All Episodes
Previous Next
June 25, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:38
June 25, 2012, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, folks.
I am Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man.
Starting a million conversations, doing the job the mainstream media is supposed to do.
Not only am I America's real anchor man, I am the doctor of democracy.
And I am America's truth detector.
Happily behind a golden EIB microphone, each and every day.
Telephone number if you want to be on the and we're coming to you on the phone if you're there.
Be patient.
We'll get to you El Quick O in this hour.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, the email address Lrushbo at EIVNet.com.
We have a new Rush 24-7 premium debuting today.
It is.
It's a 24-7 premium.
It's the most dangerous man in America t-shirt.
And it's cool.
It's uh it's black and yellow.
The base color of the t-shirt's black.
The most dangerous man in America design is on the front.
The Ditto Head Nation logo is on the back, and the t-shirt is free.
This is all at Rush Limbo.com.
T-shirt is free with both a new 24-7 membership or a combo membership, the newsletter, the limbaughter, and a subscription to Rush 24-7.
Current subscribers can renew their subscription and get the t-shirt so that you are not left out.
Every time we do this, we had some people no doubt sign up for subscriptions on Friday.
So here we are on Monday announcing a new premium for new subs.
Well, what about me, Rush?
Well, if you renew for the well, I just signed up for two years.
Well, sign up for two more.
You get t-shirt.
It's easy.
It's four years.
It's it just happened.
If you are a current subscriber who has renewed within the last three months, uh, you can purchase the shirt for just shipping and handling.
See?
See, we're not gougers here.
If you have subscribed, if you're a current subscriber, you've renewed within the last three months.
You can you can get the t-shirt for just shipping and handling.
It's all at Rush Limbaugh.com.
You can see the shirt, and you can join 24-7 right now.
Most dangerous man in America.
As another, they did what?
They did what?
The regime, well, they're saying the Secret Service.
There is a new policy at Obama fundraisers.
No knives and forks allowed.
Even plastic.
I'm not kidding.
No knives and forks allowed.
Eric Holder will give people guns.
Eric Holder will give drug lords guns, but you can't take a knife and fork into Obama fundraiser.
This is from New York magazine, just a few days after announcing that his regime would no longer deport about 800,000 young illegal immigrants.
You would think that Obama would be received as something of a hero by the National Association of Latino elected officials, before whom Obama gave a speech last week.
But the Secret Service wasn't taking any chances.
As hundreds of Latino elected officials were enjoying their lunch at Disney's contemporary resort earlier in the day.
It was announced that forks would be collected before Obama took the stage.
He had just authorized amnesty, essentially, for 800,000 young illegals.
And I climbed in there and they said, We're taking your forks away after you eat.
Forks would be collected before Obama takes the stage.
It was also mentioned that knives, too, were entirely absent from the lunch for a reason.
Plastic forks?
Is the Secret Service worried they can't protect the president of the United States from plastic forks.
They posted pictures here of Obama in restaurants where there are forks and plastic Forks, but it's a new rule.
Can't have them.
Marco Rubio yesterday was on any of you guys see the Marco Rubio interview with Hannity on Friday night.
Marco Rubio and his wife did the full hour.
And the last half of it was uh when they did it Friday night at nine o'clock, the Sandusky ruling came down right in the middle of it.
And the last half of it was in uh uh his wife uh appeared, so they re-ran it at midnight and throughout the throughout the weekend.
And he's really good.
Rubio is really good.
There are a lot of people who predict great things for Rubio.
He was on Meet the Depressed yesterday.
David Gregory, they were talking about the Arizona immigration law, and yesterday we didn't know what the ruling was going to be.
David Gregory said, if the Supreme Court upholds that law, does that make you uncomfortable?
What I've said repeatedly is I believe Arizona has a right to pass that bill.
I understand why they did it, but I don't think it's a national model, and I don't think other states should follow suit.
For example, I don't want to see a law like that in Florida.
Immigration is not a black or white issue, it's not a yes or no issue.
It is complicated because it has a deep human element.
These are human beings who find themselves here undocumented, but for the vast majority of them, they're here in search of a better life and opportunities for their children.
Now, Scalia, again, just to repeat, uh Anton and Scalia dissented from the uh from the decision today, and he basically said if the state of Arizona has no control over its if securing its territory is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign state.
high descent.
Now, he was obviously in the minority.
