All Episodes
Previous Next
May 23, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:14
May 23, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Hey, folks, great to be with you back again here on Hump Day, the middle of the week.
For those of you that work the traditional five-day week, this is Hump Day.
Get this behind you.
And only two to go.
Those of us, of course, who are important in this country never take a day off.
Even when we're not here, we're working.
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis.
Rush Limbaugh here, documented to be almost always right now 98.6% of the time.
The latest opinion on it from the Sullivan Group in Sacramento, the opinion auditing firm that I use, I've been 100% right for the last five months, but it hasn't moved the overall 19-year average here.
Great to be with you, folks.
800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
What are you smiling about in there?
You look like you're just giddy as you can be.
You're laughing at snurdly.
I can't stop laughing.
By the way, did you see this story of everybody's making a big deal about this?
Now, I don't understand why female sharks can fertilize themselves.
I've known this.
We've all known this for a long time.
Hillary had Chelsea.
I don't understand what the big deal about it.
I mean, the feminazis are going to be pleased with this.
They've always been searching for a way to get this done without men, sperm banks.
I just slapped myself.
Maybe I don't regret seeing it.
Never mind.
A special welcome to those of you watching on the DittoCam today at rushlimbaugh.com.
President Bush speaking in New London, Connecticut.
Is that name ring a bell?
That name of that town?
New London, Connecticut?
That's where the Supreme Court's imminent domain decision took private property away from a poor person to give it to rich corporations to increase the tax base.
He's there because he's releasing the details.
He declassified some al-Qaeda intelligence, which bolsters the administration's contention that Al-Qaeda wants to use Iraq as a staging area to launch terrorist attacks around the world, including here in the United States.
Fran Townsend, who is the White House Homeland Security Advisor, said that the information was declassified because the intelligence communities tracked down all the leads from the administration.
There's also, ABC has run a story today.
I have a real question.
When is the Department of Justice going to get serious about tracking down these leaks?
You've seen the story that Bush has authorized a new covert action against Iran.
This is our old buddy Brian Ross at ABC News.
The CIA has received secret presidential approval.
Well, it isn't secret anymore.
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice and everybody else, the Democrats, are just they're obsessed here with Alberto Gonzalez and the firing of the U.S. attorneys.
And this is really harmful, damaging stuff.
And if there is no attempt to find the leakers, and we know the leakers are in the CIA, we know the leakers are in the Pentagon, the State Department.
We know there's a bunch of Clinton holdovers in there, and maybe not even Clinton holdovers, just a bunch of libs who have been trying to undermine this administration's foreign policy for six years.
And instead, they go after Scooter Libby and Karl Rove on a non-story with the Valerie Playman leak and just ignore this kind of stuff.
And if they ignore this, the leakers are going to be emboldened to keep on.
And this is totally about sabotaging whatever plans that we have.
And of course, alerting the mullahs.
And let me put this in a greater perspective for you.
You know, the Democrats pretty much caved in on their demand for a withdrawal date from Iraq.
The Democrats have retreated from retreat.
They remind me of the French.
They have surrendered from surrender.
I mean, this is amazing to watch.
I predicted to you yesterday that this would cause the fur to fly out there on the Democrat Kook Fringe website.
And wait till you hear perhaps the greatest, greatest illustration of my, I know these people, folks.
I know them like every square inch of my glorious naked body, not just the back of my hand.
Wait till you hear what happened on the Democrat Underground.
Here's the post.
We just read the post.
Democrat Underground explaining what happened here about why the Democrats caved and why they retreated from retreat.
Look, we all know they have the technology and the ability and the infrastructure to have easily stolen 06 as they had the previous elections, the Republicans.
We all know that Republicans have the ability and the technology and the infrastructure to have easily stolen the elections in 06 as they had the previous elections.
And that 06 elections went too smooth for us.
We skated in.
Today we're seeing their machinations, their Republican machinations, bear fruit.
This is what they wanted to happen.
Give the Democrats control.
Lose on purpose.
Don't steal this election.
Give the Democrats control.
