All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 23, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:36
November 23, 2011, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I better get started with some of these audio sound bites here.
I'm not going to get to any of them.
And there's a pretty good roster today, so we'll do that.
We got Newt coming up here on the immigration business that we spent a lot of time talking about first hour.
Also, here it is.
We beat this one by a week.
Story hits the Washington Times, Congressional Budget Office.
Obama stimulus hurts the economy in the long run.
Congressional Budget Office yesterday downgraded its estimate of the benefits of Obama's porculus package, saying that it may have sustained as few as 700,000 jobs at its peak.
Sustained.
Not created.
Basically, I guess, saved.
And even that, smoke and mirrors.
That's public sector exactly right.
The CBO said that while the Recovery Act, the slush fund, boosted the economy in the short run, the extra debt that the porculus piled up crowds out private investment and will reduce output slightly in the long run by between 0 and 0.2 percent after 2016.
And remember, these are fudged numbers.
It's much, much worse.
So even now the CBO, way too many years too late, it was bogus.
The whole premise was a lie.
It was indeed a slush fund, a money laundering scheme, crony donorism, porculus, whatever you want to call it.
It was not an economic stimulus bill.
And that's from the precious and bipartisan or nonpartisan, whatever they say, Congressional Budget Office.
Great to have you back, folks.
Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone number if you want to join us, 800-282-2882, the email address, lrushbo at EIBnet.com.
Let's do, let's go to the audio soundbites.
We're going to start number 18, 18 through 21 here.
This is Newt, last night in the debate during a segment on immigration.
I do not believe that the people of the United States are going to take people who've been here a quarter century, who have children and grandchildren, who are members of the community, who may have done something 25 years ago, separate them from their families, and expel them.
I'd urge all of you to look at the Crebel Foundation plan.
I don't see how the party that says it's the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter century.
And I'm prepared to take the heat for saying, let's be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship, but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families.
Without giving them citizenship, that's key.
Without citizenship, they cannot legally vote, which means that Newt's plan does not convert them to Democrats.
Legally.
That's a big word.
So understandably, Newt took a lot of heat from this.
Michelle Bachman was one.
After Newt mentioned this, we shouldn't be destroying families.
Michelle Bachman weighed in.
Well, I don't agree that you would make 11 million workers legal because that, in effect, is amnesty.
And I also don't agree that you would give the DREAM Act on a federal level.
And those are two things that I believe that the Speaker had been for, and he can speak for himself.
We do want to have people, and I agree with the Speaker, people like chemists and engineers and people who are highly skilled.
We think about the United States and what's in the best interest of the United States.
If we can utilize these workers like Steve Jobs wanted to, then we need to offer those visas.
That will help the United States.
But I don't agree that we should make 11 million workers who are here illegally legal.
Okay, so this has been the theme since last night.
And of course, people said, 25 years or what about 20 years?
And by the way, how do we know how long they've been here?
Oh, come on, Rush.
We just ask them.
Okay, I forgot that technique.
So we just ask them.
You just ask the Crebel Foundation.
If you try to look up the Crebel Foundation, I believe it's spelled K-R-I-E-B-L-E, if you are trying to find out what the Crebel Foundation plan is that Newt cited.
So how long they've been here, 25 years?
What if it's 24?
What if it's 20?
What if it's 17?
How do we know how long they've been here?
Come on, Rush, we just ask them.
If they're told that they get to stay, they've been here 25 years, they'll tell you that they've been here 25 years.
Well, how are we going to prove if they haven't been here 25 years?
Well, don't ask me, not my plan.
I don't know.
But anyway, the media reacting somewhat favorably to this in the sense that Newt has a heart.
I'm telling you, and it infuriates me.
I can't begin to tell you how it infuriates me to listen to these holier-than-now uppity media people sit there as they're the superior to everybody.
They've got hearts, they've got compassion, and the natural template for conservatives is their cold-hearted, mean-spirited extremists.
Oh, look, Newt's got a heart.
Oh, wow.
Well, you know what?
That may have changed my opinion of Newt.
That's what Gloria Borger actually said last night in the postgame.
So Newt fired back at Bachman.
Borger herself said Michelle Bachman's campaign put out something immediately which said that Newt Gingrich is opening a door to amnesty.
What would your response to that be?
That's totally inaccurate.
What I've said is the Crebel Foundation is a very good program for legalization without citizenship for people who've been here a long time.