It Rubio has his own immigration reform law that he was looking to introduce that contained a provision of the DREAM Act that Obama's already implemented.
And it's kind of headed Rubio off the past for now.
After that answer, David Gregory uh, well, what if the president did?
You didn't like the way he did it.
You wanted legislation, but substantively you agree with what the president did.
It's a short-term fix for a long-term problem.
And in fact, what it does is it injects election year politics into an issue that will never be solved as long as it's a political one.
I am convinced after a year and a half here in Washington and in the Senate that for some people, I wouldn't say many or all, but for many, I would just say too many people, this issue is is more valuable unresolved.
That reminds me of something Wayne Lapierre said on this week with David Brinkley, and it was this week with David Brinkley.
And it was back in the night, it was during the Clinton administration.
Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association said that he, and this was this is a stunning thing to say.
He said that he thought the president was comfortable with a certain level of violence because it promoted the need for gun control.
And Rubio is saying here that some people like this issue unresolved.
Just like the race baiters like the fact that there's never going to be a solution to racism in the country.
Look at all the people be out of business if there were ever a day where it were proclaimed over.
That's why affirmative action is unending.
There is no end to affirmative action.
When the affirmative action was started, I remember this is in the 70s.
I'm talking to people in the 70s.
Well, okay.
When is enough reverse discrimination going to be said to have leveled the play field?
At what point will we have uh fixed and made amends for the prior discrimination?
Never.
Oh no, it's unending.
There won't there won't be any.
Was never intended to end.
Affirmative action was never intended to end.
The whole concept of racism in America is an original sin, never never intended to be over.
And Rubio is saying this about rebel uh immigration.
Some people don't want it solved.
It's too valuable as an issue.
Wayne Lapierre.
The exact quote, I've come to believe that Bill Clinton needs a certain level of violence in this country.
He's willing to accept a certain level of killing to further his political agenda.
The vice president, too.
How else can you explain the dishonesty we get out of this administration?
I could take and carry this forward to Fast and Furious.
It's the same thing.
It's the same thing.
They wanted the violence.
It's what Wayne Lapierre was saying about Clinton.
Even back in the 90s, despite what you might think.
The gun control issue has it's like abortion.
It's never been an 80-20 issue on the split public opinion-wise.
It's never been the case that most people wanted to get rid of the Second Amendment, for example.
It's never been the case that a majority wanted much tighter gun laws along the lines the way left proposed them.
It's never been the case.
Now, the media, the Democrats always portrayed these things as issues in which they held a vast majority of support, but they never did.
So even back in the 90s, Wayne Lampierre was accusing Clinton of wanting, needing a certain level of violence and killing in order to further the political agenda.
Rubio is saying we need the immigration situation currently royaled, always royaled, because it's valuable to the Democrats.
That's what he was saying.
It's a way to rally Hispanic support.
If we ever solve immigration, if we ever get a handle on closing the border.
And he's right.
The political issue is too valuable.
The left doesn't want solutions.
Bureaucrats, State Department, they don't want solutions.
There's nothing to do if they solve problems.
If a problem gets solved, there's nothing for a bureaucrat to do to lord over.
And so Fast and Furious is the same way.
You want the violence.
You want those guns.
And by the way, this was done without the knowledge of the Mexican government.
Fast and Furious was without the knowledge of the federal government.
The wide receiver program of the Bush was done in conjunction with the federal government, Mr. Milbank.
There was no comparison.
So it's the same thing.
The left.
I think it's safe to say in a pretty much blanket way, they don't want solutions.
They want the issues.
They want the country constantly royaled.
Whatever the issue.
They want people arguing and fighting as a as a way of furthering their electoral aims.
Dana Milbank, talking about Fast and Furious.
Well, I can't find it.
It's not a good scandal.
Media would, it's not ideological.
Media would love a good scandal.
But Fast and Furious isn't a scandal.
I don't think the media would love a good scandal.
I'd I'd almost offer a reward to Milbank if he could explain to me what Watergate was.
I mean, that's the big scandal then.
If he could really tell me what it was, I'm tempted to offer a reward.
Anyone in the media who can tell me exactly what it was, what was the scandal, and then let me tell them what Fast and Furious was and ask them to judge the two.
But I checked, as I always do during the break, I checked the emails.
I had some people, Rush, what do you mean the media doesn't want scandal?
