All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 17, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:11
August 17, 2015, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, yeah, I can answer my own question, but it's its own lesson, too.
Come on, folks.
All of this stuff is now patently obvious.
It's front and center.
All it requires is the courage to admit what you're seeing.
Let me explain.
That's what I do, make the complex understandable.
Rush Limbaugh, serving humanity, executing assigned host duties flawlessly, just because I do the assigning, and I don't assign myself errors or mistakes.
The EIB network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies 8282-2882 if you want to be on the program.
So I asked the question, why is Trump the only one?
The answer is obvious.
Look at all of the arrows that are being thrown at Trump.
We've always known this.
There has been a fear throughout the Republican Party.
I don't mean just the presidential candidates here.
There has been a fear of the media.
What the media is going to do.
Don't criticize Obama, they're going to call you racist.
Don't object to anything Obama's doing, they're going to call you a racist.
You know, I still have people asking me, this Iran deal, is there anything to be done to Obama?
No, there's nothing to be done.
The Republican Party gave him his free ride.
They said there's no impeachment.
They took it off table.
There's no enforcement mechanism for anything Obama does that's extra-constitutional in violation of the law, what have you?
He's got his free ride here.
And the reason he's got it is because people are scared to death of being called racist or sexist or whatever.
Well, okay, within that, here comes Trump.
It may well be that a whole bunch of Republicans agree with Trump and have not had the I don't want to.
I'm not questioning people's manhood here.
I'm questioning political analysis.
Maybe they just haven't had the courage to do it.
But Trump did.
And they're probably sitting back and say, yeah, look what's happening to him.
They're trying to destroy him.
Yeah, but that's the lesson.
What is Trump doing?
With every insult that comes his way, with every bit of criticism, he doubles down and fires right back at the critics.
This is in one small part exactly what Republican voters have been seeking.
Wanting to see.
They've been thirsting for it.
Don't understand why.
When one party is trying to fundamentally transform this country and make it into something it is not founded to be, why is there no opposition to it?
They voted in mass numbers.
Landslide victories 2010-2014.
Can't even get any criticism of the Democrats, much less any opposition policy.
And Trump comes along, and they're firing more than arrows at Trump.
Insulting him, predictable, everything that they can throw, including the kitchen sink.
But again, the lesson is what Trump is doing with it.
And I told you from the from the I look at I I hate to do C I told you so kind of stuff, but I remember the first week this all happened when he stepped in it on uh you know the first original Mexican so-called insults, rapists and muggers and purse snatchers or who the Mexicans are sending.
And then the insult of John McCain.
And I prefer prisoners that don't get caught, or servicemen that don't get caught.
And the conventional wisdom of that, that's it.
He stepped in it now.
He can't survive that.
And Trump doubled down on it.
And I said, the American people have it seeming like this is a teachable moment here.
Standing up for what you believe after you say it and double doubling down on it is rewarded.
All of this so-called political correctness has been a myth.
Oh, it's there.
But the fact that the American people on a majority basis buy into it has been a myth.
So that's why the me twos are now going to start springing up.
It's a validation of what common sense has always thought.
Fight back against some of this stuff.
You'll be rewarded.
And not just for the sake of the fight.
That's not what this is all about.
So the inside the belt way, people even mischaracterizing this.
The purpose of the fight is what it represents, the standing up for principles, the standing up for the American way of life, the standing up for the very country is founded.
Anybody that does that's gonna be rewarded in this particular climate.
They're not gonna ask, geez, a guy conservative or whatever.
I can ask that.
Deal with that later.
This is not a purity beauty pageant.
Besides, what what good has rock ribbed conservatism done?
I mean, the inside the beltway intellectual conservatives are off having dinner with Obama and talking about the crease in his slacks and talking about how smart he is.
What the hell is what the hell good is conservatism is that if that's what it means?
What good is conservatism if what it means is shutting up?
And being thought of as a mannered, cultured, polite person who's just steers away from scare me.