Now, I want to say go home to lots of people.
I want to create a border that's controlled.
I want a guest worker program outsourced to American Express or Visa or MasterCard.
I want English as the official language of government.
I'm willing to be tough, but I'm not willing to kid people.
And I can't imagine any serious person here in this country who believes we're going to tear families apart that have been here 20 or 25 years.
So Borger, Gloria Borger, then said, well, do you think the Republican Party's hurt itself with the Hispanic community because there might be that perception that you want to rip their families apart, that you Republicans hate people, that you Republicans are mean-spirited, extremist, hate-mongers, and you want to tear apart the Hispanic population?
Do you think maybe the Republican Party's hurt itself with its hateful view of Hispanic people and all people of color, you scum?
Sure.
I think it makes it not just the Hispanic community, but we have people who come to America from the whole planet.
I think Governor Romney had a right tonight when he said we favor immigration.
We favor legal immigration.
We actually would have more opportunity for people who are talented to stay.
And it's frankly the Democratic Party and the labor unions who blocked that.
So, I mean, it's a mixed bag, but I think it's important because I think somebody up here is going to be president.
And I think that they hope it's going to be me, but one of us is going to be.
It's important for us to unify the country by having an honest conversation, not just a series of slogans.
Okay, so that's how it went last night.
On the immigration side, and let's go back.
Here's Newt, Mitt Romney, Grab Audios now by 27 now.
It is, while everybody's harping on Newt from last night, claiming amnesty or whatever they're claiming, when he didn't, He specifically said he's not talking about granting them citizenship.
And if you don't grant them citizenship, they can't vote.
And without citizenship, Newt's saying it's not amnesty.
And Romney, back on Meet the Press in December of 2007.
My own view is, consistent with what you saw in the Lowell Sun, that those people who have come here illegally and are in this country, the 12 million or so that are here illegally, should be able to sign up for permanent residency or citizenship.
Oh, well, four years ago.
Four years ago, Mitt Romney actually talked about citizenship for them.
So let's see if that's picked up on today.
Let's see if it is.
Just out of curiosity.
You think so?
Next week?
You think they'll go find the Romney bite?
Really?
You think so?
Okay.
All right.
Did he jump all over Newt?
Romney?
Romney jumped all over Newton and said what he was proposing is a magnet for illegals to come here.
How's it a magnet if you've got to be here for 25 years before we welcome you?
Okay.
All right.
Well, anyway, grab audio soundbite number three.
We had the Pat Caddell-Doug Sean column we talked about a couple days ago.
These are two pollsters.
The Democrat Party, Sean, was a pollster for Clinton.
Cadell was a pollster for Jimmy Carter.
They're still Democrats.
They want the Democrat Party to win.
They wrote column after column leading into the 2010 midterms, telling the Democrats, you don't understand how bad it's going to be.
You guys are going to get shellacked in the midterms.
And they were offering them ways limiting the damage.
Democrats didn't listen to them, and they got shellacked.
And so now Sean and Caddell have written another piece for the Wall Street Journal saying to Obama, you have a duty to your country and the party to get out of the race.
You can't win.
And even if you do win, the only way is by going so negative that the country's torn apart in the middle of the campaign.
And after you win, going so ugly and so dirty, you're not going to be able to govern.
You're going to rip the country apart, not to mention your party.
And then Cadell and Sean said, if Obama won't go on his own, it's up to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed to go up to the White House and tell him to leave.
And remember, I said in a spirit of helpfulness that Sean and Cadell had gone about this the wrong way because Obama's a narcissist.
You don't go up to him and get him out of there.
You don't tell him to leave because he's a failure.
Narcissist, that doesn't compute.
If you really want to get rid of Obama, you got to go up and tell him how the current job's beneath him.
You got to tell him how we can tell you're not interested, Barack.
We can see this doesn't turn you on.
You and your wife don't even like living in the White House.
We can tell you don't like the job.
You're so much more qualified than something as small as president of one country.
You know, your country, America, is no different than the other country.
You yourself said it, Barack.
We're just like any other country.
We've got a flag.
And that's the only thing that makes us different.
Our flag's different from the other countries.
You need to be running the world, Barack.
That's how you should have done it, Sean.
And that's how you should have done it, Mr. Cadell.
If you'd have written a piece that catered to Obama's ego and gave him an option of something much more powerful and much bigger, then maybe he would have listened.