What Lewinsky?
Lewinsky wasn't a scant, folks.
Clinton needed a rescue party during Lewinsky, and that's what the media was.
They were the rescue party.
They joined in the effort to impugn the reputation of Ken Starr.
The investigator in the case.
Everybody lies.
There was no scandal.
It was just sex.
There was no scandal.
It didn't affect the way he did his job.
There was no scandal.
As far as the media was concerned, Lewinsky was not a scandal.
It was something Clinton had to be rescued from.
It was something to circle the wagons around.
Now, in the process, they loved the salacious details, but they were never ever focused on having anybody pay a price for the scandal.
The media fought it.
Newsweek spiked the story, if you forget how we got the Drudge Report.
It wasn't a scandal.
There are no Democrat scandals, is the point.
There are only rescue missions.
Okay, your phone calls are coming up.
When we get back, don't go away.
All right, let's go to the phones.
Who's first?
oh, good.
Gary in Maricopa, Arizona.
Great to have you, sir.
Hello.
Hi, thank you, Rush.
Um, just want to agree with everything you said.
You know, even with with Kagan being recused on this one, we couldn't even win this.
The Supreme Court threw out all the teeth, all the enforcement methods that we can use, and it's just opening us up to lawsuits.
They're already going after Arpayo.
Now, any other cop that starts trying to enforce any sort of immigration thing is going to be in the same boat.
Right.
Um, I I think that that's why Obama quit threatening and insulting the Supreme Court.
He knew this ruling, and I think he knows that they're going to uphold Obamacare.
They're going to uphold it, you think.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
If if we can't win something with Kagan recused, we're we're not going to win something with her in there.
Well, I see what you mean.
So you think the oral arguments then really don't give any indication whatsoever where the court's going to rule.
You and you could be totally right.
Uh oral arguments often are meaningless wherever they have it at whatever level of court.
And they have to look like they're thoughtful in challenging the people that are arguing.
Well, um, I want to share with you a couple of things since I have you on the phone.
First off, get your reaction to this.
I've got the UK Daily Mail.
And their headline, blow to Obama as Supreme Court upholds controversial portion of Arizona immigration law.
Split verdict could hurt Obama during this contentious election year since his administration was the one to bring the suit to court.
Uh this, of course, is the provision where the cops can stop and check.
But what are what are the cops actually going to do if somebody's committing a crime or driving a car and gets pulled over for speeding, and they just say they don't have ID.
How are they going to enforce it?
And if I was a cop, or if I was a law enforcement official and I started trying to do anything, I would look at what they're doing to Arpayo and go, boy, oh boy, do I really want to uh have the same thing happening to me?
Well, that's an excellent point.
Uh here's more from Scalia, by the way.
Scalia actually went to the courtroom and read from his dissent.
Doesn't always happen.
Sometimes dissents just filed and quoted from.
But he read a lengthy dissent from the bench.
He said, among other things, after this case was argued, and while it was under consideration, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants.
This was a reference to the decision by the Obama administration this month to let younger immigrants.
The administration estimates a number at approximately 800,000 who came to the U.S. as children to avoid deportation, receive working papers as long as they meet certain conditions.
The president has said that the new program is the right thing to do in light of Congress failure to pass the administration's proposed revision of the immigration laws.
Justice Scalia went on, perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so, but to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind, and he's exactly right.
All this was, let's stop and remember, all the Arizona law was, was a restatement of federal law.
The federal government was not enforcing the law.
Arizona, therefore, wrote its own law to be able to enforce, but practically mirrored the federal law.
And that's what was struck down, and Scalia doesn't believe it.
But to say, as the Supreme Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing it?
To say that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing it?
applications of the law the president doesn't enforce boggles the mind.
And he's exactly...
I'm...
Well, actually, I'm not, and I can't tell you why.
I was going to say I'm surprised that Chief Justice Roberts joined the Liberals on three of these four provisions, but actually I'm not.
But I can't tell you why I'm not.
I know it isn't fair.
I d that was I was saying what I was thinking, and I should have stopped in the middle of the thought force, because I can't tell you why.
I'm really not surprised.
No, it's not the pressure they're putting.
No, it's not the pressure they're putting on him.
No, it's nothing.
No, no, no.
It's it's it's it's I was just warned.
That's all.
Um, no, no.
I I do not try to go to me on this.
