All Episodes
Previous Next
June 11, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:52
June 11, 2007, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
I didn't see it.
I just got busy last night.
I just didn't see it.
I've got it Ti-Voed.
I've been reading all about it.
And it seems like people are livid and angry over the ending to this thing.
That's what I'm thinking.
Snurdley just said over the IFB that it was great.
From what I've read, it sounds to me like it's what we all should have expected.
They never tie up loose ends on this show.
Why should they when it's over?
And I told you last week, they got to keep some of these characters around for something that might come up down the road later.
Anyway, greetings, folks, great to be with you.
Rush Limbaugh back in the saddle here at the prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Our telephone number, if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
I was going to call into the show on Friday and start do some minor gloating and take a little credit here for the immigration bill being pulled.
But right about the time I hit my third birdie on the front nine, I said to hell with it.
I'm going to keep playing golf.
Besides, in all candor, it's not dead.
I mean, it's dead.
It's still on life support.
The president's going to meet with some people, Congress, GOP, probably Ted Kennedy too, sometime tomorrow.
May even go up to the Capitol.
The original meeting is supposed to be lunch at the White House.
But I mean, they're going to revive this, folks, at some point.
The question is, will they fix it before they revive it?
And that's something that we, well, I've got my doubts.
And I don't know if you heard this.
I don't know if you're aware of this.
Dianne Feinstein and some others are claiming that they have never received so much racist communication in all their years in Congress.
They've gotten emails, they're getting phone calls.
They say it's unbelievable.
I've never, they're saying, received this much hatred and racism.
Well, I want to see these emails.
I want to know how many there are, and I think they should release this information.
If they're going to start talking about how rotten and racist and filled with rage you who have been calling them are, let's see what they're talking about.
You know, we all receive emails.
Well, I'm getting to that.
But we all receive emails from nutcases.
I mean, we all do.
Well, why should they be any different?
What sets them apart?
Why should nutcases not communicate with senators?
In fact, I think nutcases would be more prone to communicate with senators and members of Congress than anybody else.
We all get emails from these people.
You don't have to be a senator to get them.
And you get them on a wide variety of issues.
But the suggestion here that Senator Feinstein and others are making is to assassinate the character of everybody who disagrees with them.
That's what this is about.
And they're setting the stage here for ignoring these people and ignoring you.
When they revive this bill, when they're going to try to do this at some point, and by the way, everybody's out there, excuse me, blaming Kyle, a president, the Republican.
Harry Reid runs the Senate.
The Democrat pulled the bill.
I mean, the New York Times has got one of the most laughable editorials today on this, blaming Bush, blaming the Republicans, blaming talk radio, which is, you know, who.
Harry Reid pulled the bill.
Harry Reid pulled the bill because he wants this firestorm.
He wants this thing to go down the tubes with Republicans getting blamed for it.
We talked about this last.
He ought to be taking credit for it.
Anyway, what's happening here with these senators, folks, Senator Feinstein and the others who are making these statements, they're using the rubric of racism to smear millions of Americans who have legitimate concerns and raise them civilly.
I'm sure there's some nutcases out there, some kooks.
We all get them.
But the idea here is to try to characterize every one of you who has spent time sending letters, emails, making phone calls to the offices of your senators and members of Congress, trying to tar you with that broad brush that you too are filled with rage and are a racist.
So they ought to produce these emails.
Show us the phone logs.
Tell us what they have and who's saying what to them.
And by the way, how about releasing, if you're going to go this far, release the running totals of phone calls and emails that they're getting and how they're cutting?
You know, how many?
If you're going to start complaining about this, let's see some of the details.
Now, I'll bet most of them are not positive toward these politicians, and I'll bet you most of them are not racist.
In fact, this is one of the sly little tricks that the Amnesty crowd is putting out there.
Oh, this is just racism.
They don't like Hispanics, don't like me.
They have nothing to do with that.
And everybody up there actually knows this, but this is nevertheless an effort to smear and castigate every one of you who has been calling Washington on this.
These people act like they're elitists, think they're above criticism, and they're not.
And, you know, we're not going to roll over on this.
I don't care what they think, but they're sitting there and say, how dare we challenge them?
I'm going to tell you, what really gets to me about this, too, when Senator Feinstein and the others start talking about the rage, the racism, and the hatred, do you know that rage and hatred have been the two identifying characteristics of the Democrat Party for six years?