What good is conservatism if it doesn't stand up for what it believes in?
Yeah, it's an intellectual pursuit, but in terms of really understanding it, but it's not something for only the intellectual eggheads on our side to be able to comprehend, define, and implement.
Believe me, this is a question a lot of people have been asking.
What good is conservatism if what it does is seek to compliment Obama's intellect and his speech making ability and his whatever else.
What do we gain by doing that?
Well, Mr. Limbaugh, you must understand this that the Republican Party brand isn't terribly damaged because we're seen as barbarians constantly attacking.
We will show that we can govern and work together and compromise and see if we can do this, we don't have a chance of attracting independence.
Yeah, and you're sitting there, you're dying with this attitude.
Because you're not going to gain anything.
You're going to siphon Democrat votes, independent votes by shutting up.
Anyway, let's go to the audio sound bites because this is the next phase of this, and that is this international war going on within conservatism.
First up, CNN's reliable sources on Sunday morning, Brian Stelter, the host.
And he brought in Jackie Coleman from the New York Times who wrote this big long piece last week about how talk radio is steering the Republican Party down the wrong path, and everybody's afraid of talk radio in the Republican Party is just a shame.
Washington was so much better before there was talk radio.
Washington was so much better before there was Fox News, and now this has messed everything up.
So she's studying the impact of conservative media on national politics.
And to start the discussion, Brian Stelter said.
Your main takeaway from your research was that well, your title, your paper even, they don't give a damn about governing, is that these conservative media uh powers, the Rush Limbaughs of the world, that they're not necessarily interested in what the Republican establishment is interested in.
Where does Trump fall on that?
He's clearly anti-establishment.
You see, the title of this, the uh they don't give a damn about governing.
Well, where does this come from?
What is governing now mean being led by liberals?
Is that what governing means?
What is governing mean?
Controlling?
Government is not controlling.
That's what the modern practitioners of it, however, think it is.
We want to be liberated from a controlling government.
What is it we can't govern?
What does that mean?
Well, we can't work together with Democrats to get legislation.
Maybe that's a good thing.
Maybe we got too many laws.
Maybe there's too much legislation.
We got too much Obamacare, we got too many EPA rules and regulations, we've got too many onerous regulations in the way of people.
We've got too many tax laws.
What do you mean we can't govern?
Seems to me the people that have been governing have making a mistake and making botching everything.
From the stimulus to Obamacare to this Iran deal to everything else Obama's done in the economy.
Somebody tell me where it's working.
He sure as hell's governing, though.
What does this mean?
Give it a damn about governing.
I'll tell you what it means.
Conservatives don't care about governing means they're not willing to sit on their hands and let liberals have their way.
So Jackie Kalmus, and it's her turn to answer this what she said.
Right, and that's uh part of the secret of his appeal.
He is tapping into something because as much as Fox is valued by conservative voters.
I found, to my surprise somewhat, that there is a really healthy strain on the right of people who have now grown suspicious of Fox News as well.
And even before that Fox News debate, I picked up a lot of complaints from people who are for Ted Cruz.
Okay, now to put this in proper context, this woman's original piece was how Fox News, just like they said about talk radio in the early days, create a bunch of my numb robots that can't think for themselves.
Fox News is this mindless, strident extremist conservative organization that's screwing everything up.
And the audience is a bunch of idiots, blindly following whatever they hear.
Now she writes the piece, she goes out, she does some research, and she finds out, and it took research for this.
She finds out that there are as a really she's a healthy strain of people on the right who've grown suspicious of Fox News as well.
And she's one of the brightest minds on the left.
She had to do research to find out that Trump is anti-establishment.
She had to do research to find out that Fox is viewed by many as part of the establishment.
That's not news to people, but it is to her.
So she ends up pleasantly surprised.
You know what?
They're conservatives out there that are angry at Fox too, as though she honestly did not know that.
Esther Goldberg writing in the American Spectator, Trump derangement syndrome.
