spend more than 50 billion dollars to operate a new guest worker program and pay for extra welfare, social security, and public health care costs, according to a congressional budget office report.
Everything we told you on this program about the bill finally now shows up in the drive-by media.
The report, the first definitive look at the impact of the Senate bill was commissioned by the Senate Finance Committee, submitted on May 9th or 16th, nine days before the measure was passed.
The study has been embraced by the Bush administration and the bill's supporters, But opponents said crucial omissions greatly lowered its population and cost estimates.
Probably true there.
But still, even with this conservative analysis, two million people a year, legal and otherwise, brought into this country and the increasing pressure on uh on our social services programs.
Uh so the truth is out now, folks, uh, and it's it's gonna be real fascinating to watch this conference committee.
I have, you know, one one point that Steve made, I think it's a little soon for some of these guys to be noting what's happening in these primaries out there.
There have just been two or three of them.
Uh Chris Cannon coming up on the twenty-seventh of this month in Utah.
That'll be an interesting one to watch, and they'll that'll be going on probably during the conference negotiations, so that will get their attention.
Uh but there is a rebellion brewing out there on this, and the people in the House know it, and the Senate doesn't care because they don't have to face voters, most of them.
In fact, the ones that are promoting this bill and all for it, they don't fa face the voters, and even if they did, it wouldn't matter.
Ted Kennedy, he's not going to lose an election because of this bill up in Massachusetts, so it doesn't matter.
But the House takes temperature of the American public on issue after issue, because those guys have to uh uh and gals have to, you know, face the voters every two years.
Beth in Los Angeles, great to have you on the program.
Welcome to Open Line Friday.
Hi, Rush.
Thank you.
Um I called to get your opinion about um something that my pastor said um over the weekend, the memorial.
We have luncheon at church.
Yes.
And um and I wrote him uh email after he said this.
It was uh um in support of the amnesty thing.
Yes.
And um so I wrote him an email, you know, giving him what did he say what did he say?
Well, he wrote me an email back after I proposed I I gave him our argument that we would be rewarding illegals for illegal behavior if we gave them amnesty.
Yeah.
And he wrote me back saying that the U.S. federal, state, and local governments have in fact agreed to a social contract, as Newt Gingrich put it, with our illegal immigrant population by giving these immigrants and their employers a wink and a nod as they fled the poverty in their homeland, crossed the border and took up employment.
Now almost two decades later, they have finally they have suddenly decided they want to pull this contract right out from under them by fine and by finding their employers, force them back to a land where any hope of bettering their lives could be some twenty, thirty years away.
And um but he feels that he says, as a conservative and as a Christian, do you truly feel that this is the right thing to do?
And um then went on to say that uh that their two decade-long government sanctioned social contracts has resulted in a permanent underclass because after they allowed them to come, these immigrants were and still are unable to bargain individually with employers for full market wage and therefore have no way of achieving economic mobility.
And that he thinks that President Bush is doing the only good the only thing a good Christian would do, which is the right thing, by proposing that we give them the opportunity to raise themselves.
I don't know what to say back to him.
Um, let me help here.
I have to take a break here, though.
I'm I don't I'll be screwing up the uh the highly valued programming format.
Uh, keep your radio on out there, Beth, and I'll uh I'll deal with this uh as best it can be dealt with uh in just a moment.
Okay, so how do we explain men of the cloth?
How do we explain pastors uh and and their position on illegals and uh dealing with them and so forth?
I think there's a number of things that you have to put in a hopper here to explain it.
Uh, first thing is there is no contract between this country and the government of Mexico or its citizens to come here and get away with whatever they get away with scot-free.
Now, the minister is attempting to say that this contract has been imploded or interpreted or assumed because we have not made serious efforts at penalizing people, and so they come here in expectation of uh being able to access uh all of the opportunity that exists here, that even after they get here, folks, they are still penalized because they can't negotiate wages independently.
Uh I think Beth, to understand this uh the the the Christian pastors I've heard speaking out on this in the one that you quoted, yours, uh, liken this almost to slavery when it's when it's not.
Uh they are assuming these people are here because they have no choice.
They have had to flee, uh decrepit conditions in their home country, as they've come to the blessed United States of America.
Uh and it's almost as though that they are forced to come here.
They have no choice but then to come here.
But it is not slavery.
These people arrive voluntarily.
They pay big money to get into the country.
They go to great lengths to get into the country because they know it is still illegal to do so.
You need to ask your pastor, what is it about the word illegal he doesn't understand?
And what he'll come back with, well, but the Christian thing to do, these are human beings, and these are suffering human beings, and these are poverty stricken human beings.
And the Christian thing to do is to protect them and to foster them and to save them and to not persecute them because of their poverty.
Nobody's persecuting anybody because of their poverty.
It's it's it's uh uh word as simple as illegal.
I think I think your member of the cloth out there, your pastor is is got himself into the uh belief that this is sort of like a sanctuary movement, that we have the poor of the world fleeing decrepit conditions to get into this country, and we have sanctuary for them, and that they all understand this, and it is not the case.
Uh you he's also saying they can't be blamed.
Why we've had this tacit winking and not, yeah, come on in.
We'll need you.
We need a permanent underclass and so forth.
Uh it's the case that even if that has happened, uh, it cannot be allowed to continue as is.
It's simply unsupportable.
It's causing uh pressures and threats on the distinct American culture.
Uh you need to tell your pastor this is really not even an immigration movement, and we're not even really talking about that.
It's just called that.
Uh but the Senate bill itself makes it clear that the aspects of immigration as we've always defined them are not at all relevant here.
Uh your pastor probably wants in his mind, I don't know if he's I I'm I'm I'm just speculating here, maybe not yours, but but some of these people that look at it the way your pastor does uh probably have equated it in their minds and hearts that they are hiding Jews in the churches and homes during the Holocaust, and that they're doing a uh uh a great spiritual thing here.
Uh but none of this holds up because these are not people fleeing anything.
Uh they're coming here voluntarily.
They're not being busted in, they're not being brought in on ships, they're not being brought in on trains.
American businesses are not going down to wherever these people are and helping them and facilitating them uh getting here.
At some point, however, what's wrong has to be recognized and dealt with.
Uh it's a problem that exists and it's out of control and it has to be dealt with.
Uh the theory that your pastor espoused would deal in no way whatsoever with the problem, in fact, would simply increase it, would provide incentives for more around the world uh to come under the basis that they're entitled simply because they're not here and there's more opportunity here than where they are.
We have systems set up to accommodate people who wish to come here.
The systems are being violated.
There's an effort now, or so-called effort, to uh to try to fix the system, and it's not aimed at harming anybody, it's aimed at protecting and preserving the United States of America.
Back in just a second.
Now, Beth in Los Angeles, I know you're still out there because everybody's always still out there.
Tell your preacher that he's become a moral relativist.
And isn't it creeping into our society for a long time?
Moral relativism.
He is defending people who are committing fraud, violating the law, committing identity theft, and then getting on tax rolls to receive benefits and uh and so forth.
That is moral relativism looking past these people's own sins because of whatever sins we might be committing in dealing with them.
▲
Export Selection