All Episodes
Previous Next
July 9, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:35
July 9, 2014, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So I checked the email during the top of the hour break and there's a note there.
Mr. Limboy, once again, you are being disingenuous.
You're attacking the Clinton child and you are not telling the full story and you know the full story.
You are misleading people again.
Why do you continue to do this?
Signed, whatever.
I'm not misleading anybody.
I'm simply recalling Hillary Clinton describing how they were broke and destitute, couldn't get a mortgage.
I mean, they had zilt zero nada when they left the White House.
It was very bad.
It was embarrassing.
They couldn't hang around with their friends and so forth because there was no reason for friends to give them money anymore.
And it was very bad.
And then that didn't go well.
So Hillary tried to massage it.
It got worse.
They trotted Chelsea out.
The story that Chelsea, I tried to care about money, you know, but I just, I just don't.
I just don't care about money.
Okay, fine.
Then the New York Daily News has a story that Chelsea is doing speeches for $75,000.
And the emailer said, you didn't tell everybody that she's doing the speeches for the Clinton Foundation.
Right?
Okay, here you go.
Chelsea's speaking gigs are on behalf of the Clinton Foundation.
And it is reported that 100% of the fees that she is paid by the Clinton Foundation go right back to the foundation.
So she's given $75,000 by the Clinton Foundation to make a speech, and then she, I guess, cuts a check and gives it much, donates it.
This opens up all kinds of questions here.
But the bottom line is, she works there, so it is beneficial to her.
That's what the New York Daily News doesn't point out.
She works for.
She is paid by the Foundation.
So anyway, that's not a big deal in terms of the main point of the story is, which is hypocrisy.
And I know it's not a big deal to a lot of people.
Democrats often are not held accountable when it's been proven or shown how hypocritical they are.
But I just still wanted to make the point.
Anyway, it's great to have you back here, folks.
The telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882.
And the email address, ilrushbow at EIBnet.com.
There's some amazing things that continue to happen regarding the mass arrival of young children on the southern border.
And again, I've got a whole stack of it here and some supporting soundbites.
The unaccompanied children from Central America crossing the U.S.-Mayo border illegally should be deported except in extreme circumstances, according to Stenny Hoyer.
Stenny Hoyer, big Democrat, is the minority whip in the House of Representatives.
I mean, he's right under Nancy Pelosi.
Well, on the power structure, he said, we have an immediate humanitarian crisis that confronts this country.
We also have a crisis in terms of this country cannot continue to absorb, nor should it, a limitless number of people who, particularly children, who want to cross our border?
Wow.
Who knew that Stenny Hoyer was a hater?
Who knew that Stenny Hoyer was a xenophobic bigot?
Will this cost the Democrat Party the Hispanic vote?
Do you realize the sacrilege he just uttered here?
Holy cow, you have a Democrat saying we have a humanitarian crisis.
We cannot continue to absorb, nor should we, a limitless number of people, particularly children who want to cross our border.
Now, I think these comments might have something to do with the fact that Mr. Hoyer is up for reelection, as is every House member this November.
But has he forgotten that he is one of the big supporters pushing for amnesty?
Anyway, I just think this was phony.
But you know what this quote from Hoyer shows?
It shows just how precarious the Democrats think they are vis-a-vis this issue.
This one little quote from Stenny Hoyer is all you need to know that this issue is not translating well for Democrat electoral prospects.
Because if it were, Stenny Hoyer would have said something just the opposite.
He would have been chastising everybody who opposed these people being admitted to the country.
He'd be ripping into them as bigots.
He would be ripping into them as haters.
And he would be talking about how we are the United States and these are just children seeking a better life.
They're escaping bondage and tyranny and economic disaster and so forth.
And we must open our hearts.
He's not saying that.
He's saying the exact opposite.
And he's got an election coming up.
Find it fascinating, folks.
Now, let's go to the audio.
So grab number 21 with late arriving soundbites.
This is from Washington this morning, Capitol Hill, Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee hearing on this border crisis.
The Assistant Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services Administration, Mark Greenberg, testified.
Senator Tom Coburn, Republican Oklahoma, says, does health and human services verify the immigration status of the sponsors to whom the unidentified children are being released?
Let me set this up by reminding you of there are some things we know.
These children supposedly are being sent shortly after their arrival to family members all across the country.
And of course, the obvious question is, how do we know that they are who they say they are?
What kind of ID do they have?
Secondly, how is it so easy to so quickly identify family members of 65,000 children from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala?
How in the world, when we hear every day that these 11 million are in the shadows and they're afraid to come out because they're afraid of being deported?
