All Episodes
Previous Next
July 29, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:45
July 29, 2010, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
So there Obama was.
There he was, ladies and gentlemen, bringing some much-needed estrogen to the view this morning on ABC saying the African-American people are a mongrel people.
Obama, and by the way, after he leaves the view, maybe before he got to the view, he's, of course, up there raising money from evil Wall Street bankers.
And of course, the fake media does not see the irony in it.
Yeah, Charles Wrangel has struck a deal with the Ethics Committee.
We don't know what the deal is, but the ruling class is a ruling class.
And don't get your hopes up for something like this up.
I mean, this is not something to try to get a belt notch on.
It's typical.
It's going to be a slap on the wrist.
Charlie's out there.
He had to bring up the fact, you know what?
I've been happy every day since I was attacked in Korea.
60 years ago, I served in Korea.
I was attacked in Korea.
But today, for the first time, I'm unhappy.
I'm not as happy.
This is worse than being attacked in Korea.
So he has to bring up the fact he was in Korea.
And being hauled before the ethics committee is worse than being shot at in Korea.
President Obama waded into the national race debate in an unlikely setting and with an unusual choice of words, telling daytime talk show hosts that African Americans are, quote, sort of a mongrel people.
When asked about his background, you ever thought of yourself as a mongrel, Mr. Snirdley?
When asked about his background, which includes a black father and a white mother, Obama said of African Americans, we are, we're sort of a mongrel people.
I mean, we're all kinds of mixed up.
That's actually true of white people as well, but we just know more about it.
So white people are mongrels too, but you African-American mongrels, you know more about it than we white mongrels do.
And anyone, he blamed the media for the Shirley Sherrod firing.
Obama blamed the media for creating a phony controversy over racial remarks by a black agriculture department official posted on the internet.
His administration ousted the employee with an apologized and offered to rehire.
On the View today, Obama said that the media often see controversy, not the facts.
He acknowledged the forced resignation could also be blamed on those in his administration who overreacted, including apparently himself.
What a way to start the program.
We have this mess out in Arizona.
And the governor out there, we got some great audio soundbites coming up.
Jan Brewer is going to file the appeal today.
I've noticed on this, folks, some commentators on cable and elsewhere are saying that there are some victories to celebrate in this judge's decision.
And I know, I know what a mongrel is.
Of course I know what a mongrel is the offspring of two different breeds of dog.
That's why it's a very strange way to describe yourself.
A mongrel is a dog of no definable breed.
You know, let me say that.
Let me come up with that description on my own.
See what happens.
Let me say it, not quoting Obama.
See what happens.
Anyway, these commentators out there, and this is, folks, this is classic ruling class.
People want to be in the big click.
We had a horrible decision in terms of the rule of law.
Politically, I think the decision yesterday in Arizona by that Clinton appointee is just another nail in the coffin politically of the Democrats come November.
So politically, yeah, you can see.
But legally, as far as the rule of law is concerned, this is a disaster.
It is an outrage.
And we got people saying, well, there's some victories to celebrate in here.
There are some positives.
There's some upsides here.
An example, they're saying that the judge let stand for now the employer sanctions.
Big whoop.
It doesn't matter because you can't.
I mean, you want to don't ask, don't tell.
This is it.
It's not in the military.
This law, as it stands now in Arizona, is don't ask, don't tell.
It's now illegal to be illegal in Arizona.
But when you say that, well, there's some positives in here.
The judge lets some things stand like employer sanctions.
This is how the rule of law gets dumbed down.
Here we have a federal judge who refused to allow the state of Arizona to implement its law, which complements federal law, by striking at the heart of the law, including the ability of state and local law enforcement to ask individuals who are detained or questioned for other possible offenses, which is something that still gets demagogued in this, whether they are here legally or not, and to require aliens to carry papers with them.
That's been struck down.
You can go find positives all you want, but there aren't any.
I mean, the guts of this have been taken out of it.
You want to go try to find positives for whatever reason, if we can't call things what they are, we're not going to have a chance here to get rid of some of these things.
There aren't any positives here.
Not as far as the rule of law is concerned.
Now, the judge said that this might create due process issues and an undue burden for the federal government and law enforcement to enforce their own law.
We don't have the resources.
She completely ignored.
And I've talked to legal beagles about this.
The judge completely ignored the Supreme Court's own standard for issuing a stay.
So in other words, in the name of upholding the law, she defied the law.