The rage and the hatred and the anger that's out there, then you can see it.
You can hear it in their elected officials.
You can read it on their websites.
I mean, there are plenty of deranged people out there.
The anger, the rage, all is on the left in this country right now, independent of this bill.
I mean, there's a lot of legitimate anger and rage over what they attempted to do with this.
But, you know, the other side is not racist in this debate.
No politicians ever received a racist email or phone call from those advocating open borders.
So just get ready for this, folks, because they're going to, you know, the president is going to put this all on the line.
They're going to do what they can to revive this.
I don't know if they'll succeed, but they certainly are going to try.
And if they bring it back, they should fix it.
And by fixing it, border security first has to win out.
And if that doesn't, the rest will follow.
If they just get serious about shutting this down, if they would just do that, then everything else will fall into place here.
And the idea that they don't know this is absurd because they do.
They are not interested in tightening up the border.
They want to make us think that they are, and they want to make us think that this bill contains serious enforcement measures.
But as you and I all know, it doesn't.
The president's had six years to prove he's serious about border security here.
I'm not talking about hiring 1,000 or 2,000 more agents, talking about legitimately securing the border, whatever it takes.
And it just doesn't seem that that mindset exists anywhere on the pro side of this bill.
You know, you know this, almost 60% of the illegals coming to our country are from Mexico.
So to point that out and oppose open borders is racist.
Yes, that's what they're trying to say.
And the Mexican government can intentionally send its people here, and to oppose that is racist.
To point out that most of the people are uneducated and don't speak English, that's racist.
It's not, but that's what they're trying to suggest here in an ongoing effort to eventually be able to say, we don't have to listen to these critics.
We don't have to listen to these emails and these phone calls that we're getting.
We're just getting rid of a bunch of racists, and we're not going to do legislation up here.
We're not going to have our bill shaped and formed by a bunch of angry racists and so forth.
And that's what they're setting up here, just to warn you.
You want to point out the cost of all this to schools, to hospitals, the entitlements that exist in this country.
That's racist, to point this out.
Now, that's what they're trying to say.
Let me take a quick time out here, folks.
We'll come back.
Lots of stuff in the immigration stack today.
Try this headline.
This story is worth it just for the headline.
Two TWO, two jailed after bridge built by blind man collapses.
You heard right.
A Chinese court has jailed two officials after they let a blind contractor build a bridge which collapsed during construction and injured 12 people.
I should laugh about this.
And let's see.
Oh, did you hear about what the Brett girls are going to do?
To fight Islamic terrorism?
A Peace Corps.
Don't we already have a Peace Corps?
Didn't JFK do this?
Is it the Peace Corps still around?
I know we got Clinton's Volunteers for Freedom or whatever.
He did his own for it.
He had this, the AmeriCorps, he had the sense to call it something else.
The Brett girls out there.
I mean, you really, folks, this is from press release.
Senator Edwards outlining a new national security strategy that hinges on the creation of a 10,000-person civilian Peace Corps to stem the tide of terrorism in weak and unstable countries.
So we're going to send a bunch of little lily-livered, linguine-spined liberal kids over to Middle East countries where terrorists are being born.
I know America that captured a peace act.
Well, that's stuff that you just, oh, and school.
This is an Akron, Ohio. Ohio Charter School that emphasizes African history and culture served gin to sixth graders at a graduation ceremony.
State education officials said they plan to investigate.
You heard about this.
The four students were given a teaspoon of gin mixed with water in a ceremony modeled on a Ghanian rite of passage event.
No lime garnish.
And it was not even sparkling water.
I mean, gin just with water.
The ritual was intended.
This is a truth now.
The ritual was intended to teach truthfulness.
This is the students were blindfolded, giving them the uncertain feeling that goes with moving from one stage of life to another, he said.
Each student was given a teaspoon of water and a teaspoon of gin-water mix and then asked to identify which contained water.
The students recognized the gin wasn't water and spit it out before swallowing, Whitaker said.
The point is to teach the children to be honest.
Yep, this is part of an ancestral African tradition, said Candy Nelson, whose 13-year-old son participated in the rituals.
They had no objection to it.
It's not like you're drinking hundred-proof alcohol here.