Then just pull their unitary executive BS, stonewalling and lying as stall tactics.
In other words, what this guy is saying is that the Republicans threw the election in 06, didn't steal it, let the Democrats win, because Bush and Rove knew that the Democrats would cave on pulling troops out of a rock and to make the Democrats look bad.
He says, don't believe me?
These are serious people.
Don't believe me?
It's not hard to find posts on the Freeper board saying that we Democrats own this war now because we're the ones who can stop it and we won't.
Nancy and Harry have played directly into Bush Rove's hands or they've been complicit in the whole thing all along.
Either way, by failing to take any action to rein in the out-of-control dictator Bush, we really, really do own this war, just as Bush company planned.
And then there are a lot of support posts telling this guy how brilliant he is for coming up with this novel and unique theory to explain why the Republicans threw the elections.
Oh six.
Oh, you got to love these people.
I mean, it is embarrassing that we lost an election to this clown and his bunch, but he thinks we purposely didn't steal it just to make the Democrats look bad.
By the way, you know, moveon.org, way back a long time ago, just a few weeks ago, thinks they own the House majority.
They sent an open letter to Nancy Pelosi and the gang that had this threat in it.
If Democrats appear to capitulate to Bush, which they've now done, passing a bill without measures to end the war, the unity that Democrats have enjoyed and Democrat leadership has so expertly built will immediately disappear.
So MoveOn, some weeks ago, threatened to totally walk away if the Democrats let them down.
The Democrats have let them down.
If you go to some of these places and read it, it'll be some of the funniest stuff that you've exposed yourself to in a long time.
It seems like the capitulated synonyms.
So I went to the MoveOn.org website today.
You know what they're all up in arms about today?
High gas prices.
They haven't told, they may have.
They're sending out an action email to all of their members asking people to sign a petition to get Congress to do something about high gas prices.
And Congress is going to do something about high gas prices.
Have you heard this?
They are going to sue OPEC.
They are going to sue OPEC for high gas prices.
Why aren't they suing big oil, I wonder?
You know, the House voted yesterday to allow the government to sue OPEC over oil production quotas.
You know, they ought to sue themselves.
They ought to sue themselves.
They're the ones standing in the way of our energy independence.
You know, high gasoline prices, high oil prices today are partially due to the fact that back in the Clinton administration and since, the Democrats have prevented any drilling in, say, Anwar or anywhere else for our own supplies of oil.
And they have all this, you know, dramatic talk about alternative fuels and so forth, which is a pipe dream.
It's nothing near that's, you know, there's nothing down the road that's anywhere near that's going to solve whatever problem that we have.
But I find it interesting.
You want to sue OPEC and not big oil.
And this is, again, something that will go nowhere.
All right, a brief timeout.
We've got John Edwards on the Today Show today trying to explain the Democrat cave-in, the Democrat retreat from retreat, the surrender from surrender on the Iraq bill.
I want to spend some time on the leak to ABC News about our secret plan in Iraq or Iran, I should better say.
We are actually loaded.
Oh, and Greg, get this.
Before we go to the break, get this.
I mean, this is right along the lines of the things we opened up with yesterday.
Here's a story.
This is from the Christian Science Monitor.
As summer begins, trouble in the U.S. Airways.
Is this not a regular story?
You can go to the calendar and you can find the week before Memorial Day, every year, the week before Memorial Day, we're going to get a spate of stories about it's going to be a scorching summer.
Hurricane season is going to wipe us all out.
And airline travel in the summertime is going to be worse than ever.
Well, I'll tell you why.
With airplanes packed with more passengers than ever before, forecasters predicting severe hurricane and thunderstorm seasons, and airline employee morale at what experts say is a record low, this summer could become one of the most chaotic.
Some analysts are predicting it could even rival the summer of 2000, which was laden with work slowdowns, record flight delays, and passenger frustration.
Kevin Mitchell, chairman of the Business Travel Coalition in Radnor, Pennsylvania, says all the pieces are in place.
There's so much dissatisfaction.
So many employees are burned out.