But I don't think he's finished with his mission.
He's got a good start, but he's not finished.
Cadell was on Fox News Channel Cavuto Show.
Was it the business channel or regular Fox?
It doesn't matter.
They had a discussion about the super committee bombing out.
This is what Pat Cadell said.
I have to say, you know, people care about reelection and they care about politics.
Our president does.
I've never really seen a president who has been so unengaged.
And, you know, yesterday I had a piece with Doug Schoen urging him to step aside for Hillary Clinton for the very reason that somebody needs to do something and worry about reelection and the division between these two parties.
This is not a problem that can be kicked down the road.
We haven't done anything.
And they continued.
Cadell wasn't quite finished.
I think right now the dominant instinct in this country, if they had an alternative, would be to throw them all out.
I think the political elite has failed the country.
I think a serious, you know, I think a candidate, you know, people laugh.
I think a Donald Trump could do well.
I think anybody, I could name you half a dozen people, could do well in challenging this.
Right now, the American people are saying the political leadership of this country has failed, and all they care about is beating up on each other.
No one seems to have an idea about reversing the decline, whether it's in our economy or jobs.
But we're going broke.
These people are saying we can just keep putting it off.
The American people sense disaster coming.
Yeah, and he takes a step further even.
There's a print piece somewhere in our stack where Cadell expands on this whole notion that people sense disaster coming.
And I think he's got a point.
There is a sense of unease.
There is a sense that this is not how things get done in this country.
This is not how things happen in this country.
Now, you can sit there and blame both parties if you want.
I'm somewhat sympathetic to that in the sense that both parties are of the establishment, both parties in Washington, and they're interested in preserving the establishment.
I understand that.
And I do believe that there are several high-ranking Republicans who do not think the country's in dire consequences.
I don't think they believe, as you and I do, that we are at a moment in time where the country hangs in the balance.
I don't think they think that at all.
I just don't.
They're not acting like it.
And that's what Cadell is addressing here.
Anyway, brief timeout.
Your phone calls are next on the day before Thanksgiving on Open Line Friday here at the EIB Network on Wednesday.
By the way, one question here before we go back to the phones.
On Newt's immigration deal, let's say that we do it.
We find the people, we're able to find the people, been here 20, 25 years, whatever it is.
You know what?
You're here.
We're not going to deport you.
We're going to let you stay here legally with your family.
We're not going to grant you citizenship so you can't vote Democrat, but you're here.
Welcome.
We're not going to hassle you anymore.
How long do you think it would be?
How long do you think it would take a court to rule that these newly legalized citizens are, our aliens are citizens?
How long do you think it'd take the ACLU and the Democrat Party to file a lawsuit?
They'd have a lawsuit filed before we had rounded up all of these various illegals.
The lawsuit would be waiting.
The ACLU and a number of other liberal law groups would file a flurry of lawsuits under the pretext of equal protection.
They say, you can't deny them citizenship.
If you're going to say that they can stay here legally, you can't deny them citizenship.
And how long do you think it would take court to agree with that?
Something to think about if you like the policy, because it's going to lead to amnesty at some point.
You have to think.
Here's Jerry in Yorbelinda, California.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
It's Gary in Yorbelinda.
Thank you.
I wanted to remind you about a guy who years ago you used to speak affectionately about a guy whose nickname was Chainsaw Al.
I don't remember what his real name was.
Oh, yeah, that was Al Dunlop, Chainsaw L.
He worked at Sunbeam.
He had a reputation for saving companies by going in and firing half the employees.
Well, he would take out the proverbial chainsaw and cut out fat, redundancy, inefficiency in companies and turn them around to profitability.
Who's the guy that's going to do that in this government, Rush?
Well, that's what we were just talking about.
You know, it really boils down to how many candidates think that's what's necessary.
I said yesterday that what ought to be a topic for discussion in one of these debates is how are we going to reduce this debt?
How are we going to reduce this spending?
And not around the margins.
We're going to actually have to genuinely reduce the size of this government.
So what are your ideas, candidate A?
Which agencies are you going to just wipe out?
We can't go on as we are.
We don't have the money.
You know, all this discussion last night about foreign aid or forget foreign aid.
Any discussion last night that involved spending money, every time it came up, I just, I looked at the screen, the television, my mouth fell open.
I said, we don't have any money to be giving people.