We're looking for positives here.
We are supposed to celebrate the fact that this judge allowed to stand a part of the law that should have been allowed to stand anyway.
We're going to take what we can get.
Oh, you mean you're going to, oh, wow, you're going to let that part stay in it?
That's the law anyway.
So we're going to, it's like applauding a court affirming that murder is still murder and is a crime.
Big whoop.
And we're supposed to claim this is a partial victory.
There is no victory when a federal judge refuses to uphold the law, whether a part of it or all of it, under circumstances like this.
And to claim partial victory, I don't know what the objective is here.
To claim partial victory is to give credit where credit is not due.
I just sometimes the people on our side of the aisle baffle me more than the people on the left, because I totally understand the people on the left.
From the United States federal website, the welcome guide to the United States on page eight.
As a permanent resident, it is your responsibility to obey all federal, state, and local laws, except in Arizona.
Pay federal, state, and local income taxes, except in Arizona.
Register with the selective service if you're a male between 18 and 26.
See page 11 for instructions.
All this is true, except if you are illegal in Arizona.
You are a permanent resident, required to maintain your immigration status, except in Arizona.
And you are required to carry proof of your permanent resident status at all times, except in Arizona.
And by extension, every other state now, theoretically.
If you can't preempt federal law anywhere else, then we in big do-do, heap, big do-do.
Heritage Foundation, a great piece of the morning, call today, morning bell, surviving the Obama assault on the rule of law.
New York Times has a big story about this today, and they're somewhat accurate about it on the political side.
But hours after yesterday's decision by the Judge Susan Bolton to preemptively stop the enforcement of Arizona's immigration enforcement law, Thomas Sands, president of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, told the New York Times this is a warning to any other jurisdiction, just in case the message from the Obama administration and its leftist allies was not clear.
Obama appointee, U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke, told the AP, surely it is going to make states pause and consider how they're drafting legislation and how it fits in a constitutional framework.
As I said yesterday, this is a judicial activism textbook case, rewrote the Arizona law to her own needs, followed the spin of the media, followed the spin of the ACLU, followed the spin, not the law, of the federal government, invented her own facts and ignored clear federal law.
President Jimmy Carter appointee, immigration law professor at Yale, Peter Shuck, told the New York Times she rushed to judgment in a way that I can only assume reflects a lot of pressure from the federal government to get this case resolved quickly.
The Obama administration, when a Yale law professor comes out against a Clinton-appointed federal judge, folks, momentous.
The Obama regime's case against Arizona sought to preemptively stop enforcement of Arizona's new immigration law.
The legal term for this is facial challenge.
Federal precedent is clear.
Facial challenges must be careful not to go beyond the statute's facial requirements and speculate about hypothetical or imaginary cases, but that's just what the judge did.
Well, this could lead to X, and it might cause Y to happen.
And if that happens, then Z might happen.
A bunch of hypotheticals.
A bunch of hypothetical circumstances led the judge to rule that the guts of the law are unenforceable, unconstitutional.
Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff, on CNN last night.
John King said the federal government sites statistics.
He says, you know, there are more guys on the border than ever before.
There's less major crime along the border than ever before.
This is an overreaction you people are having.
Why don't they just say thank you, Sheriff?
Let's join forces.
We cannot do this job alone.
We need local law enforcement to work together.
The feds can't do this job alone.
They know it.
The people know it.
But why are they fighting us?
Why do we join together?
We go after bank robberies, federal.
We go after guns, ATF.
We do all these other federal laws.
But why is it this one law, this other federal law, causes so much controversy from the White House all the way down to the streets of Phoenix?
I don't understand that.
Yes, he does understand it, and he'll explain it here in the next soundpipe.
He's got a great point here.
You listen to that answer carefully.
It's the same thing Obama's doing with the economy.
If he really wanted to fix it, he would partner with business.
If he really wanted to stop the oil leak in the Gulf, he would have partnered with BP.
If he really wanted to secure the border, he would partner with Arizona.
After all, we're one country.
We have the same objective.
No, we don't.
The objectives of 70 to 80 percent of the people are not the objectives of this regime.
This regime's objectives are all political.
They're all about voter registration.
It's all about amnesty.
It's all about undocumented Democrats becoming documented so they can go out there and vote for Democrats from Obama on down.
Pure and simple.
But it's a great point from the sheriff.
Why are we in Arizona the enemy?
