All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 29, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:40
January 29, 2013, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings to you music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plain Rush Limbaugh, the excellence in broadcasting.
And we're great to have you here.
Our telephone number, if you want to join us when we get back to the phones, is 800-282-2882.
And the email address, LRushbo at EIBNet.com.
Is Senator Rubio ready to go?
I know he just called at this moment.
Welcome to the program, Florida Senator Marco Rubio.
Senator, great to have you here on the EIB.
I think it's your second or third time here, and it's always great.
Being on the program, I've been listening to it for a while.
I don't want to tell you how long, because then you'll feel older than you really are.
Oh, that's for the longer the better.
I remember a TV program.
Do you remember your TV program?
Well, that's way back.
20 years is.
Anyway, I know your time is limited, and I want to get straight to the immigration issue.
And I really, the first question I have for you is, why are we doing this?
It seems like Washington has a pattern, and that is when the Democrats want to do something, the media gets behind it, the Democrats get behind it, and it becomes something that has to be done.
And therefore, the Democrats set the stage.
They start the ball in motion.
Republicans then react to it, say, okay, that's what you want to do.
We'll do it.
But here's our way of doing it.
Why are we doing this now?
Well, actually, to avoid that problem, and in fact, that's why I've tried to do it in the reverse.
You're absolutely right.
But here's the key.
The key is this was going to be an issue.
The president clearly outlined that he was going to push on this.
The media was going to focus on this.
The Senate Democrats were going to push on this issue.
And I thought it was critically important that we outline the principles of what reform is about.
Look, I think there's this false argument that's been advanced by the left that conservatism and Republicans are anti-immigrant and anti-immigration.
And we're not, never have been.
On the contrary, we are pro-legal immigration.
And we recognize that our legal immigration system needs to be reformed.
We also recognize, because conservatism has always been about common sense, that we do have this existing problem that has to be dealt with in the best way possible.
Now, it was dealt with in 1986 in a way that was counterproductive, well-intentioned, but counterproductive, because, A, they granted a blanket amnesty to 3 million people at the time, or that was the estimate.
And B, they didn't do any of the enforcement mechanisms.
And so our point is, if we're going to deal with this, let's deal with it once and for all and in a way that this never, ever happens again.
In the absence of us stepping forward with our own principles, the left and the president will tell people what we stand for.
And it's not necessarily going to be true.
Yeah, but Senator, that's in a way the point, because you're right.
1986, President Reagan agreed to outright amnesty.
It's called Simpson-Mazzoli.
He was reluctant, by the way, but he did it because he was promised border security.
The border security never happened.
And the same language is being used today as was used in 1986.
The president's going to be at Las Vegas today.
I know for you, border security is the first and last.
If that doesn't happen, none of the rest does, right?
Well, not just that.
That alone is not enough.
It has to be a combination.
We have border security.
We need workplace enforcement.
We need a visa tracking system.
40% of our illegal immigrants, of our undocumented people that are in this country, they didn't cross the border.
They came legally.
Their visa expired and they stayed.
And we don't track people when they leave.
We only track them when they come in.
So all three of those things have to happen.
And by the way, the language of the bill has not even been drafted yet.
These are just principles.
And I agree with you.
This is going to be a challenge.
If, in fact, this bill does not have real triggers in there.
In essence, if there is not language in this bill that guarantees that nothing else will happen unless these enforcement mechanisms are in place, I won't support it.
But the principles clearly call for that.
Now, obviously, we have to make sure the law does, too.
The fear that many people have is that the Democrats aren't interested in border security, that they want this influx.
For example, if 70% of the Hispanic vote went Republican, do you think the Democrats would be for any part of this legislation?
Well, you know, let me make an argument to you on that.
I would say that I have people always say to me, well, aren't you worried about the political implications?
I am confident.
I really am.
Maybe people don't share this confidence.
I am confident that given a fair chance, I can convince most Americans, including Americans of Hispanic descent, that limited government and free enterprise is better for them and better for their upward mobility than big government is.
Because that's the reason why they came here.
You look at people that come from all over Latin America.
They come to get away from stale, stagnant economies where the rich keep winning and everybody else keeps working for them because big government dominates those economies.
Is that the argument?
