All Episodes
Previous Next
June 4, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:51
June 4, 2007, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
Greetings, thrill seekers, music lovers, conversationalists all across the fruited plain.
Ripe with opportunity and prosperity and affluence.
You are tuned to the Rush Limbaugh program.
I am your highly trained broadcast specialist, meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIBNet.com, a drive-by media and the Democrat Party has found its real enemy here in the JFK plot.
Four men accused of plotting to bomb a fuel pipeline feeding JFK were so taken by an informant they were sure God had sent him to them, authorities said.
The informant made several overseas trips to discuss, uh discuss the plot against JFK, even visiting a radical Muslim group's compound in Trinidad.
He also joined the plotters on airport surveillance trips where authorities were waiting.
The suspects were convinced that he was guided by a higher purpose.
The ringleader believed the informant had been sent by Allah to be the one to pull off the bombing, according to a federal complaint.
So the real enemy here is the informant, a Bush spy, ladies and gentlemen, violating the constitutional rights of these terror suspects.
The Democrats were consistent.
That's how they would react to this and play it up.
Once again, Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, to be indicted later this afternoon on bribery and corruption charges.
People have been wondering where the hell this has been for the longest time.
Big question out there now if this actually happens.
Who is going to replace Congressman William Jefferson on the uh the Democrat-run Homeland Security Committee?
Uh Queen B. Nancy Pelosi put him there, took him off ways and means, uh, put him over there the Homeland Security Committee.
Uh uh, and and uh I don't know, will there be a need to replace him just because the Democrats indicted?
You know, that doesn't mean anything.
Will he have to step down just because he's been indicted?
I mean, that's just allegations.
That's not anything being proved yet.
Uh innocence, of course, the cornerstone of our judicial system, the presumption of innocence, it's not clear uh uh that the Congressman William Jefferson will even have to step down, especially in light of this news.
And I I just I saw this over the weekend, constantly feverishly working, preparing this program for you, ladies and gentlemen.
Is killer storm still taking a toll?
This is uh an AP story uh about people are still dying in New Orleans because of Hurricane Katrina.
Still trying to milk a uh Hurricane Katrina story for all it's worth.
Now it's post-stromatic or post-traumatic stress syndrome killing off people in New Orleans, but not in New Orleans, only in New Orleans, not anywhere else.
Uh people in Gulfport, Mississippi, which was destroyed.
A whole bunch of little towns and hamlets in Mississippi were wiped off the map, but ever apparently there's no lingering effects there.
There's no ongoing death toll.
Uh I have searched the media, ladies and gentlemen, to find confirmation of rumors that Katrina demolished towns in Mississippi and Alabama, but I can't find those stories.
Now we know it happened.
Uh churches are still sending relief missions to Gulfport, Mississippi.
Uh but they're it's just amazing.
It's just a ma only in New Orleans, which did not get the direct hit of Hurricane Katrina.
Now, the AP that this is from Saturday, and they ran the same story later under a different headline.
The first headline was Is Killer Storm still taking a toll?
When they refed the story with hardly any changes in it, the new headline was experts, Katrina Death Toll still rising.
Now you know what this means.
This means, and it's perfect, people dying five to ten years from now in New Orleans will still be Bush's victims.
If their deaths can be said to have been brought about in part due to stress from Hurricane Katrina.
That's why absolutely.
This is uh this is how they set it up.
So change the headline, experts, Katrina Death Toll still rising.
So, in light of the the crisis that is ongoing in New Orleans, can we afford to strip them of their highest ranking representative in the U.S. Congress?
That would be Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat New Orleans.
I mean, would that if taking their their most powerful Congressman away from them?
Even after he is indicted later today, uh would that not lead to an even further uh uh ratcheting up of the death toll in New Orleans because they already feel like they're not cared about.
They already feel like they're not getting all the aid that was promised, and now here come the feds, the Bush administration, indict their highest ranking congressman.
Uh duh.
That's I'll bet you, I'll bet you that's exactly right.
They'll blame Alberto Gonzalez for trying to deflect attention on a U.S. high attorney, uh U.S. attorney controversy he finds himself involved in.
Um they'll say, why now?
Why, they've had all this information for years on Congressman William Jefferson.
Why are they indicting him now?
Gonzalez is behind this.
And of course, Bush and Bush flees the country.
The day before this indictment is handed down.
Yes, Bush doesn't gust to stay here.
Bush still hates New Orleans, still trying to turn it into a Republican stronghold or eliminate Louisiana from the ranks of Democrat states.
