All Episodes
Previous Next
June 23, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:19
June 23, 2016, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know, folks, this is what everybody's forgetting about Obama and his immigration law and his executive action and his amnesty on it and the Supreme Court decision.
Immigration law is settled.
We already have immigration law, and it is being violated.
Obama's executive amnesty is not the settled law.
Obama's executive end of amnesty is outside the law, and that's why it's been stayed.
A federal appellate circuit looked at what Obama was doing and said he can't do it.
Immigration law settled.
Now that this to me is a fundamental point because the drive-by is and the Democrats are all trying to say that the Supreme Court and the lower court stopped settled law.
They're trying to portray what Obama was doing as the law, and that somebody, some mean partisans are stopping our wonderful young president from implementing the law, obeying law.
Obama is outside the law.
Obama's immigration behavior.
Executive amnesty, this dreamer stuff, everything he's doing is outside the law.
Immigration law is already settled.
That's why we have people known as illegal immigration or immigrants, because the law's very clear.
When they're not being called illegal immigrants because people are biased and prejudiced, it's because they're in violation of the law.
I think this is a great illustration of just how I don't know what.
I like to say a hundred degrees, 180 degrees out of phase we are.
We just, we just totally have abandoned reality here, and we've created the Democrats have created a new reality that is not real whatsoever that people have bought into and accepted, to the point now where the upholding of current law is what's considered lawless and partisan and political.
And Obama attempting to skirt the law and ignore the law is what people think is the law.
Greetings and welcome back.
Great to have your Rush Limboss serving humanity simply by showing up.
The telephone number, if you want to be on the programs 800 282-2882 and the email address L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
Here's the actual statement by this is from the synopsis of the Supreme Court decision on affirmative action.
This was the decision authored by the majority decision written by Justice Kennedy.
Now, and it's the killer point.
It's it's the killer point.
This is not a direct quote from the from the uh opinion.
It is the it's the synopsis, the the official summary of the opinion, if you will.
But it contains the upshot, and it's just three lines long.
The compelling interest that justifies consideration of race in college admissions is not an interest in enrolling a certain number of minority students.
Wait just a second now.
I thought that's what affirmative action was.
I thought it was essentially a glorified quota program.
Tell me I'm wrong, Mr. Sturdley.
Affirmative action was to set up, was set up in order to provide a racial imbalance to make up for perceived discrimination in the past.
So we weren't gonna end discrimination.
We're just gonna shift it.
The belief was that people, yeah, people of color had been given the royal shaft because of their color since the beginning days of this country, and the affirmative action advocates came along.
It's you know what?
We're gonna shift it.
We're not gonna get rid of the discrimination.
We love the discrimination.
We're gonna reverse it.
We're gonna put the discrimination on a majority now, and the minorities are gonna get the benefit of the doubt, and they're gonna be granted admissions precisely because of their race.
And people said, Well, okay, but how long are you gonna do that before you consider the scales balanced?
Oh, we're never gonna stop it.
I mean, I actually asked them this earlier days in my stellar broadcast career.
I said, I say, what?
You're never gonna stop it?
No.
No, no, no.
The scales are never going to be even.
I mean, two hundred years of reverse one guy kept calling it discrimination.
Two hundred years of reverse discrimination will still not make up for the injustices of the white majorities.
You're kidding me.
I said, No, I'm not.
And and and then Gloria Stein of the Feminazi said, hey, we want in on this, and so they got in on it.
And so the same thing.
So these minorities, women, by the way, numerically have never been a minority.
Can we get that up front real quick?
Numerically they've never been a minority.
And to the truth be known, in civilized societies, women run the show anyway, because it's women who have the power to say no in civilized societies.
Everybody's known this forever.
Women run the show.
Anyway, uh the reverse discrimination people, also known as affirmative action crowd, came in and said, we need remedial treatment.
We need quotas.
They wouldn't, they don't like the term, but that's what they are.
We need quotas in order to reverse the discrimination.
But they they were never interested in eliminating the discrimination.
They just wanted to shift it.
And they wanted the majority to find out how it felt.
I want you to know how it feels.