This is an ancestral tradition designed to teach people to be honest.
Do you remember how they taught you to be honest when you were in sixth grade?
George Washington and the cherry tree.
But I guess that won't work anymore.
Got to have gin in the sixth grade.
Back in just a second, folks.
Stay with us.
What I am saying to Senator Feinstein and these other people who are claiming that they've never gotten this volume of angry, enraged, racist email.
Prove it.
Prove it.
Everybody goes out and makes all of these claims.
Let's see it.
Prove it.
Show us some.
Give us a running total.
Give us a tally of how it's going out there.
Trumpet fanfare means an update's coming, and you guessed right.
Paul Shanklin here as Al Gore, ball of fire.
Who's listening now?
Really?
That's the big question.
All right, one more time there, Al Gore.
Let her rip, baby.
You may have heard about this already, but you haven't heard what I think about it.
The city of Denver is gearing up to fight global warming.
Listen to Rocky Mountain News today.
Residents of Denver may soon be asked to make personal sacrifices to help save the planet.
Their goal is the equivalent of taking 500,000 cars off the road.
The new plan is aimed at making Denver a national leader in reducing gas emissions that have been linked to global warming, giving a major push to alternative energy, stepping up recycling, changing building codes to encourage energy conservation.
But the proposal also contains some ideas that may be unpopular, such as penalizing heavy users of electricity and natural gas and basing auto insurance premiums on the number of miles traveled.
Much of the city's plan involves finding ways to encourage energy conservation by mandating efficiency standards for new construction, setting standards for older homes that would be enforced when the home is sold.
Denver would give incentives for carpooling, the use of hybrids, $10 a month trash would be something they're thinking of doing.
They're claiming that their era of denial now is over.
Denver joining a host of cities, taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including Seattle, Portland, and Chicago.
And, you know, this is the Kyoto Accord fell apart.
Have you noticed that drive-by media is not talking about what happened in a G8?
They drove right on by.
They didn't stop.
They didn't report.
Do you have any idea why?
Because Putin had his lunch handed to him by George W. Bush, and so did the Kyoto Accord.
The Kyoto Accord standards were supposed to go into effect in 2012, and these nations that have signed it have said, all right, we'll move it back to 2050.
Well, wait a minute.
If this is so serious, if we're on the cusp of destroying ourselves, how can we wait till 2050?
It just got blown away.
So while reason is asserting itself in a number of places, people who live in Denver are going to be, they're not going to put up with this.
It is just hilarious and absurd at the same time to believe that cities, individual cities of people, can affect the climate, can affect the weather.
It's not possible.
We don't have this kind of power.
Now, if somebody wants to say, well, Russia just trying to clean things up out there, let's pollution.
Well, fine.
It's still ridiculous, but they're not saying it to clean up pollution.
They're doing it just to reduce carbon footprints and to affect the climate.
This is audacious in its arrogance and conceit.
Meanwhile, the truth about Denver, this is a story from the, what is this?
I guess is the Channel 7 news out there.
And it's from June the 8th.
So just three days ago.
They had the coldest June morning in over 50 years last Friday.
The coldest June morning in 50.
It was frost.
There was frost out there.
And then they come up with this global warming stuff shortly after it.
And in fact, if you go to the National Weather Service forecast office and look up Denver, go to climate records and so forth, you'll find that nine of the 12 warmest years for Denver since records have been kept were before 1955.
This is sheer idiocy.
But this is what liberals do.
You know, somebody sent me a note, Rush, you need to synthesize, synthesize for people because the definitions of liberals and conservatives, the difference, it is too complicated.
All right, let me give you a very simple one.
Liberals want to run everybody's life.
Liberals want to run your life and everybody else's life.
Conservatives have no interest in running yours.
We want to be in charge of our own, and you can do what you want to do, but liberals have to run your life.
And this story out of Denver, classic illustration, how most people, as far as liberals are concerned, don't have the slightest idea how to live responsibly and to do things right.
And so government has to step in and take over.
Your guiding light.
There are times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, chaos, misery, unhappiness, torture, humiliation, and yes, even the good times.
Here behind the Golden EIB microphone at 800-282-2882, we're going to go to Norfolk, Virginia, start with David today on the phones.
David, nice to have you with us on the EIB network.
Hi, Rush.
It's an honor to speak to you.