You can hear all this stuff coming.
You want to make a bet that that Congressman William Jefferson, there they're gonna be some discussion about whether or not he should step down under indictment, because can New Orleans take it?
Can they take this kind of another attack from the Bush administration?
Can they take it?
Uh, ladies and gentlemen, last night, half hour news hour, Fox News Channel, 10 o'clock, the opening sketch featuring me again as President of the United States uh working vacation at Cabo Wabbo.
The video and the audio are uh available now at Rush Limbaugh.com if you missed it.
We have the audio, uh, and it doesn't quite cover it all, because of course there are a lot of sites in this sketch that make it, but here nevertheless the audio from last night's show open of the half hour news hour on the Fox News channel.
All right, perhaps the funniest news story out there today comes from our old buddy David Border at the Associated Press, and it explores the reasons why Katie Courick's ratings are in a toilet.
By the way, still no response from CBS News to my magnanimous offer to sit for an interview on the CBS evening news with Katie Currick to uh jumpstart those ratings.
Still no response.
Offer stands.
Don't expect to hear back from them.
Do you know why Katie's ratings are the lowest CBS has ever had in the evening?
Do you know why?
No, no, nothing to do with her.
It's it's not that she's not good at it.
Well, it's something to do with her, but something she can't control.
It's sexism, folks.
It's uh it's pure bigotry.
You people in the audience just will not watch a woman do the news.
You just won't do it.
It's your fault.
That's the I mean, I I could read the whole story to you here, but that's pretty much sums it up.
You people are a bunch of bigots.
You'd you'd you'd rather watch a bunch of daughtering old men's saliva dripping down the corners of their mouths than you would watch a babe.
Or a woman do the news.
And of course, what's absurd about this is that the chickification of the news in this country from local to national newsrooms and networks is been accomplished.
They're all over the place.
They're producing, they're reporting, they're anchoring.
We got anchorettes, we got infobabes, they all over cable news.
Uh facts, they're all and most of them are blonde.
I where does this supply come from?
Is an endless supply of them out there.
One blonde goes, another blonde comes in.
They're all over the place out there, and it hasn't hurt the cable network people at all.
In terms of the news, with all the, and in fact, Border even admits this, with all the women in television news on both sides of the camera, you would think sexism was an issue relegated to the 20th century.
Yet recently a CBS news executive herself a pioneer for women in the industry, said she believed that Katie Courick was having trouble catching on with the public, a CBS evening news anchor, because she was the first solo female anchor for a network nightly news show.
CNN's male chief was also caught.
That's M-A-L-E.
Of course, they could have gotten the same quote talking to the male guy.
CNN's male chief was also caught referring first to a woman's looks when asked why she got an important anchor job.
And the Daily Show aired a wickedly funny segment on all the women in cable news who are baybalicious.
No other way to put it.
That's what he says, not me.
It saddens me, said Deborah Potter, former CBS News.
Maybe she was CBS.
I thought she was at CNN.
Well, right at wherever she was, six of one half dozen of the other.
Said Deborah Potter, former CBS News reporter who is now executive director of the news lab think tank.
I wish I could tell you I was surprised, but I guess I'm not.
The people who do the hiring still look very much like the people who did the hiring 30 years ago.
They still make decisions based on what they find appealing.
Well, what the hell does that mean?
They hired a woman over there.
They hired a woman.
Of course, the Neanderthal attitude of 30 years ago is what she's referring to.
What is she talking about?
Well, I well, I don't I don't know if they're hiring.
No, but no, but but no, it's not.
I wish I could tell you I was surprised, but I guess I'm not.
The people who do the hiring still look very much like the people who did the hiring 30 years ago.
They still make decisions based on what they find appealing.
So how can this be an indictment?
They went out, they hired Katie.
They hired a woman.
Now, did they hire somebody that they think is attractive?
That doesn't happen in the news business, does it?
They go out and hire somebody that's ugly for ratings.
When's the last time you ever heard of that happening?
Anywhere in television news.
In fact, the NBC has this sitcom, ugly betty.
The critics love it, you know, because most people are ugly.
It's a delve into reality.
Linda Mason, who was the first woman producer at the CBS Evening News 30 years ago, now the news division standards chief, speculated that a tradition bound audience was reluctant to get the new the day's news from a woman.
Oh boy, is that ripe for mining.
Currick has twice set records in the past month for smallest CBS evening news audience in at least 20 years.
The network hardly believes she'd have lower ratings than predecessor Bob Schiefer at this point, but she does.