It affects not just rhinos, but establishment conservatives as well.
And this thing takes no prisoners.
Esther Goldberg.
Thursday morning, she begins.
Thursday morning, I prepared a lovely prune-based compote.
My husband adores this dessert, but I wondered if I shouldn't send it over to George Will's house as an act of mercy.
Because George Will has never before seemed as constipated as he did in his Thursday morning column on Donald Trump, whom he describes as quote, an unprecedentedly and incorrigibly vulgar presidential candidate, close quote.
Esther Goldberg says, what exactly does George Will mean by vulgar?
Is it an epithet that Washington arbiters of taste use to describe the regular vernacular and humor of everyday Americans?
If you eschew complex ambiguity in favor of language that everybody can understand, does that make you vulgar?
I mean, this is a this is a huge hit on George Will by Ms. Goldberg here.
Vulgar?
What is vulgar?
If you eschew complex ambiguity in favor of language that everyone can understand, does that make you vulgar?
In other words, if you speak plainly, are you vulgar?
In a nod to personal liberty, George Will grants that Trump's squalid performance and its coarsening of civic life are costs of freedom that an open society must be prepared to pay.
Close quote.
Yeah.
Esther writes, democracy's like that.
It's exuberant, it accommodates a glorious diversity of taste and expression.
Life like a dome of many colored glass stains the white radiance of eternity, wrote Percy Bichet Shelley in the Donius.
I, for one, adore the stunning display of colors and shapes with which God endowed the world.
There's room here for the Trumps, as well as room for the George Wills.
And here's the pull quote, money quote.
The problem for ruling class conservatives like George Will, and uh she quotes also a national review writer Charles Cook.
The problem for ruling class conservatives like George Will and Charles Cook is that the left has emasculated them.
They tremble lest they slip.
Let slip a faux pas that the left can jump upon.
They must at all times show that their conservatism is intellectually respectable and politically palatable, palatable.
And they worry that Trump will make them look bad to the liberals and their media.
They're unable to grasp the fact that notwithstanding all their efforts, the left will never regard them as respectable and palatable.
To achieve that goal, they first must become liberals themselves.
Well, this is just a reworking of an often stated belief held by me on this program, and that is that many inside the so-called conservative media Republican Party, you name it, are very, very much concerned.
When they go after talk radio, the reason they do it, they don't want to be thought of as being vulgar, like talk radio, or they're an extreme or whatever.
They want to be thought of as brilliant, smartest people in the room, acceptable by people on the left.
In other words, the left are still the powerful people.
The left are still the people you must uh please, the left are still the people whose approval you must gain.
Even if it means you must relentlessly attack and smear people on your own side.
And that's essentially what she is saying is happening here.
Ruling class conservatives have been emasculated by the left because their primary motive is to be accepted by the left.
And that's the town, by the way, when I say that the left runs everything about Washington.
They run the political culture, they run the social culture, they run it all.
And if you want to be a big guy inside that universe, those are the people that you have to be on good terms with.
And the way you do that is by doing and saying things palatable to them.
That's the point she's making.
And then she says Trump doesn't care.
He makes clear he doesn't give a damn what liberals think of us.
And everyday people of all political persuasions applaud when he stands up to the self-important elitist media, just as they did with Nude Gingrich in 2012 at one of the debates, and just as they did with Newt Gingrich back in 1994.
Anyway, time out, another break.
Your phone calls are coming after this.
Do not go away, folks.
And of the phones we go, we're going to start with Joe in Bear Delaware.
Joe, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Um, on Friday, I was listening to you, you made a comment uh regarding uh you said something about your number one priority was to defeat the Democrats.
That was the most important thing.
And you were talking about the debate, you were saying that anybody on that Republican debate stage was preferable to Hillary or any other Democrat.
Rush, I got to disagree.
I think unfortunately our number one priority has to be to defeat the Republican establishment first.
Because we'll never make any progress against liberalism or Democrats until we stop the establishment from undermining conservatives.