But to the point of going, I'm sorry, I just wanted to say, to the point of them not wanting to do the security, look, all I can tell you is that that's a big issue for me, and that's why I'm involved in this process.
If ultimately, and I have no reason to believe it won't happen, but if it doesn't, then I'll come back to you and say, look, it didn't happen.
We tried.
They put that in the principles, but then they drafted a bill that didn't do it, and I couldn't support it.
Well, is that the reason that a majority of immigrants come to this country today?
I know it used to be.
They wanted to be Americans.
They wanted to escape oppression.
They wanted to become citizens of the greatest country on earth.
I've seen a number of research, scholarly research data, which says that vast majority of arriving immigrants today come here because they believe that government is the source of prosperity.
And that's what they support.
It's not about conservative principles and so forth, not the way it used to be.
Are the Republicans stuck in the past in misjudging why the country is attractive to immigrants today?
You know, our argument about limited government is always harder to sell than a government program.
It always has been.
It's a lot easier to go.
I mean, it's easier to sell cotton candy than it is to sell broccoli to somebody, but the broccoli is better for you.
And the same thing with a limited government.
Yeah, it's a lot easier for a politician to sell people on how a big government program is going to make their life better.
But I think ours, once we sell it, is more during and more enduring and more permanent and better for the country.
It is a challenge.
And by the way, it's not just a challenge for people that are immigrating here.
It's a challenge for people that are born here.
We have a real fight on our hands to convince the American people that limited government and free enterprise is the right thing for our future.
And I think that's a real challenge across the board, given some things that have happened in our society.
But look, I don't know.
I haven't done a scholarly study on the makeup.
I can only tell you about the people I interact with.
And I can tell you the folks I interact with, once they get into this country and they start to work and they open up their own business, they start to understand the cost of big government.
I see it every day firsthand from people that have been here about eight to ten years.
All of a sudden they have their own business.
They have a bunch of permits that they have to comply with, a bunch of complicated laws.
Their taxes just went up a couple weeks ago, even though President Obama has been saying it's only going to go up on the rich.
And the light bulb is going off.
And that, in fact, big government, rich means them, even though they're middle class.
And big government means less opportunity for them.
So we have work to do.
There's no doubt about it.
Well, let's get back to the politics of this.
The president's in Las Vegas today, and he's promised that he's not going to do border security first.
He's not in any way interested in it.
And therefore, my question is, the word compromise is thrown around.
We have to compromise, seek common ground.
Where's the common ground?
I don't see it.
I don't see where you have, and by you, I mean the Republicans.
I don't see where there is any commonality in what the president wants, what you want.
Well, you know, Rush, that's an interesting point.
The president has an important decision to make here in about an hour when he gives a speech.
He can either decide that he wants to be part of a solution or he can decide he wants to be part of a political issue and try to trigger a bidding war.
I'm not going to be part of a bidding war to see who can come up with the most lenient path forward.
I think we should be for a reasonable path that's good for Americans.
That's fair to the people that come here legally every year, a million people who come every year legally.
No other country is nearly as generous.
And I've got, by the way, we've got four Democratic senators who in writing have committed to the same principles.
Now, in flushing out and creating a law, which is not written yet, by the way, and it'll be some time before it is, if it doesn't work out, that's one thing.
But the president has a choice to make today.
But if he goes to Las Vegas, which I'm not sure why he didn't do it here in Washington, but if he's gone to Las Vegas to give a speech and try to trigger a bidding war, then no, it doesn't bode well.
There won't be a solution, and we'll just continue to have what we have now because that issue, I think, is a bright line for most of us that are involved in this effort, that unless there is real enforcement triggers, we are not going to have a bill that moves on to the next, you know, to the opportunity to apply for a green card.
Well, he's going to be in Vegas today, and he's going to make it plain he opposes enforcement in any kind, triggers or otherwise.
And as such, he's a wrong party because he's got four senators, including four senators that agree with him on most things, who have signed a document that says that they do agree on enforcement triggers.
Well, that's something they're going to have to work out.
Maybe, but I think at the end of the day, all those four senators and the president are going to relish the opportunity to continue to beat the Republicans up for two more years in hopes of winning the House.