In an interview with the CBS News website public eye, Mason said she had no idea that a woman delivering the news would be a handicap.
I'm afraid that Katie's paying a price for being the first woman, she said, but I think it's a great trail she's blazing, and I think if the broadcast continues to be as good as it has been, people will start to watch.
It takes time, I think.
But I was surprised that there was an obvious connection between a woman giving the news and the audience wanting to watch it.
So see, you viewers are sexist.
This is atypical of the of the drive-by media.
Their work is always flawless.
It's always perfect.
It's you who are their problem.
You're not reading their newspapers as much anymore, and you're not watching their TV news as much anymore.
It's because you're sexist, or because you're uppity, or because you're bigots, or because you think you're smarter than you are, but none of it is ever their problem.
Here's Butch in Pittsburgh.
Hi, Butch, I'm glad you called.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Greetings from Pittsburgh, Rush.
Thank you, sir.
You're my shining light.
Yeah, yeah, well, I appreciate that.
Very much.
Mr. Mr. Snerdley asked me to get right to the point.
I'd like to talk to you.
I like the way you did that.
Yes, sir.
Wolf Blitzer last night at the Democratic debate, asked a question to each uh couple of the candidates reference the Bill Clinton in the next administration, uh, should a Democrat be elected.
And uh Governor Bill Richardson states that uh he'd like to return the favor to the uh former president and either uh have him uh appointed as Secretary General of the United Nations or else uh a liaison in the Middle East.
And uh Hillary started to cackle like she just swallowed a feather or so, and then she stated that uh uh all the former presidents should be used in various positions, uh uh appointments.
Well, Bill is well versed in various positions.
And I think what Hillary wants to do is get him out of the country.
If she is elected, 80% chance she will be.
If uh she'll get him out of country so he can, you know, uh horn dog it over there without a whole lot of people knowing about it.
I I I find the whole question just fascinating.
Clinton has served his two terms, and yet asking all these other Democrats what role would you envision for former President Bill.
Folks, if if if you ever doubted these people live in another world.
Uh they're they're just they're they're obsessed with uh with with the with Bill Clinton and the Clintons and and that question uh I would in fact I think they even asked it of a Republicans.
They even asked that question of Republicans.
Chris Chris Matthews asked that question of the Republicans, and he couldn't understand how come they all started laughing.
And they all said no.
He literally couldn't, it was he he did he didn't quite understand.
By the way, Clinton did another uh commencement speech at Knox University, and he told that same joke.
He went out there and he said um he starts talking about the human genome project, uh identify it, DNA trail and all that.
And he told a story, yeah.
I met I met Limbaugh at a restaurant in New York the other night, and you know uh all those horrible, hateful things he said about me over the years.
I almost went up to him.
I said, you know, we are 99.9% of the same, but I couldn't bring myself out of the do it because a poor man would run fleeing from the restaurant.
No report uh on audience reaction to this.
Rick in Victorville, California, you're next, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
It's an honor to talk to you, Rush.
Thank you.
Uh I've tried calling many times.
Hey, you made a statement a little bit earlier about inflation being non existent.
And you being the oracle of education, uh I've got some figures here that don't quite jive, so educate me.
Well, the the statement was in the context of the Democrats back in 1984 said that sixty thousand dollars was rich.
That was the ceiling or the floor in which they're gonna raise taxes on the rich.
Uh Barack Obama in the debate last night uh said that uh his tax increases on the rich would start at an annual income of $250,000.
And I said, that's all not inflation.
I said the Democrats are moving up, at least they're going in the right direction how they define rich uh from from 60 to 250.
And I said, that's not all inflation.
And I'll tell you, for much of the 90s, the one of the biggest problems that really worried uh a lot of people in the financial markets was disinflation.
Because the uh the the price to produce a product uh oftentimes could not be met with a retail price showing enough of a profit to make the production cost worthwhile.
There was a real disinflation.
We've had inflation, I mean we have it every year, but it's it's been it's been uh it uh so slow that you all I'm saying is that that sixty to two fifty cannot be accounted for strictly by inflation.
Okay.
Well, I I understand that, but uh, you know, I took it in a different context.
I took it as though uh you meant nothing is really going up in price when everything is going up in price dramatically.
Oh no, I I did not mean to imply that.
That would that would be uh that that if I thought that I would really be out of touch.
Because then I wouldn't be caring what things cost.
And of course I do and I know there's inflation.
I'm just saying it hasn't been the inflation of the Jimmy Carter years.
It hasn't been double-digit.