They're working longer hours for less pay in a system that is jammed to the hilt.
Why, folks, just be on horrible.
This is catastrophic.
We may not survive the summer.
What with the hurricanes and thunderstorms and now the air traffic system about to fall apart before our very eyes.
Meanwhile, have a good day.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
This is the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
It's the largest free education institution known to exist in the free or oppressed worlds.
There are no graduates.
There are no degrees.
There are no grades.
The learning never stops.
Last night, oh, by the way, pumpkin update.
Pumpkin is fine.
She's got medicine that bladder inflammation.
She ate some flowers in the house, specifically some lilies.
And this has caused a little inflammation, got some antibiotics.
She's fine now, more feisty.
She actually rolled my cigar off the desk last night.
I guess sending me a message.
She never comes up on the desks and interferes with what I'm doing.
She usually runs around in my feet and my legs get my attention.
She actually jumped up on the desk and meowing a lot.
She doesn't say much, which is a blessing.
She was meowing like crazy last night.
This cat, as I've told you, this gets me in trouble when I say this, but this little cat has taught me more about women than practically anything else the rest of my life.
Here, I've just built up some goodwill with a touching, compassionate story about my cat, and I blow it with that joke that people will not understand.
Anyway, I was preparing for this program last night and spinning through the news, kept seeing all these news stories on this Pew study about how moderate Muslims in America are.
And I ignored it because it, you know, the instincts, instincts just took over.
I've got a collection here of headlines to illustrate the things that I saw last night.
And these headlines seem to present a uniform picture of the good, assimilating, moderate American Muslim.
And look at my experience with the drive-by media is that once one of them reports something, they all pick up on it in the same theme.
I just don't trust it.
So I got in here today, and I really wasn't going to pay much attention to this.
And I read a piece by Debbie Schlussel at her blog, DebbieSchlussel.com.
And she starts out this way.
She says, for almost six years, we've heard the constant chorus, Muslims in America are different.
On 9-11, we were told that American Muslims would never commit the attacks like those perpetrated upon 3,000 Americans on 9-11.
That those 19 were different.
That they hijacked their religion.
On July 7th, 7-7 Great Britain, we were told the European Muslims are different.
We were told that American Muslims would never try to blow up subways and train stations here, unlike those in London who did it twice, and those in Madrid who killed far more on their train.
We were told and continue to be told that American Muslims would never continuously riot in the streets, burning hundreds of cars a day, as they've been doing throughout France, going on three years now, violently attacking and injuring more than a dozen police per day.
American Muslims are different, we're told.
They're far more assimilated, far more successful financially, blah, Well, now because of this survey, we have come to find out that Muslims in America are not that different from their co-religionists around the world.
In fact, the viewpoints are pretty much the same as that of their religious counterparts around the world and getting more extreme with age and American upbringing.
This Pew Research Center study on Muslims in America, if you get past the biased press coverage in the headlines, and I've got a list of these headlines to show you what I mean, it is clear that America has not moderated Islam or its adherents.
Islam has made American Muslim residents more extreme, just as with its European counterparts.
Wealth and education and opportunity and freedom have done nothing to moderate them.
Here are some of the details from this survey.
And if you only read the headline and you didn't read deep in any of these stories, this might come as a surprise to you.
More than one in four Muslims, 26% between the ages 18 and 29, said that suicide bombing is justified.
Now run the numbers.
So what do we have with the 2.5 million Muslims in America living here?
Break it down, whatever percentage of them are between 18 and 29, then take 26% of that.
Talking about a significant number of people in the demographic group that do take action like this around the world.
2% of them say that it can often be justified.
13% say sometimes.
11% say rarely.
So let's add up.
26-2 is 28.
And 41% think to one degree or another, suicide bombing is justified.
If you add to that the 5% that don't know or refuse to answer, it's even worse.
I said 41, 31%, almost a third of young American Muslims who support in one way or another homicide bombings according to the Pew Poll.
12% of foreign-born Arab Muslims said that suicide bombing can be justified often or sometimes.