Well, you may have a point, but for those who didn't hear Friday's program, I just want to put what you're you quoted me actually, but I want to put it in context.
I had a call.
We had a couple seminar callers on Friday.
I could spot them a mile away.
I'm an expert now at this.
And because there have been uh whispers out there about why I, Mr. Conservative, the Mr. Big have not condemned Trump, have not disowned Trump, have not thrown Trump overboard.
And of course, the reason for the question is maybe he's not the conservative we've always thought.
Maybe I am, somebody else would say.
Maybe Limbo's always been a f because everybody's always gunning for position one.
And I, in explaining, not you know, I was not going to take the direct premise of the question because I recognize it as a trap and a tricks.
I told the guy, my objective here is to beat Democrats.
And I went on to a long reason why.
I think the only way to save this country from the direction we're heading is to defeat the people who are driving that bus, and that's a Democrat.
We've got to stop this country going the direction that Democrats are taking us.
And I said this is my first priority, not purity of ideology or anything else.
In real life, the Democrats have to be defeated.
Now, that may include similar type thinking when found in the Republican establishment.
I'm going to argue with you about that.
But who do you want to aim at?
Uh I want to aim at Republican establishment politicians and also the media, which brings me to what I heard yesterday.
I heard George Will say something so asinine, I could not believe what he said on Fox News Sunday.
He was talking about the people who uh email in to him and to Chris Wallace complaining, um, conservatives who who complain and he's saying, well, the people who email in and complain about Boehner and McConnell not getting anything done really should be complaining about James Madison because of the separation of powers, and you know, that's why we can't get anything done.
It's so he threw a founding father under the bus in order to defend Boehner and McConnell.
He said we could we should just get over it, separation of powers.
I was stunned.
Yeah, I got a lot of email.
I didn't watch.
I don't watch Sunday shows anymore for a host of reasons, but I I heard via email practically everything that was said on that show yesterday.
From Arthur Brooks calling uh people like you a low information voter uh simply because you do not realize the dangers portended by Trump.
Uh and I had some reactions.
We need to first direct our fire at the re at the establishment, whether it be the media or something.
Put it out there, I'm sure some people react to have to take a quick timeout.
Thanks very much, Joe.
I appreciate you got through.
Back in a second.
Okay, you people on the phone, hang on, we're coming straight to you.
But since uh we had Joe from Delaware on talking about Fox News Sunday, let's go to some of those sound bites.
Rather than speculate, let's just listen to them.
We'll start with George Will.
This is during the Sunday uh panel of all-stars, analyzing things after the guests have uh finished.
And Chris Wallace said, you know, interesting poll results.
Candidates like uh Jeb Bush, who uh voters say overwhelmingly is qualified to be president, are now lagging in the polls.
He's talking about the Fox News poll and Trump up twenty five percent.
Not supposed to happen.
Trump was I mean, this is the first quote-unquote real poll since the Republican debate.
All the polls previous to this one have been phone polls, internet polls, uh the kind of polls that some would say are unserious.
We needed to wait on this.
And this Fox poll shows pretty much what all those others said.
Cruz, Carson, and Trump are the winners.
Jeb Bush lost ground, John Kasich lost ground, all the supposed winners didn't do well in the polling data.
So anyway, Wallace is talking about that to Chris or to uh to George Will says interesting poll results.
Candidates like Jeb Bush, who voters say overwhelmingly is qualified, are now lagging in the polls, and meanwhile, candidates like Trump and Carson and Cruz, who voters say are not qualified are the three front-runners?
Which uh raises the question, what's going on here, George?
This is a a version of the 1960s fad called Primal Scream Therapy.
You're supposed to shout and get rid of all your repressed pain from childhood.
This is, of course, particularly so for Mr. Trump.
And what makes him fragile as a candidate is first of all, he's a one-trick pony.
He consists of saying, I'm rich.
Everyone who disagrees with me is stupid, and all our problems are simple, if you'll put me in charge.