Uh it it's in the it's it's it's not been something that would account for the Democrats deciding that sixty thousand dollars in eighty-four was rich versus two hundred and fifty thousand today.
Yeah, okay.
Okay, well, I appreciate the education, my friend.
Well, I I think well, thank you for saying that, but I uh I might have misstated this uh if if a lot of people got the same idea you did.
So I'm glad you called and offered me the chance to restate this uh in a clarified uh and revised standard.
Back here in just a second.
Stay with us.
Serving humanity simply by showing up behind this.
The golden EIB microphone.
All right, let's go back to debate audio sound bites.
I don't I I didn't watch the debate because I didn't have to to know what was said or to know what was asked.
The only thing I'm not certain of was how extensively illegal immigration was covered.
I know they were asked about English as the official language, and we have those bites.
Wolf Blitzer uh talking here to Mike Gravelle, so I want you to raise your hand if you believe English should be the official language of the United States.
And the only candidate that raised his hand was Senator Gravelle.
We We speak English.
That doesn't mean we can't encourage other languages.
I speak French and English.
And people speak Spanish and English.
But the official language of the United States of America is English.
No other candidate agreed.
Because, folks, this is nothing more than a push for voters.
It's nothing more than that, which is what's happened every time we've had an amnesty program in the past, the vast majority of the illegals that are made legal end up voting Democrat.
The statistics are there.
It's not even arguable.
After Gravel made the comment, you just heard Obama piped up.
This is the kind of question that is designed precisely to divide us.
You're right.
Everybody everybody is going to learn to speak English if they live in this country.
The issue is not whether or not future generations of immigrants are going to learn English.
The question is how can we come up with both a legal, sensible immigration policy?
And when we get distracted by those kinds of questions, I think we do a disservice to the American people.
Well, now, uh, hang on just a second.
Everybody is not learning to speak English when they live in this country.
It's precisely the reason for the question.
And then next was uh was Hillary Clinton after Obama piped up, then Hillary screeched in.
The problem is that if it becomes official instead of recognized as national, which indeed it is, it is our national language.
If it becomes official, that means in a place like New York City, you can't print ballots in any other language.
That means you can't have government pay for translators in hospitals, so when somebody comes in with some sort of emergency, there's nobody there to help translate what their problem is for the doctors.
So we many of us, I did at least, voted to say that English was our national language, but not the official language because of the legal consequences of that.
Did anybody notice the real point in her answer?
I well, that's that's that's that's obvious.
No, it's not that one.
That's obvious.
Be hard for them to read a ballot if they can't speak English, and if you if you can't print it in Spanish, it'd be hard to read a ballot.
That's that's a given.
No.
You can't have government pay for translators in hospitals.
So when somebody comes in with some sort of emergency, there's nobody there to help translate what their problem is for the doctor.
Why does that have to be something the government does?
Hospitals are private concerns.
Why can't hospitals themselves go out and hire translators?
You see how sneaky this stuff is.
I'll bet most of you people didn't even catch that, which is why I'm here.
You probably didn't even catch that.
You were focused on, oh, the ballot business, and the rest of it just went skating by.
Most people wouldn't hear, and besides the government wouldn't be able to oh, yeah, well, the government's got to be able to uh to do that.
Now, the New York, I'm sorry, the Washington Post today, backers of immigration bill, more optimistic.
Lawmakers cite sense of urgency.
Get this.
After a week at home with their constituents, the Senate architects of a delicate immigration compromise are increasingly convinced that they will hold together this week to pass an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws with momentum building behind one unifying theme.
Today's immigration system's too broken to go unaddressed.
Congress's week-long Memorial Day recess expected to leave the bill in tatters, but with a week of action set to begin today, the legislation's champions say they believe that the voices of opposition, especially from conservatives, represent a small segment of public opinion.
Senator John Kyle of Arizona, who led negotiations on the bill for the Republicans and the flood of angry calls and protests that greeted a deal two weeks ago, has since receded every day.
He said, You just have to recognize you get 300 calls, you'll get conflicts at town hall meetings, all of them negative, said Jeff Flake, who consulted with Kyle, hopes to carry a similar deal through the House in July.
The last few days have really turned things around.
Now, what am I missing?
Is I don't sense that at all.
In fact, I sense the White House as a little bit of a bugaboo over this because they're all caught up in the Fact that everybody's calling it amnesty, which it is.
But this story purports to have these senators behind the amnesty bill is feeling pretty cocky out there today.
They've been at home with their constituents over the weekend.