I really can't say it's protecting a source.
I can't say but um the cops can still call the ice guys when they pull somebody over.
But some people like the caller said are very concerned about history if they're gonna Well I know if they're gonna if they call federal government, which is say, what?
You got who?
Uh deal with it yourself.
We're not we're not coming up, we're not enforcing that.
That's all this was.
Scalia is so right on the money on this.
It boggles the mind.
All Arizona did was write law that mirrors federal law that Obama was not enforcing.
And the court told them today they can't do that.
It is, it's disheartening.
I don't know if it portends anything on health care or not, and nobody else does either.
And we'll be back.
Welcome back, Rush Lindbaugh, the cutting edge of societal evolution.
More from Scalia in his dissent on the Arizona ruling today, claiming that it uh denies Arizona right to sovereignty.
Scalia said today's opinion, approving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit's injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizona's law deprives states of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty, the power to exclude from the sovereign's territory people who have no right to be there.
In other words, the naturalization power was given to Congress not to abrogate state's power to exclude those they did not want, but to vindicate it.
So Scalia here is refuting the court's claims that the stricken provisions encroached on the federal government, arguing the legislation aims only to strengthen the safety of Arizona's borders.
There's no license to assume that officials in Arizona would use the legislation to harass anybody, Scalia added.
So and he's he's he's right.
The court basically said to Arizona, but all states got to defer to the feds.
You can't supersede them.
Feds all powerful.
Federal government's all powerful.
If there are federal laws on the books and the federal government does not enforce them, you're stuck.
You can't do anything about it.
If there are laws that say such and such people are not allowed in your state because they're illegal or what have you, and the feds don't enforce the law, nothing you can do about it.
You gotta let them in.
It is mind-boggling, as Scalia said.
Here's Mike in Seattle.
Mike, I'm glad you called.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Thank you, Rush.
Uh fast and curious, there are a couple of things that I I haven't heard mentioned much and just really drive me crazy.
Number one, we know the convicted felons can't purchase firearms.
It's a felony for a convicted felon to go back and try to purchase a firearm.
That's right.
Why were so many of these felons comfortable entering a gun shop and attempting to make a purchase?
Why was a fellow who wanted and was I think the one guy was able to buy 175 AK 47s.
Right.
How did he know there was not going to be an FBI agent outside that door as he left it?
Who would think of doing that if you knew that it would give you a one-way trip right back to the slammer?
It just doesn't seem right to me.
Um, answer your question.
Well, what what's the answer to your question?
Person had to be in on it, right?
Correct.
And the second aspect of that that plays into that as well is who leaves their guns at the scene of a crime.
Why were these weapons left?
They were the evidence.
Who robs a bank in America and throws the guns down on the floor as they leave?
It doesn't happen.
These guns were left for a reason.
They were left to be a smoking gun.
Now why would those folks have done that?
The hills and mountains of Arizona and northern Mexico are no safer after you've killed somebody.
You're going back there unarmed now.
It just doesn't make sense to me.
Unless what it made sense to somebody, this it made sense to somebody.
Exactly right.
And now in retrospect, apparently they have sealed the records and the investigation of Agent Terry's death and that investigation.
And now this latest development with the Obama administration.
Well, there's yeah, well, of course you well, the answers seem to be apparent, too.
But it's it's an answer that a lot of people don't want to believe.
It's it's another one of these things that people you tell them and the reaction they did that?
I can't believe it.
No, no, no.
No, but we don't president wouldn't purposely put assault rivals in the hands of drug dealers for whatever reason.
This just wouldn't happen.
Well, they did.
But no, I d I can't believe it.
And that's the story of this regime.
You tell them that what's going on is purposeful.
Oh, can't no.
I don't can't believe it.
Although I think more and more people do.
Bottom line.
But those are great observations, Mike.
I appreciate it.
This is John in uh southern New Mexico.
You're next here on the EIB network.
Hi.
Mr. Limbo.
Yes, sir.
Um listen, I've been following the Supreme Court and what they're doing with Arizona law.
I've spent twenty-five years enforcing the law on the border.
And I can tell you Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
I want to make sure that you're 25 years enforcing the law means you're a border patrol agent or former.
I'm a border patrol agent, yes.
Current or former?
Current.
Current border patrol agent.
I have been eligible to retire now for a couple of months, but I'm not going.