Since we are at the end of this gonna send a president, people have to say, do we really want to give nuclear weapons to Donald Trump?
At which point I think things change.
Okay.
I didn't hear about that one.
That's can anybody say Barry Goldwater?
I mean, this is exact things that the Democrats said about Barry Goldwater back in 1964.
They ran TV ads.
You remember the Daisy ad?
For those of you too young or too inattentive back then to to remember.
Uh yeah, LBJ 1964, and they ran an ad of a little girl picking daisies out in the field, you know, some field and uh it's a black and white.
I think it was black and white.
And she's picking daisies, picking daisies, and the narrator saying whatever Narrus saying, and the thing ends with a mushroom.
Nuclear pop goes off.
And that the images of the poor little girl picking daisies vaporized.
With the message, this is what'll happen if Barry Goldwater is elected president.
You let Barry Goldwater near that nuclear button and we're done.
And they tried this with Reagan, too.
Yeah, the Democrats did in 1980, 1984.
Well, particularly 1980.
Well, even during the Reagan administration, Gorbachev, of course, was the savior.
Reagan was the nuclear cowboy who couldn't be trusted.
But this is so George Will is now turning Trump into Barry Goldwater here.
And you people are having a temper tantrum.
Primal scream therapy.
You have all of these frustrations, repressed pain that you just gotta get out of your system.
You're so fit and ready to explode, and Trump is your vehicle.
And then once you do that, you will come to your senses and realize that we don't want to give nuclear weapons to Donald Trump.
Chris Wallace then said to Arthur Brooks, who is the uh president of the American Enterprise Institute.
How do you explain, as we, as we see in this latest Fox poll, the surge of Trump, the surge of Fiorina, Ben Carson, at the expense of all these sitting former governors and senators with all of their credentials.
George Will has it just right.
This is a low information, high entertainment, high protest moment.
It's summertime.
It's the same thing in the movies.
It's low information, high entertainment.
Republican voters always aggregate up toward kind of this mainstream person.
So that I got a lot of email about that one.
So we now have a Republican or conservative think tank director saying that you who support Trump are low information voters.
Now, when we talk about low information voters in this program, who do we mean?
We're talking about mind-numbed brain-dead liberals who watch e-entertainment TV and TMZ and gorge on you know all this pop culture stuff, and they'll run into a story from the New York Times and believe it, and they'll run into a story in the Washington Post and believe it, because they won't see anything else, and they just soak it all up like sponges.
That's who we mean by low information voters.
They don't really know what's going on but think they do.
Well, that's I I just learned the inside the beltway conservatives think that you are the low information voters if you support Trump.
That right now you're just essentially going to the movies, it's summertime, you gotta get this out of your system.
George will have it just right.
So next, Chris Wallace said to Brooks, well, let me interrupt that for a moment.
When you say low information, that just makes people's blood boil.
They say this isn't low information.
This is a considered judgment.
The Republicans said give us a majority in 2010, 2014.
And things haven't changed, Arthur.
Barack Obama talked about hope and change.
They haven't changed in the right direction.
They say this isn't low information.
They've gotten something you haven't gotten.
I'm not saying that people are ignorant.
What I'm saying is that they're not asking for specifics about policy.
That's not what people are interested in at this point in the cycle.
Republican voters will gravitate toward the person who's most qualified to be president.
The challenge for the protest candidates is to get those numbers up.
That's the most important thing.
Republicans always come back to them.
They came back to Mitt Romney.
They come back to the candidate who's most qualified.
Well, if it's policy.
See, this is where I I think some of these people may be standing on thin ice or maybe even some quicksand, because it is policy, specific policy, that people are objecting to.
And that specific policy is called amnesty, executive amnesty, whatever kind of amnesty.
That is specific policy that they don't approve of and don't like.
Just like they don't like Obamacare, which is policy.
They don't like any number.
They don't like the Iran nuclear, which is policy.
I think the opposition to Obama is policy related.