That's more than one in 10.
10% of them don't know, refuse to answer.
So you've got a total of 22% who apparently support homicide bombings.
That's more than one in five, almost one in four.
And yet the headlines all last night on this story were Muslims assimilating in America.
Muslims are moderate.
8% of all Muslims said that suicide bombing is justified.
If you add to that the 9% that don't know or refuse to answer, you get 17%, almost one in five American Muslims, support suicide bombings.
It goes even further.
We've heard for a long time that American Muslims, that Al-Qaeda doesn't represent Islam and the Al-Qaeda has hijacked the religion.
More than one in four American Muslims between 18 and 29 support Al-Qaeda.
7% outright viewed it favorably.
19% don't know, refuse to answer.
That's a total of 26%.
So more than one in four young Muslims in America support Al-Qaeda.
One-third of American Muslims, 30 or over, support Al-Qaeda.
4% support the group outright, plus the 29% that refuse to answer.
Why'd they refuse to answer?
You add them in there, you get a total of 33% of it.
You can't answer an outright no to this question.
You support Al-Qaeda.
Of all American Muslims, only 58% have a very unfavorable view of Al-Qaeda.
Well, okay, fine.
That's what is that, 42% who do.
Now, as I say, I'm not surprised by this.
None of this surprises me.
The point that I wish to make is the headlines that heralded all of this.
And let me just share some of them with you, thanks to the people at Pajamas Media who have, well, actually, ACES SPADE's headquarters at Pajamas Media, I guess.
USA Today poll, most Muslims seek to adopt American lifestyle.
And then they give supporting quotes.
Voice of America poll, U.S. Muslims feel post-9-11 backlash, despite moderate outlook.
New York Times and their International Herald Tribune.
Muslims assimilate better in U.S. than Europe, poll finds.
Media line, Pew Poll shows American Muslims believe solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict is possible.
Chicago Tribune, U.S. Muslims more content assimilated than those abroad.
The Pew Polling Organization itself headlined their own story with Muslim Americans colon, middle class, and mostly mainstream.
USA Today's blog headline, Muslim Americans overwhelmingly democratic but conservative on many issues.
And the Detroit News.
Survey, Muslims largely assimilated in the United States.
Yet we have significant numbers of them who say they support al-Qaeda, that they support suicide bombings, they support other types of violence.
So the headlines, once again, and why these headlines?
Because the drive-by media in concert with the Democrat Party cannot permit the American people to agree with George Bush or to understand that Bush is right about the threat that we face from Islamo-fascists.
Our buddy ZZ Top, speaking of musical groups, doing a show prep today, I find out that the Moody Blues are going to be at Radio City Music Hall on August 9th.
I was out in Vail some years ago and went to bed one night after all the festivities at night.
I turned on a local PBS station.
I don't know why.
It just happened to pop up as I'm channel surfing around.
And the Moody Blues are in concert at the Royal Albert Hall.
And I still had my hearing.
I was riveted to it.
It was fabulous.
I played those guys' records as a struggling young disc jockey star of the future.
In fact, first big gig, my first really big radio station in Pittsburgh, the number one song was Nights in White Sat.
And we, music rotation, you play the number one tune every 58 minutes, regardless.
And I watched that concert on PBS, and I went out there and I went out and bought the DVD or the CD of it.
And I listened to it all the time.
Never going to be at Radio City Music Hall on August the 9th.
I got to call in chips with people who have power at that building to get me an August.
I haven't looked up what day of the week that is, but it doesn't matter.
Moody Blues.
I hope they do the same show that they did at the Royal Albert Hall.
All right.
I want to move on to immigration because the Democrats are trying to make it look like that they're fighting among themselves.
Byron Dorgan submitted an amendment yesterday that went down in flames.
His amendment would basically strip the guest worker program from the bill.
Now, Dorgan and Barbara Boxer led the, well, no, it wasn't Dorgan's amendment.
It was some compromise.
It was a compromise.
And Dorgan and Boxer, Barbara Boxer San Francisco, led the charge to kill the key part of the bill.