You know what they're going to say?
For two more years, you're anti-Hispanic.
You will not compromise.
You will not meet the president halfway.
He'll have his straw men, his straw dogs.
He'll talk about a balanced approach and claim you guys aren't interested in it while he is the one who's put the roadblock up.
So the question is, does he really want any kind of a solution to the problem, or is this really attractive to him as an ongoing issue for him to fulfill his dream of just eliminating any viable political opposition in the media, the Republican Party, or whatever, because it's, I mean, they've admitted that that's what their objective is.
They don't just want to wipe you guys out.
I would just say we're going to start finding out the answer to that question today by what he outlines and what he says.
And on your first point about them beating us up for two years if there's not an agreement, that's precisely why I thought it was important that our principles be out there early.
They can try to sell that, but I doubt people are going to buy it because the reality of it is we have put something that is very common sense and reasonable.
If you take our principles, 70% of the American people would agree, if not more, with the general principles that we have outlined.
And if they want to go further than that, then I think they've got a problem because they can't argue that we haven't tried to do our part to come up with something reasonable here, which has always been our point.
Our point has always been we understand we have to fix this problem, but just because we're not for what you're for doesn't mean that we're anti-immigrant and anti-immigration.
And I think it's certainly hard to make that argument to me, someone who has family or immigrants, married into a family of immigrants.
My neighbors are immigrants.
I've grown up around it my whole ⁇ I didn't read about this in a book.
I live this every day.
I've seen the good that legal immigration has done for our country, and I see the strain that illegal immigration places on our country.
Well, what you are doing is admirable and noteworthy.
You are recognizing reality.
You're trumpeting it.
You're shouting it.
My concern is the president wants to change the reality.
My concern is the president wants people to believe something that isn't true is, and that is that you guys are not being truthful of what you say, that you really don't want an improved life for Hispanics, that you really are still racist.
He's not going to give that up.
Look how far he's gotten with this so far.
It's an enviable task that you've got.
These eight senators, you're part of this group of eight.
This legislation that you've admitted is not written, but you're here on the radio today.
You've been doing a lot of media.
Who are you trying to reach with this?
In terms of the bill.
Are you talking to Hispanics, illegals, or you're talking to the American people?
Who are you talking to?
Yeah.
Well, first of all, I want first of all, what I want is I want people to understand what the principles are for and what they're not for.
I think it's clearly important that one of the tasks that you do in your role here on the radio with the many listeners that you have is to inform people about what's really happening.
And I want people to clearly understand what the principles are and what they are not.
And I want them to understand the decisions that have yet to be made with regards to this bill and the way it's written.
The next step in this process is to craft a starting point of legislation.
And then after that, it's going to have to go through committees, and people are going to have their input.
There's going to be public hearings.
I don't want to be a part of a process that comes up with some bill in secret, then brings it to the floor and gives people a take it or leave it.
I mean, I want this place to work the way it's supposed to work, with every senator having input, with the public having input.
And then obviously the House is going to have their imprint on this as well.
And I think information empowers people to make intelligent judgments on the best direction for our country.
And unfortunately, this is an issue, and you've outlined this earlier in your description of it, where things are often demagogued or described in a way that are not accurate.
And I think the more people are aware about what we're for and what we're not for, the more empowered we are as a movement, as those of us who believe in limited government conservatism, to make a better argument for our position versus theirs.
What do you think the result will be if this effort fails?
Well, it depends on how it fails.
I think right now the president has a decision to make.
If today becomes the beginning of a bidding war where he tries to be even more liberal than members of his own party and the Senate, then I think we clearly know what his intentions are, and I don't think that's going to be a good development.
If, on the other hand, this thing moves forward with plenty of input, it's not going to look at the end the way it looks now because it's going to have a lot of input.
My sense is that it depends on who's involved and who's engaged in bringing that input.
I'll give you a perfect example.
And this is an issue we should start looking at right now.
According to the law today, if you are lawfully present in the country but you're not a green card holder, you do not qualify for any federal benefits.
That's existing law.
And so that means that the folks that are going to be in this probationary stage that's in our principles, they don't qualify for any federal benefits except for one, Obamacare.
Obamacare is the only federal benefit where you qualify for it, not because you have a green card, but only because you're lawfully present.