They think the opposition to amnesty's fading.
And the Washington Post is saying that the voices of opposition, especially the voices of conservatives who don't like the idea, just a small part of American public opinion.
I'm going to tell you what this story is all about.
This story is all about marginalizing conservatives.
It is all about telling America, the people that get their news in the Washington Post, don't believe all this noise you're hearing.
Don't believe all this racket from conservatives about the immigration bill.
That's just a small bunch of very loud people, but they are by no means representative of the American people.
If you look at the internals of this poll, which I have done, you find that it's not looking good for the people who are proposing this.
I don't know how they've interpreted the poll the way they have.
And in fact, they might not even have to.
52% of Americans said they would support a program giving illegal immigrants the right to stay and work in the U.S. if they pay a fine and meet other requirements.
Opposition to that was 44%.
Totally misleading question.
There is no fine unless they seek citizenship.
And once they're legal, why seek citizenship?
It isn't necessary.
So there is no fine.
Besides, the fine's not going to survive anyway.
They're already out there talking about how, and we're talking the $5,000 fine.
We've been through all of this.
Now, there's something popped up on the on the on the Drudge Report today from ABC News Jan Crawford Greenberg, highly creditable writer on the Supreme Court illegal issues, that the White House is preparing a list of uh candidates for the next resignation of the U.S. Supreme Court.
I looked at that and I said, Well, now that's interesting because I haven't heard anybody say they're going to resign.
Haven't even heard any rumors.
In fact, I've heard the exact opposite.
That Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens are going to hang in there as long as they can because they don't want Bush to get the opportunity to replace them and forever, or for the far out future, reshape the precious and delicate balance that exists on the court today.
So why all of a sudden does this story pop?
That the administration is preparing a list of candidates, uh, by the way, female and minorities included in the list, to uh fill a vacancy.
And even the story says the White House, we don't think there's going to be one.
We don't know that there's going to be one.
So why is this out there?
Well, uh that's exactly right as to remind us conservatives that uh, hey, the Supreme Court, that's what we really care about.
And if there's going to be one of these events, we gotta hang tough here.
We can't abandon the president.
We can't go out on the on the limb here and threaten uh what might be a very contentious and yet successful nomination that's non-existent yet.
Court watchers always look for resignations at the end of the term, which always happens uh in June.
But I think it's uh it's an attempt to rally conservatives, it's an attempt also to change the subject.
Uh and if if why if if we're just such a small little loud voice out here, why the need to change the subject?
Why the need to um uh change it so people start rallying around a non-existent, as we speak today, Supreme Court vacancy.
Meanwhile, in the Washington Times, opposition to illegals bill aiding grassroots GOP.
President Bush's immigration bill is hurting fundraising by the RNC, but fierce grassroots opposition to the legislation is helping several state Republican parties.
Tina Benkisser, the chairwoman of the Republican Party in Texas, said that raising money has been successful in large part to our principled stance against illegal immigration.
Well, I've always said, especially in politics, follow the money.
And if people are given money in droves to states where the Republican identity there is against this bill, and they're abandoning the RNC in droves because the uh perceived identity is Pro the illegal immigration or the amnesty bill, then how do we how do we interpret this Washington Post falder all that all this is insignificant?
And by the way, you people have uh resigned to it.
You're not calling these congressmen as much.
They probably don't think that you're calling as much, because I don't think they're probably even answering the phone anymore.
How many of you are calling out there and they're actually answering the phone at these various senators' uh offices?
Similar reports from other state Republican officials in Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, and Delaware suggest that opposition to any form of amnesty for illegal aliens is a fundraising winner.
Okay, so we juxtaposed this against the Washington Post story that purports just the opposite.
It's no big deal.
Very, very small but loud bunch of caterwallers out there.
You and I are just a bunch of Yahoos, folks.
Uh make no mistake, this but something else, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, not just the RNC.
Uh they are reporting similar distress.
The uh Senate committee, Republican Senatorial Committee raised 9.1 million through April.
That's less than half of the 18 million raised by the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee during the same period.
So you can't fool me.
This this is something so fishy and suspicious about the Washington Post story and the idea that that this is uh you know just an insignificant group of people is this is this is this is what I meant earlier with the Republicans have such a golden opportunity.
These Democrats on parade on full display, uttering some of the most incredible nonsense last night of their debate.
And meanwhile, the Republicans are joining with the drive-bys and trying to marginalize their base.
The conservative movement is the base of the Republican Party, and the Republicans, it's understandable that the Democrats and the media would write marginalized conservatives and make it sound like there aren't that many of them.