Well, if they're in the shadows, we don't know who they are.
And every immigration reform bill requires them to come forward and identify themselves with the promise that they will not be deported.
They might be sent to the end of a line, but they won't be deported.
So we clearly don't know who they are.
And yet these kids are being assigned to family members.
They're not spending much time in these processing centers.
I think it's one of the reasons why the regime doesn't want anybody in there.
Again, the husband and wife couple that called yesterday, the husband's a retired doctor, and I asked him a question.
How in the world can proper medical screenings be taking place when they are in these centers for such a short period of time?
He said, that's a good question.
We can't.
And his point was that a number of these children are arriving sick, infected with some pretty bad diseases, hepatitis, TB, lice, any number of things.
And they're being processed and gotten out of these centers and they're put in homes.
This couple also said that their church called them and asked them to temporarily house some of these children for as much as 30 days and not to say anything about that.
But they called here and said everything about it.
They told the story they were told not to tell by their bishop.
It was a Catholic church that was called by the regime seeking help.
So these kids, they're arriving and they're being dispersed El Cuico, folks.
They're not hanging around.
And so Coburn wants to know here: well, okay, now the people that these unidentified children are being released to, do you verify their immigration status?
In other words, are you sending these unaccompanied children, these illegal immigrant children, are you sending them to the homes of American citizens or do you know that?
We verify the identity of the individual.
The immigration status.
We do not verify the immigration status of the individual.
Our focus in the release is first identifying the least restrictive setting in the child's best interest.
As we do that, we also need to look at safety to the child, safety to the community, risk of flight.
So we go through the overall process of looking at the individual placement to ensure that it is a safe and appropriate placement.
The bottom line of that answer is they do not know whether the sponsors, the family members, the adults to whom these children are being released are even legal residents.
They don't even know.
They're not even asking.
They're looking at other factors.
Well, yes, we're looking at the least restrictive setting.
Like, we don't want to send them to a home where the husband is a brutal wife beater, for example, or where the husband is a brutal predator.
We don't want to send them to a home where there is a bad neighborhood, a lot of violence, the safety of the child, and the safety of the community.
We also don't want to send them anywhere where they're going to feel like they have to leave and run away somewhere.
But we don't know whether they're citizens or not.
Bingo.
So then Coburn said, well, isn't it true that if you place an unaccompanied child with an illegal alien sponsor, the significant likelihood is they would not want to bring that child to a deportation hearing before an immigration judge for fear they would expose their own illegal status.
His point here is: aren't you guys kind of playing a trick on all of us?
You're sending these kids to citizens to people you don't know if they're legal or not.
If you send these kids to the homes of illegal aliens, what motivation does anybody have to show up at the deportation hearing later on?
If they're illegal, why would they even show up and expose their own illegal status?
We ensure that the sponsor understands they have a responsibility to make the child available for proceedings.
If, in fact, they're an illegal alien to begin with, why would they expose themselves in front of an immigration judge?
So, even if we had the information as to the parent or other relatives' immigration status, we would still at that point need to look at the totality of the circumstances.
I'm asking you why you do not ask that question.
Is it the policy of HHS not to ask the status of those people with whom you're placing the child?
We do not specifically.
Is that the policy of HHS of this country?
Yes, it is the case.
So, even if we had the information as to the parent or other.
No, no, no.
I just want to know: are you by policy not asking whether these sponsors are in fact citizens?
Well, yes, that is the case.
So, the guy admitted it's Mark Greenberg, Health and Human Service.
They admit it is policy not to know whether these kids are being sent to the homes of illegals.
So, it's what's happening here, folks.
I'm going to be blunt.
The regime is attempting to see to it that these children are sent to the shadows.
Because remember what this is all about.
Well, this is multifaceted, but one of the things this is about is pressuring Republicans to do an immigration bill that's amnesty-oriented before the elections.
And they're flooding the zone here.
Now, the question needs to be asked.
I asked it yesterday, I'm going to ask it again.
Okay, let's say that that's the objective.
Somebody explained to me how passing an amnesty bill is going to affect this at all.
How's it going to stop that?
There's no way passing immigration reform is going to stop what's happening at the border.
Why would it?
In fact, it might just do the opposite.
You pass an immigration reform bill, amnesty, or something close to it, you're going to increase the number of people trying to get in the border.
Not decrease.
Why would it stop?
But see, that's the thing the regime is attempting to convince the Republicans: look, you're going to have to do this, otherwise, this isn't going to stop.
So, the kids are being sent to the shadows, plain and simple, by virtue of policy, admitted to by the regime.
Okay, same committee.