That issue needs to be resolved.
Because if Obamacare is available to 11 million people, it blows a hole in our budget and makes this bill undoable.
That's one of the major issues we're going to have to confront.
Another major issue is the security triggers.
Is it a cosmetic security trigger or is it a real enforcement trigger?
The language matters in that regard.
We need to be involved in that discussion as well.
And we have to make sure that nothing that's done here discourages people from coming illegally in the future or is unfair to the people that are trying to come legally now.
And that's going to be hard to do as well because the language has to reflect the intention.
So there's a lot of work to be done here.
We are nowhere near the finish line, but I think outlining our principles is important because it takes away the ability of the other side to mischaracterize what we're for and what we're against.
Well, you have a difficult job ahead of you because you are meeting everybody honestly, forthrightly halfway.
You're seeking compromise.
Obama is seeking political victory.
Obama doesn't care about enforcing existing laws.
So people say, why will he enforce anything that's new?
He sued Arizona for simply trying to enforce existing federal law.
So you've got a tough job ahead of you.
I just remind everybody, Obama's not going to be president forever.
As long as these next four years may seem, he won't be president forever.
We'll have another president one day.
And we have to write laws with that in mind as well.
And the other point I'd make to you, Rush, is I know this is a tough issue.
I do.
I know why people are uncomfortable about it.
It doesn't feel right in some instances to allow people who have come here undocumented to be able to stay.
I know that for some people they're uncomfortable with that notion.
This is a tough issue to work through.
But I would just say this to you.
I know that there's no other, if this country goes downhill, there's nowhere else in the world.
I mean, there's nothing else.
There's no replacement for it.
There's no alternative to America.
It's either us or no one.
And anytime I see anything that's harmful to America, as a policymaker, I try to make it better.
And, you know, sometimes you succeed, sometimes you fail.
But either we succeed or we're going to be the generation that's held responsible for allowing the most incredible nation in human history to decline.
And I certainly want to do everything I can to avoid that from happening.
I think this is a significant challenge that we face.
I know the president's going to take us in a direction that I would not be comfortable with, and I don't think it's good for America.
I'm just trying to do the best I can with what's already a tough situation.
I pray it works out.
I can't guarantee that it will, but we're going to do our best.
Senator, it wasn't that long ago where your message was what this country was.
It wasn't that long ago where your message was a winner, where your message defined this country.
And I wish you all the best in reviving it.
Country really does hinge on it, I think.
So best to you, and again, good luck.
Thank you for the opportunity, Rush.
I do appreciate it.
You bet.
Senator Marco Rubio, and we take a brief time.
I'll be right back after this.
Don't go away.
Is that guy good or what, folks?
Marco Rubio.
I mean, that was impressive.
He stayed on point.
He stays on message, and he believes it.
You can tell that he didn't need notes.
He doesn't have to consult anything, no prompter that's in his heart.
And he's lived it to boot.
That was impressive.
And I'll say this, too.
Here is a guy who does not fear talk radio.
He embraced it.
He is not at all intimidated or afraid.
He wasn't afraid of what would be said about him coming on this program.
You know, kudos all the way around.
And he's right about what he said about the president.
The president is the one who's going to have the explaining to do here because whether you like it or not, there are eight senators, four Republicans and four Democrats who not yet committed to paper, but they've shaken hands.
They got compromised.
And the president's going to come along today and undermine this.
It's going to be Barack Obama who undermines this.
It's Barack Obama who's going to undercut the primary objective that all of these eight senators say is imperative to them, and that is border security first.
You go back to 1986, Simpson Mazzoli.
This is a repeat.
The same things were promised.
Everything happened except the border security.
Ted Kennedy said, never again will we need to grant amnesty if we do it this time.
I want to give you some facts, some electoral results, too, that we mentioned during the campaign that should be of interest to the Republicans.
In 1984, when Ronaldos Magnus won his 49-state landslide, he got 37% of the Hispanic vote.
So I know numbers are tough on radio, but make this easy.
84, 37% Hispanic vote.
Two years later, we do amnesty.
Two years later, we open our hearts.
We open our borders.
We open our minds and we legalize every Hispanic in the country illegally.