Oh, thank you, sir.
Thank you very much.
I'm a peace activist, and I was born in Sri Lanka.
I'm a doctor, and I believe.
Oh, wow.
You are a peace activist?
Yes.
Oh.
Now, we need to go back to the history of how we acquired these California, Texas, and what is this?
We?
You are from Sri Lanka.
Well, I'm an American citizen now.
Oh, well, welcome.
Congratulations.
Thank you.
But do you know the history of how we acquired all these states, a lot of land?
How much land did you acquire from Mexico?
Well, it's a lot.
It's like, well, we bought a lot of the country that Louisiana purchased.
Then we beat the Indians in a bunch of wars.
And we beat the Mexicans, and we took what we wanted and annexed it and made it a great country.
Beat the Indians?
We killed them to get the land.
Well, I mean, it's the history of a human civilization.
You can't find a place on earth where that hasn't happened.
Well, don't you?
Actually, you're going to try to attach all kinds of.
Are you heading in this direction?
Did you call here to say that we took the land from Mexico and so they have rights to that land and so they should be allowed to come here illegally?
But they were not compensated, right?
I mean, how much is California worth today?
Would you donate California to Mexico?
It depends on who you talk to now.
California may have lost some value, Depending on your perspective, depending on your point of view, what do you compensate them?
Well, I mean, it was the expensive.
I don't know how many financial crises we have bailed Mexico out of over the years.
I don't know how much foreign aid that we have sent them.
We buy oil from them.
We've done everything that we could to help the Mexican government and the Mexican economy become a free market.
We've done everything we can do.
Are you right?
I can't believe you're serious about this.
Now, stealing land is one thing, but we stole it and killed them.
That's mass murder.
That's what we are doing in Iraq.
Aren't we doing the same to Iraq to get the oil?
I mean, this is outrageous crime.
Yes.
Yes, I think.
It's a crime against humanity.
No, give me a break.
My gosh.
You are a peace activist.
Can you name it?
Wait a minute.
Wait a second.
Wait.
You're from Sri Lanka.
Can you name for me one area of the world that has not been conquered by people and claimed as their own without quote-unquote compensation to the losers?
You know, we say losers.
We killed them and took the thing.
And we should be compassionate about those things.
You're not answering the question out there, David.
I'm trying to have a peace-oriented discussion with you here.
I'm trying to illustrate to you that this is the way of the world.
You're trying to attach immorality to the existence of the United States.
I mean, you do great teaching American history these days in American high schools because they're out there trying to say that everything about this country is illegitimate because of the way it was founded and the way that it was expanded and the way it was acquired and so forth.
And it's an absurd argument.
It's a totally, because it's not going to change.
We're not going to give anything back.
You don't justify slavery because that was the norm of those days.
We ought to condemn that.
I'm not justifying.
We're the one nation in the world that led the world in getting rid of slavery.
We had a civil war partially about.
What are you talking about here?
We don't have slavery here.
We did have slavery.
We did, but we fixed it.
What are you obsessing about?
You know, well, I tell you.
Rosh, you know, we are doing an orphanage in Sri Lanka.
If you want to contribute to that, you know, we love 50,000 people in Sri Lanka.
Do you want to contribute?
Oh, now you're asking.
You're going to give me the website if you want to do that.
Asking for a donation now.
Right.
Well, I mean, we want to make peace.
Well, you're a great peace activist.
I got to tell you, you're one of the best peace activists that we've ever had called this program.
You take the cake for it, David.
It's great to have you with us.
Thanks so much.
People need to hear what you think.
People like you.
People need to hear it, not from my lips, but from yours.
I appreciate the phone call.
Who's next?
Paul in Mid-Kansas.
Doesn't want to identify the city for some reason.
Well, I'm on the road.
I'm on the Kansas turtpike rush.
I just wanted to say that we should inform Miss Feinstein that our current policy, our current immigration policy, is already racist.
It's very much in favor of our neighbors to the south border.
If someone comes over from China in a shipping container where half of those people die, the other half that survive gets sent back to China.
If somebody comes floating over the ocean, not a boat or a piece of raft of some sort.
Like from Sri Lanka.
Yeah.
We send them right back.
So we don't do the same thing.
We don't apply our immigration policies uniformly.
And we show a great deal of racism to the Mexican people.