Senator McCain talking to the Border Protection Commissioner Gil Kurlikowski.
That's how this went.
Am I allowed to bring a cell phone with me when I go on to a facility in Ogalis, Arizona?
Not to take photographs.
I am not.
I am not allowed to take photographs.
Not to take photographs.
Why not?
Why not?
Why am I not allowed to do that?
The children have a right to privacy, and that's why we're not having their faces shown on me.
I may want to take a photo of something else.
If you wanted to take a photo, we'd certainly make arrangements for you to take a photo, just not of the children.
The children have a right to privacy?
Do you know that?
Well, I'm going to open a can of worms.
Do you know right to privacy doesn't no, the low-information crowd will never get this.
Never mind.
Take a break.
So this regime guy, this assistant secretary, Health and Human Services, says to Tom Coburn, now we look at the totalitarian, the totality of the circumstances.
In assessing where, no.
We look at the totality of the circumstances.
Okay.
Wouldn't the totality of the circumstances include the sponsor's immigration status?
Totality means something.
The level of fraud that exists day to day in this administration is incalculable.
It's hard to keep track of it.
Back to the phones and I'm down.
Back to.
We haven't been there yet.
We're going to start with Greg in Seattle.
Thank you for waiting.
I appreciate it.
Great to have you on the show.
Hi.
Yes, sir.
Hey, Rush.
Megadittos from the West Coast.
Thank you, sir.
Indeed a red letter day.
Hey, this is Costco Territory, and it used to be a loyal customer, but no more.
By the way, by the way, I meant to mention Costco has done a 180.
They have reversed themselves, and they are now going to sell Dinesh D'Souza's book.
And do you know why?
They're saying it's not political.
No, we saw because of this that the D'Souza book is back up to number one on Amazon, so it now qualifies for being sold at Costco.
So it's back in the stores now.
You should know that.
Well, anyway, so anyway, I got two points, and they're both to respond to the doctor and his wife that called yesterday.
And basically, you kind of stole my thunder when you played that tape recorder to Congressman from Oklahoma and also McCain.
To me, it's outrageous.
I mean, these are the United States of America.
This is a constitutional representative republic.
Why should John McCain, a representative of the people, us, be asking, well, can I carry a camera, a recorder, so on and so forth?
And then the media.
Media is instructed not to tell anyone.
This is, yes, this is a humanitarian crisis.
Yes, it's a health crisis, too.
All these diseases that they're bringing in.
You mentioned Ellis Island, that the immigrants had to stay there, what, weeks, months, or something until they were tested.
So, you know, another thing about that, of course, I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't the Freedom of Information Act cover the people's right to know what's going on down there?
Yeah, it does, but you'd have to make a request for that.
And by the time you were granted permission, the issue would be pretty much over.
The kids would be dispersed.
Nothing to see.
You're right, though.
First, Ellis Island, going in reverse, Ellis Island took in 12 million people over a long period of time.
It was not massive Immigration Central.
And the primary purpose for Ellis Island was to determine whether or not the arrivals were carrying severe infectious diseases.
And if they were, they were kept from entering the country for a long period.
None of that is happening here.
None of that.
They're not being screened long enough to actually learn the full scope of diseases that might be being brought into the country by sick kids.
And then this business that a senator has to ask the regime permission to take a picture.
Folks, again, every liberal cause involving children, they open up fully.
They do hashtags.
They do telethons.
They want you to know these kids personally.
Why not in this case?
What are they hiding?
Why do they not want us seeing these children?
I'm here.
I'm here just waiting for the printer.
I don't need the second page of this.
Show prep never stops.
I wish the printer were faster, but it is what it is.
One more soundbite, Senator McCain.
Senator McCain, livid, by the way, after being told that he can't take pictures, that he can't go in and talk to you.
Don't forget, Sheila Jackson Lee was allowed to take lollipops in to one of these camps.
Nancy Pelosi was allowed in to speak to some of these kids.
Nancy Pelosi actually said to some of these kids in a camp last week that she would love to be able to take them all home with her, but that she only has room for 60 in the mansion, and that's not all of them, so she couldn't take any.
Well, she didn't actually say that, but that happens to be true.
She and her husband have enough property in Northern California to house a bunch of them.
Anyway, the Democrats are being allowed in there.
In addition, Todd Starnes at Fox News has a piece, Pastors Not Welcome at Immigration Camps.
Pastors and churches have been banned from helping the thousands of illegal immigrant children housed in border detention facilities run by customs and border protection.
And Starnes' source for this is clergy in Texas and Arizona.
Kyle Coffin, the pastor of Crossroads Church in Tucson, said, Border Patrol told us pastors and churches are not allowed to visit.