And to say that the support of Trump is devoid of policy, that Trump hasn't been, of course, while Arthur Brooks was making this comment, Trump was presenting his specific point by point policy proposal for immigration.
Uh...
You know, you listen to these guys, I I think I've pretty much understand all of this.
When you listen to these guys talk about, well, why do we have all these sitting governors and senators and their credentials and their experience?
And people that vote Republican are asking themselves, what good is it?
What good is it done us?
We have given them majorities in 2010 and 2014.
Where are our policies anywhere in the public debate?
They aren't anywhere.
What good is all this experience doing us?
We don't see any evidence of it.
What good are all of these qualifications if the objective is to never disagree with Obama, never oppose Obama, or not very rarely, maybe doing it just for public consumption, but no real substance behind it.
This is not some flash in the pan thing that has just popped up.
This has been brewing.
This anti-establishment attitude aimed at Republicans has been brewing for years here.
It really isn't new.
You could say that Perot tapped into it in 1992.
And who knows what would have happened if he actually hadn't gotten out that first time.
He didn't want to win this.
But I think it is policy.
The people that that are supporting Trump think that it is policy that they are supporting and policy that they're objecting to.
I don't think this is nearly as complicated or nuanced as these inside the beltway types want to make this out to be.
It isn't that hard to understand, and it's not it's not because people are slow or focused on celebrity or being entertained or what have you.
There are people in this country who are terribly, terribly afraid we're losing it.
And they don't hear that attitude reflected anywhere.
All they hear about is Republicans want to compromise with the people who are the architects of this destruction.
And they're asking, why do we want to compromise with that?
That should be defeated.
Where's the pushback?
Why what was this talk about compromise?
Bipartisanship working together.
It's not going to get us anywhere.
This stuff needs to be stopped.
That's what these Republicans have been elected to do, whether they want to admit it or not.
And the people that elected them just haven't seen any such behavior.
It really isn't that complicated.
One more before we uh go to the break, Wallace said, okay, look, George Will, I have to tell you, I was deluged by emails.
Is really on my mind.
And I got a lot of email about you and your somewhat unkind comments over the last couple of weeks about Trump.
Do you want to take any of it back?
No.
A lot of people sending you emails are angry.
They're angry at Mitch McConnell and they're angry at John Banner.
They should be angry at James Madison.
Their problem is we sent all these Republicans to Washington, and they still can't work their will from Congress.
The fact is the separation of powers, which is there for a reason, has served us well over time is an impediment to getting things done in Washington.
Get over it.
See now that I'll tell you, that is the it's more the way he said that that irritates people than what he said.
This isn't a separation of powers issue.
Look, in 2010, after the Republicans won the House, they said we can't do anything.
The Senate's stopping everything.
Harry Reid's over there and he's stopping everything.
Nothing we can do.
We need Republicans in the Senate.
Bingo.
Here you go.
Republicans were given control to the Senate.
Now what do we hear?
Well, Obama's going to veto it.
We really can't.
And we've we've, you know, it's a presidential year now, and we can't.
We can't really go out and argue with Obama.
People love Obama, we've got to make it look like we can govern.
And so the Constitution says things aren't supposed to get done.
James Madison, so we're going to take refuge in the fact that things not getting done is exactly what the framers of the Constitution wanted.
Well, things not getting done equals the implementation of the Obama agenda.
Things are getting done is the problem.
Now, are we to believe that there's no stopping?
There's simply no way that it didn't matter whether we won the House in 2010, didn't matter whether we won the Senate in 2014, because in any case, we can't stop Obama anyway.
Is that because until we win the presidency, we can't do anything?
Well, how do the Democrats always seem to stop us?
When we're in the White House and they only have one body.
They've got the House and they'll shut down the funding.
They'll how come they know how to stop Republicans when they're in the minority?
Take a break.
Sit tight.
Back with more after this.
Don't go away.
So let's see.
George Will says we can't give Trump a nuclear weapon.