I'm staying.
Um because there's a lot of work that still needs to be done.
However, what the Supreme Court just did, and I'll probably get in a lot of trouble over this, but what the Supreme Court just did regarding the Arizona law.
Title 8 of the United States Code, Section 1304 Small E, everybody go look it up, says that if you're here legally and you're not a citizen, you have to carry proof of that with you.
The law is already on the books.
I don't know why everybody's up in arms that Arizona is enforcing it when the U.S. government won't.
It makes no sense.
I don't know why the Supreme Court did that, but that's what the law says.
Well, the Supreme Court did it because the justices that voted the way they did believe in an expanding and all powerful federal government.
Yes, sir.
And that's exactly what it is.
That's exactly well, I'm not going to go there.
But that's exactly what it is.
That's no more complicated than that.
That's that's why I'm I'm shocked that Justice Roberts is on this side of it.
Even though I know I'm still shocked.
That blows me away.
But the law is on the books, man.
Well, that's the point.
It was on the but they weren't enforcing it.
They weren't letting you enforce it, or local Arizona law enforcement were not allowed to enforce it.
So Arizona said, All right, we'll write our own law that essentially mirrors the statute you just cited.
And the court today told him you can't.
Brother, I'm on the same page with you.
I believe that.
Uh I'm all in favor of them and doing what they're doing.
It drives me crazy that the Supreme Court won't let them do it.
It drives me up a tree.
I have never called one of these shows before.
I listened to you every day, but I've never called.
And this angered me to the point that I hell, I've been I've been down on the phone now for twenty minutes, trying to get through.
Well, I'm glad you did.
Man, it's title eight United States Code Section 1304 Small E. It's on the books.
It's on the books, uh, but if if if if the federal government won't enforce it, it may as well not be there.
It doesn't look it.
None of the it it doesn't John, it doesn't make any sense why we aren't enforcing duly constituted laws.
Amen.
I'm right there with you, man.
I'm right there with you.
Like I said, I've been doing this for twenty-five flipping years.
All right.
Nobody has more frustration over this than I do.
Nobody.
Nobody in the whole damn world.
I have refused promotion to stay out in the bushes.
To stay out and enforce the law.
And that's why I'm saying now.
I could retire tomorrow.
I could be done.
But somebody's got to do it.
But you can't now.
At least not that statute.
I could go, but I'm very good at what I do.
Good.
I like hearing people say that.
I love hearing people say they're good at what they do.
I believe you are.
I love what I do, and I'm very, very good at what I do.
But it angers me when the country won't do the right thing.
And like I said, uh there's a lot of people going to recognize my voice, and I'll probably get in trouble over this, but that's okay, because I can sign the papers tomorrow and be dumb.
Well, what would happen to you if you are recognized?
Probably throw me out.
Fire you.
Probably.
Probably.
And I have a very recognizable voice, kind of like yours.
Right.
So you're not allowed to ha well, you're not allowed to express an opinion that concludes.
Well, unofficially, no, we're really not.
We're not supposed to speak out against the government.
We're not supposed to do that.
You know, it's kind of like being I mean, we're the closest thing to the military there is.
You ever come close to anything and do with Fast and Furious?
I'm not going to talk about that.
I'll tell you I have been shot at, but I don't know who who who supplied those weapons.
But no, I'm not going to talk about that some serious.
All right.
I appreciate talking to you, sir.
I'm glad you got through, John.
I listen to you every day that I can.
Normally I can't, because normally I'm in places where I can't even pick up AM radio.
But today is my day off.
I'm celebrating my anniversary with my wife, so I happen to be listening to you going down the road to go eat.
Well I mean, I'm taking my taking my wife out, and we're going to try to have a good time.
Well, I hope you do.
I need I need to ask this is unacceptable.
I've got to find a way for you to be able to listen to this program when you're not within range of one of our affiliates.
Do you have um a computer?
Normally not in range.
Well, we can fix that.
Do you have a computer?
Uh yeah, of sorts.
Of sorts.
Are you a member of my website?
I am not.
Okay.
Well, I want, when we finish here, I want you to hang on, because I'm going to snortly to get your address.
I'm going to send you a little MacBook Air.
It's a great little computer.
Portable one of state of the art.
But we're also going to make you a subscriber to Russian.
You don't need to do that.
No, no, I want no no no.
I know I don't have it.