Yeah, we are biased against all other people because 60% of the illegals in this country are from Mexico.
You're absolutely right.
But you understand what Feinstein's doing, though.
He's trying to tar and feather good people like you and others who have called them to complain and to voice their opposition to the bill.
They're setting this up so as to be able to disregard and pay no attention to this criticism because it's coming from a bunch of racists.
But you're right.
That's an excellent point.
We'll fire back at them with it.
Absolutely, Rush.
They're trying to pin the blame on us, where it's really them that's accepted the situation and has actually benefited.
They're standing at the border with a blue stamp to stamp them as blue Democrats right as soon as they cross the border.
And they can't control the border, but the one thing they can control is they can try to get these people to vote for them.
Right.
Precisely.
That and expand the welfare state, expand the redistribution of wealth, expand government, and so forth.
There's a whole lot of things that politicians like about this, and they're totally unconcerned about the long-term consequences to the country.
Here's a thought as well, folks.
Rasmussen reports did a lot of polling on this bill, and they got some very accurate results.
Only 26% of the American people supported it.
But here's from last Friday.
This is just a paragraph pull quote from the entire article.
The reality is much simpler.
It has nothing to do with legislative tactics.
The immigration bill failed because a broad cross-section of the American people are opposed to it, pure and simple.
Republicans, Democrats, unaffiliated voters are opposed.
Men are opposed.
So are women.
The young don't like it.
Neither do the no longer young.
White Americans are opposed.
Americans of color are opposed.
The opposition to this crossed every line, crossed every boundary, crossed every marker.
And yet, they are still going to try to revive this and force it down our throats.
You know, this is coming.
And it makes you wonder.
You know, we have our founding documents.
We're all taught in Civics 101 about the will of the people, the consent of the governed.
When something is as widely opposed as this, and yet the effort is going to be to revive it, probably in its same form, because amnesty is what they want.
They want amnesty in the bill.
Nothing else works.
They need illegals to be immediately legal.
Hell with citizenship.
They need them to be immediately legal for what their idea of this legislation is to work.
And it makes you wonder.
This is the kind of thing I think that the founding fathers would be turning over in their graves if they knew what's going on when this much broad opposition to something, and yet the elected representatives of the people are still trying to, well, ignoring that and force it down the throats of the people of the governed.
Fascinating.
Here's Steve in Ogden, Utah.
Welcome, sir, to the EIB network.
Rush, what a pleasure it is to talk to you.
My conservative savior.
Hey, I just wanted to mention, I'm livid about this Dianne Feinstein mentioning racist emails.
I'm tired of being a guilty white male in America that's shamed into sending over and taking this.
That's what they're doing.
They're shaming us into slowly taking this bill.
Well, they may be trying to do that.
I think that if I discuss, that'll be too repetitive here.
They're setting themselves up for the next time this comes up to be able to ignore the complaints next time.
It's just a bunch of racists.
And we're not going to sit here and be governed by a bunch of racists and people filled with rage and so forth and so on.
But there's a second thing, too.
Maybe you may have a point.
May be trying to make it tougher for the opposition to hold together because they hope that guilt will descend and people will say, like you, I know, I don't want to be associated with a bunch of racists.
I don't think they're going to make that stick if that's their ploy.
In addition, they're just elitists.
They're above criticism.
Wow, I can't believe everybody gets these kinds of emails.
It's in public life.
It's nothing unique.
They think somehow, for some reason, they should be immune from it.
Back in just a moment.
It's kind of a cute story, and I must admit, it's nice to see this kind of motivation in a kid these days.
Stories at a North Bend, Oregon, a middle school student at junior high, for those of you in Riolinda who didn't go to school.
Kyle Ray Catherman is the kid's name.
He had a hunch that something was amiss with the Skruel's drinking fountain water.
So for an English assignment, he tested the bacteria content at four water fountains at the Skrule and one toilet.
And he did this to challenge a ban on students and bringing bottled water to class.
Some were using it to sneak in gin for their lessons in honesty, gin and vodka.
So they banned bottled water, and the kids drinking fountain water is something not right about it.
So he got these four Petri dishes when I did the testing, and sure enough, the toilet water was far cleaner, much more cleaner than the fountain water.
Now, that's probably they clean those toilets every day.
You put all those disinfectants and stuff in there.