Why aren't the people crossing the border dragging drugs and bodies and committing all kinds of crime?
Why aren't they the enemy?
Why are we in Arizona the enemy of our own government?
Why is our own government governing against our will?
Why does our own government partner with others opposed to our own national and state self-interest?
A great, great question.
Because Obama's agenda is not Arizona's.
Obama's agenda is not the agenda of 70 to 80 percent of the people of the country.
John King said, Well, what do you think the answer is, Sheriff?
I mean, you say so much controversy from the White House all the way down to the streets of Phoenix.
We partner on every other crime.
Why not this?
I don't understand it.
Well, what do you think the answer is, sheriff?
I'll tell you what the answer is.
They want amnesty.
Employers want to keep hiring cheap labor, and the politicians want to make sure they get the Hispanic vote.
Doesn't everybody know that?
Doesn't everybody know that?
Probably was news to the people at CNN.
We'll take a brief time out.
We'll come back.
Just.
I mean, we just barely caused a ripple in the waters.
A flood will ensue.
Hang in there and be tough.
In the New York Times story that I referenced moments ago, there's somebody in the story who says, well, why didn't the judge just let the law be implemented?
Just let the law take effect to see if what she said would actually happen.
Well, there's a very good reason why they don't want the law to take effect because what they say is going to happen will not happen.
It's no more complicated than that.
She and the federal government are afraid it won't happen.
I'm talking about profiling.
They're afraid it will not happen, which is why they rushed the lawsuit and why she rushed her ruling.
She declared that enforcing a federal law interferes with it.
So the judge and holder, the Department of Justice, rushed this decision precisely because they knew they would not have the profiling and other horrible things that they were saying would happen.
All of these hypotheticals, they weren't going to happen.
They're not part of the law.
So the light of truth would be shining on this.
The jig would be up.
This would be seen for what it is.
A bunch of spin and lies and distortion about the law.
Now, Why would Obama have any empathy for the citizens of Arizona or any of the states that are now overrun by illegal aliens?
Why does anybody think of Joe Ohio?
Why don't we partner with Obama?
Well, with whom does Obama have sympathy now or for whom?
He reserves his empathy, sympathy, whatever, for terrorists and other enemies of the United States.
We used to partner with Israel.
Well, that's out the window now.
We're going to have NASA outreach to Muslims.
We're outreach to the enemy.
We didn't try to stop these WikiLeaks documents.
Yeah, no big deal.
No big deal.
It's always just what we've always known.
Bush sucks.
War is not right.
It's an excuse to get out of there pretty soon.
He doesn't have any pain left to spare for average Americans, especially the rubes that didn't vote for him.
You think Obama doesn't keep a tab and his regime doesn't keep a tab of who supported him and who didn't?
Investors Business Daily, particularly good with this paragraph on the Arizona ruling yesterday.
By the logic of Judge Bolton's ruling, the state trooper who arrested Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh on a speeding violation in 1995, this is a great analogy.
McVeigh was speeding away from Oklahoma City.
State trooper arrested him on a speeding violation.
That would now be prohibited.
That trooper would be prohibited from arresting McVeigh for the federal crime of the bombing because the bombing was a federal crime, and only the feds can enforce federal law.
So if this judge had rendered a decision in Arizona years ago, back in the 90s, McVeigh would have been released.
It would have been an illegal arrest.
And there's it's a great analogy.
If it wasn't clear before, it is now.
The federal government has no intent in forcing the laws against rampant, brazen, illegal immigration.
The Investors Business Daily says indeed it will punish those states that try, leaving them at the mercy of the kidnappers, the terrorists, gangsters, drug dealers, human traffickers that now freely cross the southern border.
Now, folks, to shield these kinds of thugs is to sentence the innocent to certain harm.
And that's not by the consent of the governor.
This is not the will of the people, what happened in Arizona yesterday, not even close.
This is not big government either.
This is lawlessness.
This is closer to big anarchy.
It's preventing the police from performing their most fundamental task, and that is to serve, protect, and defend law-abiding, taxpaying citizens, who I tell you are taking it in the shorts every way they turn around, financially, legally.
The people playing by the rules, the people paying the bills are the ones being savaged.
This ruling yesterday was an act of aggression against the people of Arizona.
Phoenix, Arizona is the kidnapping capital of the world.
Well, outside Mexico City, Phoenix, Arizona, throw Mexico City out of it.