But here's here's the thing.
Every day when this program is over, we prepare a podcast of it that is downloadable from our website or from iTunes That we don't put any commercials in it because we don't sell any advertising in the podcast, and you can listen to it on an iPod, an iPhone, or whatever you have in your car.
I don't own one of those, so well, we'll fix that too.
But regardless the point is that you with the podcast, you can download it to the uh portable player and listen to it whenever you have time.
You have to be in range of radio stuff.
That's very much too, but like I said, you don't need to do that.
I know.
The fun of it is being able to when I don't have to.
All right.
Now don't hang up.
We need to get all the information to get this stuff to you and and uh some structions.
Uh and listen, listen, then at my own peril, I'm gonna tell you, you just keep doing what you're doing.
Uh we need more people doing what you're doing.
I can handle it.
I appreciate that.
I really I I find it amazing that you are afraid for people that you work for to know that you have said what you've said.
Well, probably, yes.
I guess that's you know what?
You just keep doing what you're doing, man.
We need more people like you.
I appreciate that very much.
Now don't hang up.
Next person you talk to will be Mr. Snerdley again.
That's John from uh the southwestern part of the country, and we will be back after this.
Don't go away.
I want to share with you even more from Justice Scalia's descent.
A good way of answering that question is to ask, would the states conceivably have even entered into the union if the Constitution itself contained the court's holding today?
Today's judgment surely fails that test.
At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the delegates contended with the jealousy of the states with regard to their sovereignty.
Scalia went on to argue Arizona was in complete compliance with federal law because it had moved to protect its sovereignty.
The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions.
They merely enforce those restrictions more effectively.
If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should then cease referring to it as a sovereign state.
Now, I know a lot of people think that immigration and the border is a federal thing, and the feds have control over it, and you can't have different laws from state to state over immigration, border enforcement, so forth.
And all that's understandable.
But when the feds refuse to enforce their own law, what do you do?
And all Arizona did was write laws that mirrored federal law.
They didn't create any new ones.
And as Scalia says they made them a little bit more effective.
They got a problem.
They have a huge problem, and the Democrats will not enforce or secure the border because they want voters out of these people.
It's the states that have to pay for these people.
Thank you.
It's maddening.
I I I have uh total empathy with the people who are outraged over this.
Dundee, Michigan, this is uh Daniel, great to have you on the program.
Hello.
Rush, how are you?
Very good, thank you.
I'll get right to the point.
I just want to know if your view of this is similar to mine.
It would appear to me that Obama has more in common with an illegal immigrant than he does his own citizens.
In other words, what I mean is this.
His decision and what he tries to promote there going against Arizona would actually help an illegal immigrant with his agenda.
And I'm wondering how long you think it'll be before he wants us to remove the door locks off of our personal houses, because after all, if they can come into our country, which is our home, without us uh being able to ask them any questions, why they're here, what they're doing here, what kind of agenda they got on their mind, why wouldn't they just be able to walk right up in our own houses?
I mean, would you have to do that?
You know, it's it's fascinating that you've got the locks.
It is fascinating to use that analogy.
I would love to be able to mention names in this story.
I was out in uh Palm Springs a few years ago and got into a debate.
There were a bunch of us at dinner, got a debate with a famous, well-known American TV personality about illegal illegal immigration.
He kept saying, look, if people want to come to my country to better their lives, then that's fine with me.
I don't think I should do anything.
Keep them out.
Kept coming up with every reason, every statistic to show what's happening, hospitals closing, people not able to afford health care for these people, all of the every stat that was showing the deterioration being caused by this.
And finally, somebody said, okay, Mr. TV personality, what happens if one of these people parks himself in your backyard and won't leave.
All I can tell you is if if if people want to come to my country and improve their lives, I'm not going to be the one to say they can't come.
I'm just, I can't do it.
He was what if it whatever the New York Times said about the issue is what this Mr. TV personality believed.
Well, okay, if they park yourself themselves in your backyard and won't leave, what are you going to do?
And he didn't answer because he lives in New York.
He knew it would never happen to him.
Yeah, he's a blithering idiot.
I don't care.
It didn't matter.
Pick, take your pick.
It's true of any of them.
You know, in all of this, as I read these rulings, I'm still trying to figure out how the Supreme Court could decide that illegal immigrants can hold jobs.
▲
Export Selection