We don't have any money to spend on foreign aid.
We don't have this money to give to anybody.
Why are we still talking about this?
Why isn't somebody saying as part of the answer to this proposed spending problem or proposed foreign aid question?
Duh, we don't have any money.
We are borrowing practically everything we spend.
We spend, what, close to $1.8 trillion more than we take in every year.
We just had to raise the debt ceiling twice this year.
We're up to $17 trillion in debt for real on paper.
We're not there yet, but we're going to get there by January.
That was the whole deal.
And in the discussion about foreign aid and giving this country that money and this country, where are we getting the money?
We don't have it.
And I do think that this needs to be a subject in one of these upcoming debates because it's the central question about which we are all concerned for the future of the country.
We'll be back.
I have an excellent question for the next debate.
If I could submit a question, whenever they start talking about spending money, I don't care what the foreign aid or whatever.
My question is: which country do you choose to borrow the money from?
What is your preferred country, candidate A, to borrow the money from to send foreign aid to wherever you want to send it or whatever expenditure?
I don't mean to be focusing just on foreign aid here.
Any expenditure of money, like we, we, even last night, these guys talked about money as though it's not a problem.
They talked about spending money as though it's not a problem.
Not there were exceptions to it in the debate, but it really is the elephant in the room to me when you're looking at a $15, $17 trillion national debt, an annual deficit of $1.8 trillion, a stupid super committee that can't, well, forget the super committee.
How about these bogus efforts before the super committee where we were told we're going to save $100 billion?
Yeah, $100, which we borrow that every five days or less.
And it turns out the $100 billion is $10 billion.
And they're patting themselves on the back for all the spending.
That's over 10 years.
Then you realize with baseline budgeting, there is no reduction in spending, period.
And there aren't any cuts.
There might be reductions in spending, but there aren't any cuts.
It's just reductions in the rate of growth.
So which country, Mr. Candidate, do you want to borrow the money from in order to spend on that project?
Why?
What have I got an internal revolt about?
What?
Football picks.
You want me to do football picks?
There aren't any.
Oh, for tomorrow's games.
Football picks or tomorrow.
Okay, I'll think about it.
I'll think about it.
Why is there an internal revolt in there over that?
Well, that's true.
All right.
Okay.
All right.
I'll think about it.
I'll think about it.
I'll think about doing some football picks.
Grab audio, Sunbyte 30.
This is Bill Hemmer this morning, Fox News Channel, interviewing Michelle Bachman.
Your appearance on the Jimmy Fallon show on NBC.
He has since said he's sorry for a song that was played upon your introduction.
Were you aware of the song?
And since that time, what do you think about what happened on that show the other night?
I wasn't aware of it at all.
I didn't find out until later yesterday.
And at that point, I was traveling and making my way to the presidential debate.
I'm hoping to be able to speak to Jimmy Fallon today.
I don't have anything against Jimmy Fallon.
I love him.
He's a kick.
It was a great opportunity to be on the show.
I'd love to go back again.
But I think the point is, if that had been Michelle Obama who had come out on the stage, and if that song had been played for Michelle Obama, I have no doubt that NBC would have apologized to her, and likely they could have fired the drummer or at least suspended him.
None of that happened from NBC.
And this is clearly a form of bias on the part of the Hollywood entertainment elite, but it's also, I think, sexism as well.
This is what we were discussing earlier.
She's introduced the Jimmy Fallon show, and she walks out and the band plays a song called Lying Ass BIH.
And she didn't know about it at the time.
She didn't hear about it until yesterday.
And I'm just, she's right.
If that had been Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton, this is a major, major American television network.
NBC would have fired the entire production staff.
And Fallon never did say he was sorry.
They're still joking about it.
Fallon said he grounded the drummer.
The drummer of the group sent out a tweet before her appearance telling everybody we got something snarky planned.
Then they played this song.
Then he sent another tweet following it, identifying what the song was for people who might not have recognized it.
And this is obviously what it is, but you just imagine if this had been Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton.
Yeah, imagine them playing.
Okay, here comes Michelle Obama out and they play I Like Big Butt by Sir Mixalot.
Imagine that.
Why do you sit in there and laugh?
Well, I ask you, what is the difference?
What is the difference?
You've heard that song, haven't you?
Sir Mixolot.
One is true and one is made up.
I understand.
That's what the difference is.