Phoenix, the kidnapping capital of the world.
Now, should the local authorities stop arresting kidnappers?
Because kidnapping is a federal offense.
You get kidnapped, the FBI is going to come knock on your door.
If somebody in your family gets kidnapped, it's the FBI that's going to come calling.
The FBI wants to get involved.
But can local authorities do anything here when somebody kidnapped?
Big, big crime in Phoenix.
We used to be a country that was described as we the people, but we're not anymore.
Obama doesn't look at this as we the people.
He looks at the United States as me, the government.
Pure and simple.
My good friend Andrew McCarthy, National Review Online, making the complex understandable.
In essence, Judge Bolton bought the Justice Department's preemption argument.
That is the claim that the federal government has broad and exclusive authority to regulate immigration and therefore that any state measure that's inconsistent with federal law is invalid.
Well, the Arizona law is completely consistent with federal law.
The judge, however, twisted the concept of federal law into federal enforcement practices, or as it happens, a lack thereof.
So in effect, the court is saying that if the feds refuse to enforce the law, the states can't do it either, because doing so would transgress the federal policy of non-enforcement, which is nuts.
But that's essentially what's happening.
That is totally nuts, but that's what the judge's ruling said.
Look, you cannot preempt the federal government, no matter what it does.
And the federal government has chosen not to enforce the law.
Therefore, you can't.
Now, you apply this to any other crime.
Apply this to Tim McVay blowing up the Mura building in Oklahoma City and driving away and being pulled over for speeding by a state trooper.
If the federal government had decided that blowing up federal buildings was not a crime, the state trooper couldn't stop the guy.
So she said, if you've heard this word preemptive or preemption, this is the best description of it.
You cannot preempt federal law no matter what they do on the enforcement side, too, because the law mirrors federal law.
Arizona's law mirrors.
It's almost a carbon copy.
And the judge says if the feds choose not to enforce their law, then you and Arizona can't either.
You cannot preempt federal law.
Federal law is exclusive, including enforcement.
It's absolutely insane.
I mean, this judge is a partisan political operative.
Nothing is real.
The law is not even real anymore.
She wears a robe and she has a gavel, but she's not a judge.
She's a partisan political operative of the left.
Appointed by Der Schlichmeister, Bill Clinton.
And I said yesterday, and I keep reminding people of this, this is how they set us up.
Well, they didn't set me up.
But the way they tried to set everybody up, oh, no, this woman, yeah, she was appointed by Clinton, but no, no, no, no.
This woman is not a partisan judge at all.
Why?
We've examined her rulings.
We've examined her opinions.
This woman isn't partisan at all.
Let's listen to the governor of Arizona.
This is Jan Brewer's last night on Hannity question, in your mind, today's court ruling to say that it appears the federal government won't protect American citizens, won't enforce the law.
And also, on the other hand, now the state of Arizona, you can't do it either.
Is that fair?
Very fair.
That's the truth.
We now have been told by a federal judge and by the federal government that they're just not going to enforce their laws, and they're not going to allow Arizona to help them enforce their laws.
So it was a bit of disappointment.
But let me say that, you know, this is a little road bump on the path.
The lawsuit will continue through the court.
And what are your next steps?
What are you going to do next?
Tomorrow we will file an expedited appeal at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Knowing that the Ninth Circuit, of course, is a pretty liberal situation, then I assume that we will move forward then to the Superior, to the Supreme Court.
I'm not a quitter.
The people of Arizona are not quitters.
America is not going to sit back, I don't believe, and allow this type of action to take place.
We are a nation of laws, and we believe they need to be enforced.
Selectively is how they're being enforced, and they're being ignored.
But she's right.
She's not going to quit.
You know, I asked her.
I interviewed Governor Brewer for the next issue of the Limbaugh letter.
And I try not to cannibalize the newsletter by telling you what's coming up in it.
But I got to tell you this.
I asked her, because she's been the focus of personal assaults, her family.
She's getting the Sarah Palin Rush Limbaugh royal treatment.
I said, you ever think about just chucking it all in?
You think about just, okay, okay, never mind.
And she said, no, no, but it has been tough.
She said yesterday, this is just the first step.
God bless this governor.
She's showing a resolve, a courage, and a toughness that's not found very often, too many places in American politics.
Last night on Larry King Alive on CNN, which is just another venue for liberal activism, Larry talked to the Univision anchor Jorge Ramos, let me pronounce it Jorge, about the Arizona immigration law.