Now, you would figure that the next Republican presidential candidate, George H.W. Bush, would get even more of the Hispanic vote if for no other reason gratitude didn't happen.
37% Hispanic vote for the Republican in 84.
30%.
We lost 7% Hispanic vote after amnesty.
And this is another reason the Republicans have to be concerned as to their motivation for this, because for the Democrats, it's all about voters and a permanent underclass.
I got to take a brief time out.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
Okay, we now go back to the phones.
We've got Vinny.
Vinny in Brooklyn, great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
Good to talk to you again.
Yeah, welcome back, Vinny.
It's always a thrill to have you here.
Like I was telling the call screener, you know, I was adamantly against any type of so-called comprehensive immigration reform.
But after hearing, you know, Marco Rubio, I have to tell you, he really is a bright light for the Republican Party.
And, you know, I agree with you.
All the statistics do not lie.
I think the largest percentage we ever got was about 41% from George W. Bush the second time around regarding the Latino vote.
You know, maybe we should do this provided not just the security, but all the other issues he mentioned, the tracking of illegal aliens who overstay their, or aliens that overstay their visitation visas.
I had no idea that they dropped off the radar if and when they overstayed their visas.
The job placement, the fining, the going to the back of the line, the getting off the Obamacare thing that would blow a hole, well, already make a bigger hole throughout budget than the one that's already there.
Maybe it is the monkey we should get off our back.
All right, and maybe it will be something for us to point to in the future and say, hey, look, look what we did as the Republican Party.
We led on this, and this is what we got.
Provided, and Marco Rubio sounded very strong when he said this, provided we get everything principally that we're asking for.
And the other little sidebar to this is, is it time to panic yet?
No, it's not.
Okay.
Not time to panic yet.
I still, I'll be very honest.
If that moment arrives, I will not hold back.
I will not save that information for myself.
And so I will not totally dominate the panic.
I'll share it with you when it happens.
I think with Rubio and immigration, there's the potential to be a Nixon to China kind of moment because he's effective.
He's an effective.
If you take a look at the African-American Republican problem, we can cite Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, any number.
And what is the automatic response?
They have a chunk of time.
They're not really authentic African-Americans.
They've been bought and sold.
They're nothing but step-and-fetches.
They're the modern-day slaves.
That's what's said about those guys.
And not just them.
I mean, any number of conservative African-Americans.
Now, Rubio has lived it.
In terms, you know, the language down for the struggle, he's there.
His father came to this country.
He's got an American up-from-nothing story.
And he's got that story to share.
He's lived it.
His family's lived it.
So he's got street cred on all this when he does go out and talk to Hispanic people in this country who are oriented toward the Democrat Party.
And as long as, you know, he stayed on message.
He did not get off message.
He kept his focus on what he thinks needs to be done and who he thinks the problems are.
It's primarily Obama.
He really, really, I think, Vinny, you're a good barometer here.
I think Rubio impressed a lot of people, including a lot of doubters.
You were one.
Yeah, I was.
But provided he follows through with everything he said, and we don't come to the table six months from now, like he said, with a backdoor deal that cuts out all the enforcement mechanisms.
Well, it's not even that.
Vinny, it's not that our problem is the president could agree to all of it, and he's not going to enforce it after he agrees to it.
That's the problem that everybody dealing with Obama has to face.
I've got a story here in the stack.
Cass Sunstein, his all-time favorite lawyer.
They're talking about second Bill of Rights and the old FDR thing.
Their belief that the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.
It doesn't spell out what the government can do.
There's no question what Obama's trying to do to this country.
And he doesn't care.
He'll not enforce current law.
He'll operate outside current law.
So let's say the Senate comes up with something that is totally satisfactory to Rubio, and they pass it.
It passes the House, and Obama signs it.
And what happens if Obama just doesn't enforce it?
And that's a genuine possibility, regardless how airtight the legislation is.
That's just a fact of life, given this man is president.
Well, as usual, Rush, you're right.
The only thing I could say to that is what the Senator said.
Obama isn't president forever.
So maybe after he's gone, maybe the next president will.
No, I didn't want to say anything, but I want to prepare you people for something.
I didn't want to say this to Rubio because it was not relevant what he was talking about.