All they could muster was 34 votes.
Now, Barbara Boxer wants guest workers for her state, but she doesn't want them for anywhere else.
She got into a little tiff here with Senator Kennedy.
They have this big disagreement on the guest worker program here on Capitol Hill during a press conference is some of what Barbara Boxer had to say.
Why would anyone bring this kind of a program to the floor of the United States Senate?
Why do you need this pool?
Except as, as I said, a way to keep our workers down, keep their wages down, keep their benefits down, keep them weak, and in my view, at the end of the day, destroy the middle class.
Wow, do you hear that?
Barbara Boxer worried about the guest worker program destroying the middle class.
Now, there is a story later on in the stack.
She's all for guest workers, or at least some number of them in California, because the agriculture business.
We must make certain exceptions, she says all down the line.
This did not sit well with Senator Kennedy.
I listened carefully to my good friend from California being opposed to temporary workers, with the exception of temporary workers in agriculture.
Oh, so we've got some contra attempts going on between Democrats Barbara Boxer and Senator Kennedy, who, by the way, it's important, you know, in their conversation yesterday about the elites in both parties thinking that you and I and people like us, we're too dumb and stupid to understand all of this.
And so they call us names and they impugn us.
And so Ted Kennedy hasn't been right about this in 43 years.
Ted Kennedy is one of the elites, and everything he has said, and there have been three previous immigration bills to this one, every time that one of those bills has been signed into law, he's gone out and made a statement.
He's been dead wrong about everything that's happened.
Now, make no mistake, Senator Kennedy and the Democrats that want this bill want it because they need a new pool of victims.
They need a new pool of dependents, and they need a new pool of voters.
And that's what this is.
And Barbara Boxer, and I get to a point about this in just a second.
Boxer then responded to Kennedy, jamming her a little bit about temporary workers with the exception of temporary workers in agriculture.
Senator Kennedy has a full right to his opinion, and I have a full right to mine.
And then Senator Kennedy said this about the guest worker program.
The fact of the matter is, some workers will come in here either illegally or legally.
One way or the other, they're going to come in.
And that is where the temporary worker program comes in.
We say, you, on the one hand, if we close this down and we eliminate this program, effectively you're going to have those individuals that are going to crawl across the desert and continue to die as they do now.
Crawl across the desert and die?
Some are.
I mean, some are crawling.
Most are in the backs of vans.
Some just, you know, grab a little backpack and cross the border.
At any rate, Byron Dorgan also speaking about the guest worker program.
We're talking about a proposal that says, by the way, there are millions more who are not now living in this country that we wish to invite in on this basis to assume American jobs.
We are told that's necessary because you can't find Americans to assume those jobs.
That is fundamentally false.
I hate to agree with him, but he's right about that.
In agriculture, that's the largest area where illegal immigrants work.
And one of the things we've been told over the years to justify all this is that the agriculture business is jobs in large part that the American people just refuse to do anymore.
It's beneath them.
The American people won't do them.
Well, what percentage of agriculture jobs do you believe are held by illegal immigrants?
It's 24, 26, depending on where you look.
But way to go, H.R. 24, 26%.
Let's round it off to say 25.
That means that 75% of the people working in agriculture are Americans, does it not?
Which means what?
It means they're willing to do those jobs, does it not?
Finally, here is Dingy Harry, the Senate Majority Leader, about the guest worker program.
One of the things that I like about this bill is there's so much disagreement.
And I say that because no one's happy.
No one's taken advantage of anyone else.
That is how we should build consensus and compromise.
That's really dangerous.
It's bad, and everybody doesn't like it because it's bad.
I love this notion.
Well, hey, if it makes everybody mad, it must be good.
That is sophistry, and that is small-time thinking.
You look at the history of legislation that was this controversial and it ends up getting passed.
It's horrible.
It's bad because it's bad.
Democrats would love for you to believe we're doing this to come up with consensus and compromise.
And there are kinds of all kinds of stories in the stack today.
New York Times, Washington Post.
What's so bad about compromise?