Sir Mixalot, I like Big Buck.
That was in the early 90s, folks.
For those of you not hip like I am with music.
It starts out, I like Big Button, and then everything kicks in and it goes at about it's uptempo like you can't believe.
I wonder if that song was on the iPod that Barack gave the queen the first time he went over to visit her in the UK.
Now, you people are probably saying, Rush, that's tasteless.
How could you possibly?
I'm just trying to illustrate.
That's what we do here on this program sometimes.
We illustrate absurdity by being absurd.
Who's next?
Rick Fort Collins, Colorado.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family, Rush.
Thank you very much, sir.
You're welcome.
Over the last six and a half years or so, I have seen the birth of an army of conservative Rush Limbaugh followers in the online role-playing gamers world.
No kidding.
It's amazing.
About eight and a half years ago, my sister Erin got me involved in a game called EverQuest.
You get online and you choose if you want to be a magician, a warrior, a wizard, whatever.
And it's like being in the movie The Matrix.
Yeah.
There are computer-generated characters you deal with.
Most of them, of course, are politicians.
And it's rough dealing with them, but you have to.
You advance by fulfilling quests or missions, and mainly by fighting and killing bad things.
Over the years, when I first started it, I was getting really into politics at the time.
The Democrats took over Congress, and I got so mad that I created a character named Rush is Right.
Oh, you can do that this game?
You create your own character?
That was you.
Well, I created my own character name.
You see, you pick out what you want to be, what species, and what class.
So I said, Rush is right has to be self-sufficient.
So I picked what's called a necromancer.
It's a horrible being that can steal the life from others.
Yes, yes, I like that.
Oh, it gets better, sir.
I also picked out the most vile species, an upright bipedal lizard.
As Russia's right.
As Rush is right.
A bipedal lizard.
Cool.
Okay, I'm into it.
Yes, so you are totally self-sufficient on the game.
You need no one.
I play them.
Everybody else usually has to get in a group, help each other.
Rush is right helps himself.
And when I started this, other players would just run up to me in public and curse at me, scream at me.
And this game probably has, oh, up to a million or so people involved.
And you get together with each other offline so you know who you are?
Rarely.
I get together with my sister Aaron and how did they know?
How did these guys know who you were when you saw them offline?
Well, no, they didn't do this to me.
They would curse at me online.
Oh, online.
Oh, okay.
They would run up to Russia's Right and say vile things.
Oh, as part of the game.
Yes.
Oh, okay.
Okay.
Now, as things have progressed over the six and a half years, I'm up to level 85 now, which is almost at the very top of the game.
Congratulations.
Thank you.
Russia's Right is up at level 85.
Oh, yes, Russia's Right rules.
Now, people are coming up to me and just saying online, in character, that's a great name, or we like Rush, and they're giving me things for free.
In the game, if you're fighting a dragon or some such creature, you can get killed.
And if you get killed, you lose experience.
Wait a minute.
If you get killed, you're still in the game.
You just lose experience?
Yes, you will come back to life minus a couple of hours of experience.
Oh, okay.
So there is a certain class of characters that can resurrect you, give you back your experience for money.
And people are now doing this for free to the character Rush's Right.
Wow.
Because they want the character to survive.
And prosper.
Now, they've actually developed a capitalistic zone here.
It's divided into all these different worlds.
You can zone to a different world in the game and play there.
And it's gotten so popular that players are taking real money to buy fake money to buy things online.
You actually earn money in the game.
Wow, this is how many hours a day do you play the game?
Oh, my wife Janet tells me way too many.
I would say, depending on the day, two and a half, three.
Can you play it on a mobile device or you have to play it on your desktop?
You can play it on a mobile device, but I prefer the desktop.
Bigger screen.
Yeah, a nicer screen.
Get to sit down and relax.
Don't worry about lag time, etc., which can get you killed rather quickly.
Right.
And battery or whatever.
Yeah.
Now, they have.
So now Russia's right has a lot of fans in the game.
What do you attribute this to?
Loads of fans in the game.
What do you attribute it to?
You, of course.
Well.
And the fact, yeah, well, credit where credit is due.
Yes.
And then the fact that I made sure the character is very self-sufficient, tough, and fair.
If someone's in trouble, I'll go help them.
I have no problem doing that.
This is highly flattering, I have to tell you.
I have to be a revered figure in this game.
Level 85, self-sufficient.