But kids getting a lot of credit for this as he should, but dogs have known this for ever.
Your dog would rather drink out of the toilet than your sink, right?
Your cat, too.
You got to keep the lid closed.
Alan Queens, nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Yes.
Hi, Rush.
Hello, sir.
Something you said concerned me.
Uh-oh.
You said that if we just build a fence, border security first, everything else will fall into place.
I didn't say a fence.
I said get serious about securing the border and make sure that there's not a run-up of, you know, we did this in 1986.
And since we did this, we've had 12 to 20 million come in in that time, and maybe even more.
Oh, okay.
So border security first.
That's fine.
But if we're going to legitimize 12 million people who are going to sponsor over another 50 million entitled to Social Security benefits, welfare, food stamps, Medicare, I submit to you that the wall or the fence or whatever is irrelevant because the damage is done.
Well, I'm not advocating that now.
I'm not saying the rest of the bill's okay with me.
You should know this.
You should know better after listening to me regularly on this.
All these provisions bother me, but the point is, I was in the context, speaking in the context of bringing the bill back.
And if they don't fix it, and the first thing to fix in this bill is border security and get serious about it.
I don't mean just 1,000 to 2,000 new agents.
But if they don't do that, the rest of it's all academic.
If they do do that, then there's a chance to make other parts of it right.
But I think this legislation, this whole topic should not be brought back as another under the cover of darkness piece of legislation.
This ought to be front and center in the upcoming presidential campaign.
Because that is where the people of this country will actually have a say in the outcome of the whole concept of what to do about immigration.
But too many people looking at this for all the wrong reasons.
Political legacy in case of the White House, future voters for the Democrats, Republicans worried to death that Hispanics are going to hate their guts and never vote for them again for anything.
Meanwhile, Mel Martinez, let me find this in the stack.
The senator from Florida is poll numbers are, yeah, here it is.
This is from the Orlando Sentinel.
Immigrant bill hurts Martinez in polls.
An incumbent with a 37% approval rating needs to mend some fences, said Peter Brown, the assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
They polled about 1,100 Floridians from May 24th to June 4th.
Mel Martinez, 37% approval.
And we're just a bunch of Yahoo racists.
This is a guy running the Republican National Committee, by the way.
And they had better start listening.
And have you, by the way, have anybody asked this question to yourself?
Why all of a sudden now they've had this administration's had six years to do something on this.
The Clinton clowns had whatever number of years.
We've had 10, 12 years to get serious about this.
Why all of a sudden now is this mandatory?
It has to be done now.
If we don't get it done now, why it's the worst possible thing that could happen.
Why now?
Well, when you start answering that question and start throwing the variables out, the possible answers, you don't find any of them that are good.
To do it just to do it is not the best reason to do it.
And when you look at how the Democrats in the Senate snookered the Republicans on this, look at some of this stuff in this bill.
It makes no sense whatsoever.
And you still to this day have got Republicans out there trying to defend it.
Comprehensive Destroy the Republican Party Act of 2007.
Quick time out.
We'll squeeze a couple calls in when we come back.
Don't go anywhere.
Listen, this quote from Senator Martinez from last week in the Orlando Sentinel.
The alternative, frankly, is to leave the problem unresolved, to leave the problem lingering longer.
The 12 million that are here today illegally will become 13, and then 14 million only making it a bigger problem.
This is the time to fix it.
Do you realize?
Do you Senator Martinez?
This bill doesn't fix it.
It doesn't fix it.
The 12 to 13 that are here are going to become 50 to 80 million.
The bill doesn't fix it.
We don't have to do anything new, Senator, except enforce the law that was written in 1986.
Simpson Missouli, just enforce the existing law.
You know, build that fence that you said you were going to build a couple days ago, two years ago.
Build the fence, enforce the law.
I know.
I got to dial it back here, folks, because I'm starting to sound enraged, right?
And so I'm going to give all of us a bad name here by not appearing sithil and reasoned and polite.
But this is a United States Senator, the guy running the RNC, thinking if we don't do anything.
Why, the 12 are going to become 13 or 14 million.
And this bill would what?
Make the 12 to 20 million become what?
Legal.
So there aren't any illegals here.
This is what I mean about our guys getting suckered on this.
Folks, it defies a logical explanation here.
Quick time out.
▲
Export Selection