I'll tell you what's so bad about compromise.
When you're compromising your principles, when you're compromising what you believe, when you're compromising the country, when you're compromising the future of the traditions and the institutions that made the country great, it's worthless.
Compromise in and of itself is not a virtue.
And they pass it off as a virtue, and it's not.
Consensus is not a virtue.
Consensus is the absence of leadership.
And I wish that I could say that is my quote, but it isn't.
Margaret Thatcher said that in a speech I heard a lecture she gave at the Waldorf Asteria Hotel after she had served as Prime Minister of Great Britain.
Consensus is the absence of leadership.
And I'll tell you on this, that's absolutely true.
But what, let's get to the politics.
What are we, ladies and gentlemen, to make of all of this supposed infighting among Democrats on the guest worker program?
Even Denji Harry turned around and voted against the guest worker program.
The unions don't want it in the bill.
And even with Dingy Harry and the unions supporting this amendment, it only gets 34 votes from the Democrats.
How can this be?
The Senate Majority Leader and the unions can't get this passed, can't get enough votes for this amendment, only 34 votes?
What's going on here?
I'll tell you exactly what's going on.
These amendments are just political cover.
Don't be fooled by any of this.
They wouldn't have put this amendment up had they known it was going to succeed.
Dorgan put this amendment up knowing it was going to be defeated so that they can run around and talk about how extreme the bill is, how they tried to moderate.
Democrats are on the right side of this.
They had no intention of stripping the guest worker program out of this.
I'm just telling you, this is political cover from the get-go.
It's designed to give them talking points later on in the negotiating process when they're talking to the media, trying to reach you, or when they're in their next reelection campaign.
Well, I had several problems with that bill.
As you know, I offered, or as you know, I supported an amendment that would have stripped the guest worker provision.
Just want to be able to say they supported it with the full knowledge it had no chance of passing.
We'll be right back.
Yeah, I wonder if these Democrats are concerned here as they push this immigration bill forward about the effect it's going to have on our own poor people.
It's going to be taking jobs away from them.
Ah, Rush, you don't understand.
The American poor will not do those jobs either.
Wrongo, folks.
This is look at, I'm not going to repeat everything I've said about this, but it's a disaster all the way around.
This is Greg in Louisville, Kentucky.
Nice to have you, sir, on the EIB network.
Hello, Rush.
How are you?
Enjoy.
Well, I'm just sorry to hear you siding with Pat Buchanan and Byron Dorgan and the right and the left coming together on this issue is unfortunate.
I think, first of all, that immigrants have been a very positive thing for our country.
Milton Friedman's great book, Freedom Cheese, talks about how we were better off when we had free flow of immigration.
We have makers and takers.
What we need to do is have a constitutional amendment to keep the takers from getting our welfare in public because the courts have ruled that they're entitled to it.
We need an amendment to that.
The makers, the people who come here and work harder than anybody else and struggle to make a good life and have family values, we need to encourage that.
And I don't understand why this hostility from the left and the right to oppose immigration.
Because it's not about immigration.
This is a political move by the Democrat Party and some elites and the Republicans who think they're going to get the votes of these people.
The Democrats will end up with them.
The Republicans, some of them think they're going to find a way to persuade these people to vote Republican.
I'm not.
You can't attach the free market to this.
You can't take any other free trade example and apply it to illegal immigration.
We have never had open borders.
We have never said anybody who wants to come in and come in.
We do not allow nations around the world to flood our country with products, whether we're not paying attention to them, that we're not trying to find out if they're good or bad.
I urge you to read Milton Friedman's book.
He talked about through the 19th century, except for maybe some disease.
I guarantee you.
We've got open immigration in the country.
We've never had, we've always had immigration quotas.
No, that's not true.
Yes, we have.
We have them today on the legal immigration system.
We did, but we didn't have them 100 years ago, and the country grew like crazy.
We did have quotas in the sense that you had to be healthy, you had to have some.
Except for debt screening.
You couldn't have a criminal record.
We've always had quotas.
But you're making them.