Larry King says, hey, Jorge, I gather you agree with us.
It's just a temporary injunction.
It can be released in a couple of days if they file an appeal to it, right?
The news today is that nothing, absolutely nothing has changed.
Everything is still the same.
And I still can't believe that the most powerful country in the world is persecuting the most vulnerable, 11 million people.
All men are created equal.
And right now, there are many millions of people in the United States who are not being treated equally.
This is just, I mean, you go insane here if you try to analyze this stuff rationally.
You literally go insane.
You start banging the table.
What the hell is he talking about?
But he's saying exactly what he means.
But let me talk about what's ahead for the Ninth Circus.
Because the governor's right.
The Ninth Circus, very liberal situation, she called it.
The first thing that's going to happen is that a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circus, and the three judges are pulled at random.
The three-judge panel will review the case and issue their finding.
Somebody is going to win and somebody's going to lose.
The loser can then ask for the entire Ninth Circus to examine the thing, to look at it and bunk.
And there are probably a lot of activist judges on the Ninth Circus who want to get their mitts on this, who want to get their fingerprints on it.
And so probably the request for an in-bock hearing on the entire Ninth Circus would take place.
After they rule, she's asked for an expedited ruling.
And by the way, it's all speculation.
I'm just telling you what could happen.
After they rule, then whoever loses, and we expect Arizona to lose at the Ninth Circus twice.
I mean, I do.
I mean, the Ninth Circus is what it is.
So I expect Arizona to lose twice there and then for it to go to the court.
Now, there was something fascinating.
Front page above the fold.
New York Times last Sunday.
Did you see it, Snirtley?
Huge picture of the Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts.
The headline, the most conservative court in whatever length of time, decades, centuries, what have you.
Now, this is how they do it, see.
This is how they do it.
It's no accident.
Here you've got Kagan, who's going to be an absolute Kagan, this judge, judicial activist, this whole Kagan's not a judge.
She's never been a judge.
They're going to give her a robe and a gabble, and she is going to be like putting somebody from the Institute for Policy Studies or Greenpeace or the Sierra Club or the NAGS, some interest group like that from Media Matters for America, putting them on the Supreme Court is essentially what's going to happen here.
Or the journalist, this guy Gitlin, Todd Gitland from, or maybe it's Jitland, how he pronounces it, professor of journalism at Columbia.
He's big on the journal list.
The list served, he's a professor of journalism.
He's no more professor of journalism than I am.
He's one of the founders of Students for Democrat Society.
He's Bill Ayers without the bombs.
And he's teaching journalism at Columbia University.
Zeb Chaffetz told me when he's writing the book about me, An Army of Money, went and talked to Todd Gitland.
Todd Gitlin said, the guy shouldn't even be on the air, meaning me.
And Zev told me, you're a professor of journalism.
Have you ever listened?
I don't need to listen to him.
He ought not be on the air.
And of course, the guy has said Fox News ought not be on the air.
This is a professor of journalism.
It's no different, Kagan getting on the court, being no different than this guy getting on the court.
She's not a judge.
Bolton's not a judge.
These are just liberal activists, partisan political operatives disguised as judges, lawyers, senators, congressmen, representatives, lobbyists, judges, journalists, you name it.
So this is, I mean, folks, it is an amazing thing to watch a 20% minority rule, not even govern, but rule the country like this.
Anyway, I've got to take a break here.
I'm up against the time constraints.
We'll be back and we'll grab some of your phone calls because I know you want to weigh in on this.
We'll not wait till the next hour, which we normally do.
We seldom go to calls in the first hour because there's so much to be said.
But there's a lot that you want to say.
When I say something about something, there's generally nothing left to be said.
So I want to leave some things unsaid, leaving room for you to say some things.
And we'll start hearing from you right after this.
The most conservative court in decades.
That big picture of John Roberts, the chief justice.
This is how they do it at the New York Times and the Washington Post.
This is direct pressure on John Roberts.
The last thing you want to be in Washington is to be described as a conservative right-winger.
You're never going to get the right style section profiles.
You're not going to get accepted into the ruling class click.
You're not going to be raved about.
If you're in charge of the most conservative court, this is how they pressure the justices to moderate their views.
Now, mind you, this most conservative court in decades barely approved the right to bear arms.
Five to four.
We're hanging by a thread constitutionally, and the New York Times says this is the most conservative court in decades.