Just amazing.
Well, I'm looking forward to going online when there's a few people on and telling them to check out your show.
So how many people at the outset when you say Russia's right?
How many people knew who you were even modeling the character after?
I would say online, many, because even though you're getting accolades now and free help now when in trouble, when I first started, and again, this was 2006-ish, the attacks, verbal attacks, were just brutal.
You can challenge another player to a duel online.
You have to go to a special zone where you can fight to the death.
And you were constantly getting challenged.
And again, insulted, made fun of, etc.
But since then, things have really turned around.
And now I'll ask to donate to people when they give me things.
They'll say, no, no, it's on me, Rush.
No kidding.
That's amazing.
What kind of computer do you use to play this game on?
Oh, just a little desktop I picked up as an e-machines.
And it's nothing fancy.
The graphics are really good.
They upgrade them all the time.
And there's probably well over a million people, total players in this particular game.
At any one time, there may be, you know, 5,000 to 20,000 online.
Man, oh, man, this is a whole new world.
Yes.
Well, it struck me as odd because it got so popular with people buying fake money with real money that some players sell their services in real life online to other players.
If a player needs help, some player will say, well, you're going to have to wire money to my bank account.
I'll help you.
Well, here's the thing.
I'm sitting here.
I would think that this character needs something better than some throwaway computer.
Now, I don't know if you're fluent with Mac.
I'm sure you probably are.
No.
Okay.
Well, I'm going to – what's your – I've got all kinds.
I've got – I've got MacBook Airs.
I've got MacBook Pros, 15 and 17, or 11 and 13 on the Airs.
Which would you like?
I can't believe that you're sitting here with a throwaway computer.
Rush is right, deserves to be on the finest computer you can get your hands on.
Oh, well, then I would defer to your infinite wisdom on the subject, sir.
Well, then, MacBook Pro 17.
MacBook Person.
I got to run because I'm long, so don't hang up because Snurdy will get the address that we need to send this thing to you.
There you have it, folks.
I'll be right back.
We're doing Open Line Friday on Wednesday, as we always do on the day before Thanksgiving.
We go to Columbia, South Carolina.
Hi, Mike.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hi.
Thanks, Rush.
Good to talk to you.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Same to you, sir.
Lend me half your big brain here and help me solve a contradiction, or at least I think it is.
On the one hand, the feds always want to take responsibility for immigration, you know, ICE and everything else.
But when the states try to make laws and step in where the feds have failed, they said, no, no, no, you can't do it.
They're suing seven states now to stop that.
County sheriffs like Joe Arpaio, they've been trying to stop him from enforcing the law for years.
Correct.
Municipalities like, wasn't it a town in Pennsylvania last year, I think, that made the news, passed that law, said landlords can't rent property to illegals.
And the Fed stepped in and said, no, no, no, no, you can't do that.
Individuals or groups of individuals like the Minutemen a couple years ago that were down on the border trying to stop it.
Oh, no, no, no, you can't do that.
They sent the federal marshals down there to stop them until it comes to giving illegals jobs and paying them money.
Then the Fed wants to wipe their hands out of the issue and make criminals out of the businessmen that hire them to work in their plants and even the individuals that hire them to do yard work or be a nanny or whatever.
Is this just simply a case of the feds wanting to take responsibility until it's not convenient for them?
Or is there something more to that?
What do you think?
Well, the DOJ, just give you a little bit of information before giving you my opinion on this.
The DOJ just announced today that they're suing Utah.
Yeah.
Now, I think you have to look at this particular DOJ.
You have to look at this regime.
And what I am firmly convinced of is that this administration does not want to stop illegal immigration.
Of course not.
They want as many people in this country as possible that will potentially be converted to Democrat voters.
This is what they want.
They have to have some show of caring about it.
So it's much less impactful to go after a company hiring illegals than it is to support a state keeping them out.
Supporting a state keeping them out keeps them out.
They don't want them.
They want them in here.
They'll deal with them once they're in here.
They'll go after these businesses for hiring them as a show of having some interest in it.
But that's all it is, in my opinion, is simply just a show.
Our holiday tradition, the real story of Thanksgiving, as written by me in one of my brilliant books, Upcoming in the Next Hour.
Also, the truth about how we were the ones that got screwed buying Manhattan from the Indians.
And George Washington's Thanksgiving proclamation.
▲
Export Selection