Look, I am a Milton Friedman acolyte.
And Milton Friedman, were he alive today, I would call him.
And I would let him tell you how you are misinterpreting his belief on this.
He said that for years before he died, sir.
He certainly did.
And then, you know, immigration has been a good.
We just need to cut off the welfare from the takers and encourage the makers.
Well, see, but you're I'm not arguing against immigration is the one thing.
You keep talking about Milton Friedman and free markets and so forth, and I am the free market guy of American radio.
This isn't about immigration, and I made this point eloquently yesterday.
I resent having to say everything multiple times here because you people choose when and where to listen.
You need to listen three hours every day.
You need to make this a commitment.
I say this with a smile on my face.
Seriously, this is not about immigration.
That's just the word.
This is a political movement which is designed, it's two things.
It is the comprehensive Destroy the Republican Party Act of 2007, or you could call it the Comprehensive Import More Democrats Act of 2007.
This is about welfare payments.
You want a constitutional amendment to stop transfer payments?
Good luck.
Hold your breath because it isn't ever going to happen.
That's precisely what this program is about.
This program is about bringing poor, uneducated workers in here for their cheap labor and then having wealth transfers to them so that they have health care and education for them and the members of their families that they can bring along with them.
It's going to cost gazillion.
I want to give you some numbers.
I actually am glad you weren't listening yesterday.
I take it all back because now I have added information.
Billion with a B.
This is from the website immigrationcounters.com.
And just listen to these numbers.
The number of illegal aliens in the country, according to this group, is 20,807,645.
The amount of money wired to Mexico since January of 2006 is $22,213,000,000.
The cost of social security services for illegal aliens since 1996.
Are you listening?
$397 billion, $450,739,563.
That's how much we have spent on social security services for illegal aliens since 1996, and that spending has been mandated by the courts.
And it's only going to go up.
Now, let's talk about what these numbers represent.
You can say $397 billion, billion this, billion that, and people can't comprehend it.
The next time you hear somebody use the word billion in a casual manner, keep these things in mind.
A billion seconds ago, it was 1959.
A billion minutes ago, Jesus was alive.
A billion hours ago, our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.
A billion days ago, no one walked on the earth on two feet.
A billion dollars ago was eight hours and 20 minutes at the rate our government spends money.
A billion dollars, eight hours and 20 minutes ago, yet a billion seconds ago is 1959.
397 billion.
And the purpose of this bill, Greg, is to have that number increase.
It is a way for the Democrats to raise taxes, grow the government, create more dependents that will vote for them, and at the same time reinstitute or institute on a grander scale even than today the redistribution of wealth.
This is pure liberalism on parade, just like global warming is.
This is not immigration.
This is not the traditional immigration that you and Milton Friedman and everybody loved, where people came here to become Americans and to assimilate in our culture and help build a unique American experience.
Nothing about that.
This has nothing to do with that whatsoever.
Don't be fooled by the claim that this is about immigration.
Back in a second.
All right, to underscore my point, I'm going to throw this idea out.
There might be a Republican senator willing to do this to illustrate the point that this is not about immigration, that it is about increasing the size of government, increasing the redistribution of wealth, importing new Democrats, and destroying the Republican Party and the conservative movement, by the way.
And it's this.
Now, I know that the courts have ruled otherwise, but just for the fun of it, as this guy, the previous caller from Louisville, said, if we just bring these guys in, these illegal workers, and immigration made America great, and pass a constitutional amendment banning transfer payments, then everything would be hunky-dory.
Okay.
Senator Sessions, Senator Bunning, proposed an amendment that would limit transfer payments to all those being made legal.
Limit the amount of access they have to health care, social security, and so forth and so on.
And you watch what happens to that amendment.
You watch the fur would fly the minute Democrats would come, yeah, we want to take food out of the starving mouths of babies and so forth.
If some Republican would propose that, or just talk Talk about, I know it's not going to happen, but if the Democrats would be forced to give away what the real purpose of this is faster than I have to go to a commercial break here, which is now.
▲
Export Selection