It's pretty heartbreaking.
They don't let anybody in there, even credentialed pastors.
It is a legitimate question.
What do they not want people to see in these detention centers?
Look, again, I don't mean to be repetitive.
It's like a broken record here, but you know as well as I do that every time the left uses children to advance their agenda, they try to get us as close to their plight as possible so as to tug at our heartstrings and get us to bleed emotion and pity and sorrow.
And they have resorted to hashtags.
They have resorted to telethons.
They have resorted to parades of children on Capitol Hill before House and Senate committees.
They have gone to every length possible to humanize all of the whatever children of the day happen to be in need.
And yet we're dealing with anywhere from 50 to 65,000 now and nobody can get in there.
Members of Congress, except for a couple Democrats, not allowed.
No photos.
The clergy now refused permission to enter and help and minister to these children.
Now, after the kids are dispersed, then the regime calls churches and asks for their help, but not at the camps.
The regime doesn't want anybody to see what's going on.
And that may not be the right way to put it.
The regime doesn't want anybody to see these kids, whether in the camps or not.
And which leads to an obvious question, why?
If it's a humanitarian crisis and these kids are in desperate need and they're trying to improve their lives by coming to America, why can't we see them?
I mean, it's not that they don't exist.
I don't have an answer.
I'm asking the question open-ended.
I don't have a conspiratorial answer for this.
Maybe you do.
I just, I'm, this is so out of character for the left, so out of character, so out of character for the administration, so out of correct, out of character for the Democrat Party where kids are involved.
They never, ever hide their plight.
They never shield them.
They do just the opposite.
Now, here's McCain.
He's livid after being told by a regime underling that he can't go in, that he can't take a picture, that he can't do anything.
I want it fixed, and I want it fixed immediately.
Understand?
If a member of Congress can't visit a facility in his own state, the people of Arizona elected me, and I'm not supposed to even carry a cell phone with me, Mr. You have overstepped your responsibilities and your authority, sir.
And I want those instructions revoked as far as members of Congress are concerned, and I want it done today.
Do you understand?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Whoa.
Whoa, the maverick.
Remember when it used to be called that?
The maverick really ticked off.
I want it fixed.
And I want it fixed now.
Understand?
If a member of Congress can't visit a facility that's on state, the people of Arizona are electing me.
Not supposed to even carry a cell phone, even though I don't have one.
What is going on here?
He does.
He has an iPhone.
I'm just kidding.
He uses it at.
No, I see him in Vegas now and then.
But nevertheless, I want these instructions revoked.
You've overstepped your responsibilities and your authorities here.
You, Mr. Ewidney, Image.
Meanwhile, where's Obama?
He's in a bar shooting pool, being offered a doobie.
While all this is going on, here is Ernie in Atascasita, Texas.
Hey, how are you, sir?
I'm just great.
You know, like so many millions of your listeners, we're in agreement with your assessment of Obama that his actions and inactions are really purposeful and not born out of inaptitude or laziness or whatever.
We also, in this household, we watch O'Reilly on the Fox News channel almost every evening.
And I'm beginning to think the man has lost his courage.
He doesn't seem to want to admit the truth about our president.
What do you mean, Ernie?
Well, for instance, last night he came the closest that he's ever come in asking one of his guests, did he think that the guests seem to agree with the far-right wing that this president of ours is on purpose causing all the problems for this country?
And so you inferred from that.
I don't think you have courage to admit exactly what's going on.
I think I can explain this to you.
But you inferred from that that Mr. O'Reilly thinks that you are far-right-wing because you think that this is intentional and purposeful.
Absolutely.
Well, what did you call O'Reilly?
Pardon me?
Yeah, what do you call him?
Ted Baxter, I mean, Zev Chaffetz asked me, you know how that, Zev Chaffetz is doing a profile of me for the New York Times Sunday Magazine, and he just starts firing these.
So go ahead and mention some names to you.
I just want your first reaction, just your first reaction.
Don't even think about it.
I said, okay.
And he starts throwing some names at me.
And he got to O'Reilly, and I said, Ted Baxter.
And it just, it stuck, I guess.
I don't know.
Did he throw in a roar?
And so he didn't even publish any other names that I reacted to.
And I guess that was enough.
Ernie, look, what do you think the answer to your own question is?
I don't think he has the courage to tell it like it is.
I think he's smart enough to know what's going on in the regime.
Ernie, Bill O'Reilly has plenty of courage.
That's not the answer.
I think he's trying to hang on to the possibility of getting interviews with members of the regime, like he did with Obama.