But for the Republicans to be doing that, I look at I've always known that the Republicans, they've got their share of country club blue blooders in there.
They have never liked conservatives.
They didn't really like Reagan that much.
It's always been a mystery to me because that's when the Republican Party won.
Amen.
Was when the conservative base was active and excited and engaged and uh and dominant.
It's almost like these people have a wish to be second tier.
Quick time out, the EIV network rolls on right after this.
Yeah, you know what, ladies and gentlemen, you and I, we're just a bunch of yahoos.
We just don't get it.
For example, this story today in the San Francisco Chronicle.
Guest workers have a long history in the United States.
Temporary programs become the source of permanent labor force.
And it goes on and on and on to discuss the virtues of guest worker programs.
Philip Martin, UC Davis economist, leading immigration authority, said the purpose of guest worker programs is to add workers to the labor force, but not add settlers to the population.
But the universal truism is that there is nothing more permanent than temporary workers, whether it's in Europe, whether it's in the Middle East, whether it's in Asia, or whether it's in the United States.
Guest worker programs tend to get larger and they last longer than originally anticipated.
Yeah, he's he's trying to sound the warning bells here.
But uh that's uh the obligatory critic of the premise of the story.
Well, let's let's go on to page three.
So universal truism.
Uh many analysts question whether a smaller program can succeed in moving illegal immigrants to legal channels.
In order to do that, one would have to provide sufficient numbers of temporary visas.
Uh Myers said, something Myers, if you set an unreasonably low number, people will simply circumvent the program as they do now.
Well, damn.
You know, I I I thought I was a pretty smart guy, but I realize now that I am a Yahoo.
This is like saying the problem with bank robbery is the law.
If we eliminate the the law against robbing a bank, then a bank will never be robbed.
You could go in there, take whatever you want, whatever you can get, and it's you're not breaking the law.
So this same thing here.
If if we just if we just expand to uh an unending infinite number, the uh number of temporary visas, why there won't be any temporary workers, everybody will be a worker.
You see how this works, folks?
Why, try this on rape.
Let's just ban the law on rape, and that's how we wipe out the problem.
There won't be any rape if there's no law against it.
Let's wipe out the law on murder.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, there won't be any murders.
The murder rate will go to zero once we don't have a law against it.
Moreover, the plan calls for temporary workers to come for two year stints, each followed by one year back in their home country for a maximum of six years residence.
Like hell, that's gonna happen.
You may call for it, but nobody's gonna.
There aren't any enforcement mechanisms in this thing.
They would not be offered permanent residents, though they could earn points through a separate merit system.
Republicans have insisted that temporary means temporary.
Yet the stricter rules.
The stricter such rules, the more likely they will be broken experts.
See, folks, this this is the stricter you make a rule, the more likelihood the rule is to be broken.
Unless laws against hiring illegal workers are strictly enforced, such a program could create a new population of illegal immigrants who stay instead of return.
Bingo!
That's exactly what this is designed to do under the covers.
That's exactly what this is designed to do.
Nobody's talking about the incoming illegals after we uh legalize the 12 to 20 million that are already here.
They're gonna keep coming.
Nobody's gonna stop.
There's no incentive to stop this in this uh in this legislation.
So the problem is here, we have too many rules and are too stringent.
We need to relax the rules, relax the stringency, uh, and then we don't have as many people breaking them.
Try raising your kids this way.
If immigrant advocates think the Senate bill's tough on temporary workers, it has nothing on Singapore, which pampers high-skilled migrants but punishes low-skilled workers who overstay their visas with mandatory caning and up to six months in prison.
So we're we are we are being told here that, hey, this bill isn't bad.
I mean, look what they do in Singapore.
You have a low-skilled, uneducated migrant that comes in, and if he overstays his welcome, he gets caned.
We're good people in the United States.
We're not going to cane these people.
Nor are we gonna put them in prison for six months.
Now, some of you might be saying, well, where's the common sense on this?
I mean, okay, the the Democrats who they are on this, what are the media?
Why the media's supposed to be objective, curious, why would folks, you have to understand they're all liberals, and you have to understand uh to them this is discrimination.
And that's they will not discriminate a liberal feels like he is committing sacrilege.
A sin for which he will burn in hell if he discriminates.
And these people, they're just the poor and the downtrodden and the hungry and thirsty, they're not let them hear his discriminating.
That's why.
We'll be back.
Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, has now officially been indicted.
▲
Export Selection