But can you see 2014?
Let's move ahead a couple of years and let's just play a little hypothetical game just for the fun of it.
Let's say that Obama gets even more of his agenda.
And let's say the Democrats win the House in 2014 or come close.
Would you be surprised if a bunch of Democrats call a press conference one day and suggest repealing the amendment to the Constitution limiting the president to two terms and having it apply to Obama?
You're asking me?
Yeah.
Would I be surprised?
No, I wouldn't be surprised.
No, you wouldn't.
You wouldn't be surprised at all.
And I'm telling you that I'm not going to go out on a limb and predict it, but I'm not going to be surprised if sometime down the road the Democrats come up with this, whoa, brilliant idea.
This guy's so great.
The American people love this guy.
If his approval numbers skyrocket to the 60s, which they're in control of, or into the 70s, what's to stop people?
Oh, we can't afford this guy leaving office.
We need to keep him here.
And of course, you've got the low information voters weighing in on it.
Who knows?
So it's, I don't like throwing stuff like this out, and I'm not predicting it, but with this president and this media and this bunch of sycophants in the Democrat Party, you've got to consider it as a possibility.
And then how would we compromise on that?
I don't know.
Can you say revolution?
I don't know.
Of course you can.
Anyway, Vinny, as always, I appreciate the call.
I'm glad you got through.
Who's next?
Karen in Cincinnati.
You're next.
It's great to have you here.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
Thank you very much.
Well done.
Thank you.
Fine.
Thank you.
Unlike one of your callers who felt this was all about the vote, I feel it's all about the money.
I think that because Social Security and Medicare are totally tanked, the Democrats want...
Now, welcome to the United States.
Here's your amnesty card, and here's your Social Security card.
Go get a job and start paying into Social Security.
Because we have so many baby boomers who are planning to retire, my husband included, and they are expecting some kind of Social Security benefits.
And if it's not there, now, obviously, there are Democratic baby boomers.
They don't get their money.
They're going to be a little bit angry with this president and with this party.
Well, you are very shrewd.
I will tell you that there are a number of Republicans who would support that totally.
They're all for an influx of new sources of low-wage labor.
Yes.
I think it's one of the reasons the Wall Street Journal is so pro-open borders.
It's all about low-wage waiver.
You know, labor is the biggest expense any company has.
The lower you can keep it, the higher your profit is.
There's some are interested in that.
And you're right.
I think following the money is always a very smart thing to do.
So it's a combination too.
But I do think this: if 70% of the Hispanic vote went Republican, the Democrats would be the ones building the wall on the border.
And one other thing, Rush, if the Republicans stick to their guns on being the party of lower taxes, as these workers begin to see their money constantly drawn out of their paycheck, you may find a big switch in the voter mentality and say, hey, wait a minute.
You know, I may have been on welfare when I walked in the door because I needed it.
Right.
But then I got a job.
Now you're killing me.
This is why I say it's not time to panic yet.
We have not lost the country.
You're exactly right.
And with a young leader like Marco Rubio, who can make the case, Marco Rubio is a genuine, heartfelt conservative.
He can make the case.
He can do it optimistically with confidence and with belief.
He's got conviction.
And passion.
And those things are magnetic.
And so people like Rubio coming up.
There are more of them.
Ted Cruz, the opportunities still exist.
Turn this around.
And it must be.
And there are a lot of people who believe that.
So we hold out hope that it will happen because it can.
It can happen.
It has happened before.
And anything that has happened can happen again.
The odds of that are likely.
I appreciate the call, Karen.
Another obscene profit time out here at the EIB Network.
And your guiding light, Rush Limbaugh, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-concerned, maha-rushy, serving humanity, executing assigned host duties flawlessly here at the EIB network.
I'm going to turn the ditto cam off because I got to zoom in to show you people something.
In fact, while I'm setting it up, let me zoom in.
Since unionized, or non-union here, so I can do this myself.
It always irritates the United Screeners Union guy, Mo Thacker, but I'll get grief from him.
But it's what I like about it.
I can touch all this equipment myself.
Okay.
Story from the Huffing and Puffington Post.
A woman has set a new record for the world's largest hips.