It's okay if Iran gets them.
It's okay if Iran have nuclear weapons, but not Donald Trump.
Okay.
How come separation of powers isn't stopping Obama?
I'll tell you why.
He's bypassing Congress.
He is psssting on the Constitution.
That's how.
Is anybody inside the belt?
Wait, noticed this.
We are not at a standstill here.
There is no there may be congressional gridlock going on that doesn't stop Obama.
What what is Republicans are not stopping him?
He's ruling by decree.
What does that have to do with separation of powers?
The Iran deal is a perfect example of how Obama is ignoring the separation of powers.
Hell, the way Obamacare came to be is an example of it.
Let me get back to the phones here because people have been patiently waiting.
This is Greg in Lou.
Hello, Greg, great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Hi, Russ.
How are you doing today?
Very well, sir.
Thank you much.
Well, look, I I uh one thing I agree with you about Trump is that his style is refreshing.
People like that.
I like it.
I like that he doesn't take anything from people.
He confronts them, and he seems not to care what people think.
And I like that.
I wish we had more of that in American politics.
But I think his policies are a disaster.
You know, you supported NAFTA and you were wise enough to do that, and I think Al Gore and somebody mentioned years of was a distinguished American.
Yeah, but he didn't mean it.
That was just you were wise enough to support it.
And Trump's been a protectionist for 30 years.
His policies, I don't know how you can believe anything he says to begin with.
He's changed his position on every issue, including abortion, you know, even immigration.
He was attacking Romney a few years ago.
So uh trust is a big thing.
But also I think his immigration policy would be a disaster.
And uh just I think it's really un-American.
I just think that's not what we are.
That's not who we are.
What okay.
Explain why his immigration policy, because it that is policy, but that's not just that that that's not his his immigration stance is now codified as policy.
It's not just hyperbole or performance art or whatever you want to call it, but what what is un-American about it?
Well, I think I think it sends a message of of just of hostility to immigration.
I don't think that's what we want to do.
I mean, I think I think that you're you're very negative about immigration, and I think that's you know, I just don't think that's a good policy to have.
I think the Republican Party can be wait-wait a second.
This is a good point.
I'm not hostile to immigration or negative to immigration.
I am hostile to illegal immigration and the accommodation of illegal immigration, and I am hostile to the fact that we have given up assimilating immigrants to the American culture, the American way of life.
We're losing the country here, slowly but surely.
But what we're doing is placing the federal government in charge.
Like, you know, it's e-verify that you're gonna have to go to Obama to get permission to hire somebody just because you're afraid some Mexican might come across and do somebody's garden.
I mean, it's ridiculous.
Conservatives talk about small government, and they want to put the federal government in charge of employment.
It's a disaster.
Wait a minute.
Which conservatives are you talking about here that want to do that?
E verify.
You support that, I believe.
You said positive things about E VR.
Wait a minute.
I mean you're putting a lot of words in my mind.
A, I'm not a Trump supporter.
B, I what he verify.
I have the only thing I've come out in support of is opposing every immigration plan I've heard.
And I'm unfortunately I've been lobbied like you can't believe.
I've been brought to meetings.
I've been told if you call it amnesty, it's dead.
You can't call it amnesty.
And then they've tried to tell me why it didn't amnesty.
And I've heard about this card, and I've heard about and what it adds up to as a national ID for people, because you know everybody's well.
Where did you see me raise my hand in support of it?
I you've talked about e-verify in the past, I believe, and said positive things about it.
I know you every day.
It's not even in my lexicon.
You could do a keyword search on my website for e-verify.
You'll never find the words coming out of my mouth.
And if you do, it'll just be to report on it, not to support it, because I can't even right now tell you what the hell it is.
See what I mean?
We still haven't even gotten to the Hillary stack, and it's juicy too.
So we'll move in that direction.
And if you still want to talk about Trump, we get to the phones.
Have at it, folks.
Feel free.
▲
Export Selection