So he's going to avoid being as critical.
Well, there may be something to add.
I mean, a lot of reporters hold back, hoping for access, and they don't want to slit their own throats access-wise.
But no, the answer to your question is not rooted in a lack of courage.
I think the answer to your question is rooted in what you heard Mr. O'Reilly say.
He just does not want to be thought of as far right.
He has, I guess he wants to think of himself as more in the center or wants you to think of him as being more in the center.
His use of the term far right answers your question.
An independent.
Well, independent.
I just think, you know, everybody in showbiz wants to try to occupy a unique niche.
And far right is not something he wants to be known as.
That means he holds back on what he really thinks.
I don't know.
But he doesn't like courage.
I think it's a strategic positioning of himself.
You may be right.
Maybe for access to the regime.
Who knows?
Well, last night I was a screaming coward at the television.
So after talking to you, maybe I'll back off a little bit.
But thanks for taking my call.
All right, Ernie.
I love listening to you.
Have a good.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate it.
And we have to take a brief obscene prophet type break here on the far right.
Back after this.
Don't go away.
Interesting story.
I have not seen this anywhere else.
Maybe you have.
I admittedly have not spent a lot of time watching cable news lately.
The general in charge of the U.S. Southern Command says that America's porous southern border poses as much a threat as any foreign power.
Gangs and terrorist groups are hiding among the tidal wave of illegals.
Major General, I'm sorry, Marine Corps General John Kelly, commander, U.S. Southern Command, is warning about the crisis in our southern border.
If this guy keeps it up, how long will he last?
Do you realize what he's saying here?
He said, in comparison to other global threats, the near collapse of societies in our hemisphere with the associated drug and undocumented immigrant flow are frequently viewed to be of low importance.
Many argue that these threats are not existential and do not challenge our national security.
I disagree.
Now, the U.S. Southern Command is responsible for the Caribbean and all lands south of Mexico, and he has sounded the alarm that this isn't just a humanitarian crisis of unaccompanied children.
He says clearly, all of this is true.
I'm not incredulous that I didn't think of this.
I'm not incredulous.
Oh, wow, I hadn't thought of this.
Of course, this is true.
I'm incredulous that somebody is saying it high up in the U.S. military command.
The commander of the U.S. Southern Command is not insignificant.
Clearly, criminal networks can move just about anything on these smuggling pipelines.
And he said this in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee back in February.
Terrorist organizations could seek to leverage those same smuggling routes to move operatives with intent to cause grave harm to our citizens or even quite easily bring weapons of mass destruction into the U.S. Let me ask you this, folks, and I don't mean to sound coarse.
I can't avoid this, though.
Could a weapon of mass destruction also be some children carrying highly communicable diseases?
Could that be a WMD?
I don't know how long this guy's got to last.
This is not something that the regime wants, stated, that massive gang and terror networks could easily be slipping into the country in the midst of this so-called humanitarian crisis.
Now, you attach that reality to everything we've learned so far about how these kids are being processed and dispersed.
They're being processed with very little time and attention.
They're not being medically screened anywhere near properly or thoroughly.
They are being sent to all corners of this country.
We do not know if the people who are accepting them as sponsors are even citizens.
Do we know if there's even a paper trail per immigrant?
If there's not, then there's some serious malfeasance going on here.
If there's not a paper to, if we don't have a record, if we're not getting some form of identity, identification for every one of these people that we're processing in these detention camps and then dispersing all over this country, if we're not keeping track of who they are and where they were sent and to whom they were sent, then we are just inviting chaos.
We're inviting a big mess.
And that is the point General Kelly is making.
Marine Corps General, Commander of the U.S. Southern Command, again calls this border crisis an existential threat because we could be welcoming across our borders with no stoppage whatsoever,
with no investigation whatsoever, terrorists, criminal gangs, and all that entails.
And we're doing it on the basis of humanity.
We're doing it on the basis that, well, these are starving children and they're coming from oppressed worlds and they just want a better life and we must do it.
And we're not allowing photos.
We're not allowing cameras.
We're not allowing visits to these detention camps except by Sheila Jackson Lee and Nancy Pelosi.
No Republican member of Congress is being permitted into a detention camp.
There are no photos of the arrives, children or otherwise.
And there likely is not a paper trail.
It's not good, folks.
Let's see here.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, and it's not enough time here to get into anything substantive.
And I don't have to use cheap programming tricks to tease you into hanging on.
Because I know you'll hang on simply because I'm host.
That's all you need.
And it works for all of us.
So sit tight, and we'll be back.
You don't need to tease anybody here.
▲
Export Selection