Mikhail Ruffanelli is her name.
She's 39.
She has hips that are eight feet wide.
And that fact has allowed her to now set a new world record.
Mikkel Raffinelli comes from Los Angeles.
She's just 5'4 ⁇ .
She's not a giant.
She's 5'4.
She loves her shape.
She's totally content.
She says, I love my curves.
I love my hips.
I love my attributes.
I love being unique.
Okay, then.
Let me zoom in here a little bit more.
Standby for this, folks.
I'm going to stand by.
Okay, you ready?
Here we go.
There is 5'4-inch Mikkel Raffinelli with her 8-foot-wide hips.
There you have your new world record holder.
There she is.
I knew you wouldn't believe this if I did.
That is on the beach.
Yes, it's on the beach.
And I know who the guy is.
It doesn't say here in the caption, but she loves herself.
Very happy with her.
Turning a ditto cam off.
I don't think it's good for you people to see me zoom in and zoom out.
It's a bit distracting, so I'm zooming out now.
But I just, you know, I can't come here and tell you about a woman with eight-foot hips and have a picture of it and not show you.
Here's Casey in Houston.
Hi, Casey.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello.
Thanks so much for taking my call.
You bet.
Well, my comment was when Marco Rubio said that they're getting the message out there, but I don't think the conservative message is getting out there.
I listen to you and I listen to other conservatives on the radio, but elsewhere, it's not out there.
I mean, we lost the election.
No, I think he knows that.
I think he intends to try to get it out there.
I think his belief is that if people hear it, that they'll respond favorably to it, that it works.
And so he's part and parcel of his immigration proposal is going to be an outreach plan.
I think he's not just going to stay in Washington.
He's going to take it out there.
And he's going to take this message out there because he's got, I'm sure he's got much higher political aspirations than just the Senate.
I hope so because I love him.
And I am a bit dubious about immigration policy being actually implemented, but I'm with him.
I would like to see what he's laying out there happen.
I just, I don't know how they're going to get it out there because the Democrat Party has mastered this.
They've mastered rewriting history to make it tell what they want to say that makes their party look good, like civil rights.
I know.
When it wasn't them that did it in the first place.
I know.
They own the low-information voter segments.
They own pop culture.
They own books, TVs, movies.
They own the classroom.
I've got kids that I'm constantly countering the message they're getting in school.
And we're in a fairly conservative district, and they're still getting not a conservative message.
Oh, it's serious.
I'm like you.
I'm dubious about immigration.
Like I said to him, my first question is, why are we doing this?
Because it seems to me that everybody's going along, living their lives.
The Democrats decide that they want a bigger bite out of America.
So they come up with a plan.
And the Republicans let them set the agenda.
Okay, that becomes the next thing we're going to argue about.
And we never say, screw you.
We're not going there.
We're not going to do this.
We're not going to compromise.
They always join them.
And I think it gets back to the whole concept of ruling class, the political class, the elites in Washington, regardless of party, all being associated one way or the other and all having the same objectives, which is an ever-expanding government, a shrinking private sector, which is more power and money for people in government and surrounding environs.
And I'm like you.
I get tired of the reactionary nature of all this.
I mean, this is a repeat of 1986.
It's word for word.
I've got soundbites.
I'm going to illustrate this to an extent.
The same things that were said in 86 are being said today, except in 86, they told us we'd never have to do it again.
You see how well that's working out.
Exactly.
Exactly.
But here you've got young Fresh Blood in Rubio, who I believe him when he says he wants the next time this is done to, in fact, be the last time.
And I'll tell you, Casey, you need people like that.
We don't want people who are defeatist and say we're lost.
We can't ever get it back.
We need people like Rubio.
And when they do things that we support, it's important to stay behind them.
And I understand it's depressing.
You look out over practically every horizon in this country and you see liberalism dominant everywhere.
And among the people who vote, it is.
But I'm not sure it is yet in terms of majority population, but of those who vote, it is.
And that has to change.
Be back after this.
It's the fastest three hours in media.
Two of them are already in the can.
I got to take a brief time out.
We'll get to some of these immigration soundbites from yesterday.
It'd be interesting to play these after the fact, after having spoken to Senator Rubio.
▲
Export Selection