And there were four votes out of nine to say the Second Amendment doesn't exist.
This is the same court that barely approved free speech in elections, the Citizens United case.
Five to four.
We're hanging by a thread constitutionally.
And here comes the New York Times, a couple of days before the judge in Arizona rules on the immigration law, a federal judge, in a case that now looks like it is obviously going to end up at the Supreme Court.
There are no coincidences out there in politics.
Very, very few.
Especially if the Clintons are involved.
These judges, these judges at the U.S. Supreme Court, somebody tell me how they differ from the mullahs in Iran issuing FETWAS.
How exactly?
Five to four on a constitutional amendment, number two, five to four on the First Amendment?
Freedom of speech, five to four?
And we got the most conservative court in decades with that big picture of John Roberts.
He's the target.
He doesn't want to be considered the leader of the most conservative court in decades.
That's what they're trying to make him realize.
Judge, you don't want to be considered a conservative.
Not here in Washington.
No, no, no, you're not going to go anywhere.
Now, cocktail parties, forget it.
Respect in the newspaper?
No, no.
No, not going to happen.
You keep presiding over this conservative court stuff, and you're finished here socially.
And you're finished here professionally.
That's the message.
To Rochester, New York, Rick, you're first on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Hello, Rush.
Giga Dittos to you.
I've been a front row classroom student of yours since 1990.
Thank you, sir.
My only point is that we need to get better about turning the arguments back around on the liberals.
I love Sheriff Arpaio's comments yesterday, but I wish he had pressed the reporter to say, what level of crime are you comfortable with?
I feel like the reporter was patronizing him, pointing out his successes at crime suppression, but then he made the snarky comment, well, isn't that good enough?
I wish Sheriff Arpaio had said, and what exact level of crime should I be comfortable with?
Well, here's what Arpaio knows.
Arpaio knows that he's going to leave that studio, but the anchor, the activist, is not.
Joe Arpaio knows he does not sit behind a golden EIB microphone.
He has a pistol and a baton, but he doesn't have a microphone.
And a lot of you, I know you don't like the way our people appear on TV.
Turn it around on the media.
You want to see the media shame.
You want to see them exposed.
You want to see them humiliated.
But that's a visceral pleasure.
It's nothing more than a visceral pleasure.
Because in truth, nobody is doing more to keep the people safe in Arizona than Joe Arpaio.
There's no reason to be critical of Joe Arpaio because of how he does or doesn't behave in the media.
This is how we get sidetracked.
Leave handling the media to me.
Let Arpaio be the great sheriff that he is.
He doesn't need to sit there and provoke John King.
It's not worth it.
He's talking to somebody with the intellect of a pencil eraser.
What's the point?
John King, everybody at CNN, everybody in the media is a known entity.
They are partisan political operatives.
Joe Arpaio is not going to change their minds.
And by the way, if John King or anybody else gets humiliated, who's going to see it?
There's nobody watching CNN.
I guarantee you, more people heard what Sheriff Arpaio said on this program than who watched him say it on CNN.
And Joe Arpaio is not a conservative political leader.
I know he runs for office and gets elected, but he's not.
He does his job.
He's focused on it.
He does it very well.
Now, we can search for these visceral pleasures.
Yeah.
Did you see what Arpaio did to the journalist?
Well, what do you want?
The journalist is just going to sit there and say, that's just not about me.
I'm here asking the questions.
Okay, then what?
Our pilots?
Well, no, no, you're asking them, but I want to know what you think.
You answer them.
Oh, we'd love to see it.
We would love to see it.
And I've tried it.
You know, I do it.
I do it.
And you still complain that I should have said something else that I didn't say.
I'm just kidding.
A quick time out here.
Back after this.
Don't go away.
Let me give you some statistics on Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County, Arizona.
Maricopa County has deported 26,000 illegal aliens, illegal Democrats, which means they have deported a whopping 6.5% of Arizona's illegal population over the last four years.
These figures come from the partisan political operatives at AP.
AP's own numbers.
Is that really such a tremendous number?
I mean, 26,000 sounds like a lot.
Do you believe that only 6.5% of murderers should be rounded up?
Do you think only 6.5% of rapists or purse snatchers or muggers or drug dealers, 6.5% of drug dealers?
Do you think only 6.5% of them should be rounded up?
6.5%.
Maricopa County.
Joe Arpaio.
▲
Export Selection