That's what I want.
I have advocates of affirmative action admit this to me.
So here comes Justice Kennedy.
That's why this is this is profound.
Now, yeah, I know as the Asian students get in the shaft now because too many of them are running rings around everybody.
GPA-wise, education-wise, they're running rings around everybody.
Anyway, that's why what Kennedy wrote here, this is, this is, let's listen to it again.
The compelling interest that just, and compelling interest is key here.
Those words, compelling interest.
The compelling interest that justifies consideration of race in college admissions is not an interest in controlling a number of minority students.
Or number in enrolling.
A certain number of what it isn't.
I thought that's what affirmative action was.
I thought it was to balance the racial inequities of admissions or hiring graduation or what.
Oh no, no, not anymore.
No, no, no.
It's even worse.
The compelling interest that justifies consideration of race in college admissions is an interest in obtaining, quote, the educational benefits that flow from student body diversity.
This is Justice Kennedy, and this is...
I don't know how to describe it.
This is so bad, I don't know how to describe it.
But when compelling interest is attached to this, you lawyer types out there, you know exactly what I mean.
Once the Supreme Court categorizes something as a compelling state interest, what that means is that virtually any step the state, the government, wants to take to achieve this interest is permitted, no matter any negative impact on constitutional rights of individuals to equal protection and due process.
So if, as this ruling says there is a compelling interest in maintaining racial quotas, because of the interest we have in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from its student body diversity, it means that if there are other constitutional rights in conflict, they will always be considered irrelevant or secondary to the compelling interest.
The compelling interest permits, if you will, in this case, discrimination against others in their rights.
Because the state has a compelling interest.
Compelling interest.
That means we have to do this.
At whatever cost, we have to do it.
And what do we have to do?
We have to consider race in college admissions, not to equalize actual admissions.
No, no, no, no, no, but to maintain the educational benefits that flow from student body diversity.
So this whole liberal concept, perverted and corrupt as it is, that there is power and greatness and strength in diversity alone, has now been canonized by the Supreme Court.
What are you laughing at in there?
What in the world is so funny about this?
It is it is I tell you this is just every day we every day we wake up and there is yet another bomb that goes off, seemingly right in the middle of our culture, of our society, of common sense.
And it's not new.
We've been dealing with it for I don't know how long.
Now we're blowing up the law.
And I'm telling you, folks, this election, we are one vote away from losing the separation of powers.
And these Supreme Court decisions today illustrate it.
Nothing we haven't known, but now we have the illustration.
You get one more liberal on the cooperal justices are not justices.
They're not judged.
They that's that's not how they approach the job.
They are liberal rubber stamps.
They are there to affirm the agenda of the Democrat Party, pure and simple, or the progressive movement, whatever.
That's their purpose.
They acknowledge it.
Liberal commentators, court watchers acknowledge it and applaud it.
Because the Supreme Court, you see, is not about the law anymore.
The Supreme Court is the last final authority in pronouncing the fitness and the primacy of the liberal agenda in American politics.
That is what the Supreme Court has been in the eyes of progressives and leftists, and with one more vote, they will achieve it.
So if Hillary wins the presidency and nominates whoever she wants, you can say goodbye to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court decisions are going to be interesting things to discuss, but all they will be is a rubber stamp for the Democrat Party agenda.
The five liberal justices, and then when there's a sixth, will simply oh, they'll release their opinions, and they'll write glowingly and flowingly and eloquently, whatever they write, but it's all going to be politics.
It will not be the law.
And, of course, there will always be a distinctly large number of Americans who will think it is the law, making it even more powerful.
They will not see that it's politics.
They will not see that the Supreme Court is simply a rubber stamp of the Democrat Party.
Others will and will applaud that.
And so the separation of powers in a great American institution is hanging in the balance here of this upcoming presidential election.
This is why I don't understand anybody on our side wanting to take any action that would elect Hillary Clinton.
I saw Brent Scowcroft yesterday came down and endorsed Hillary Clinton.
Did you see that?
Well, of course he did.
Why did uh moderate Republican centrist Secretary of State or National Security Advisor or whatever he was endorsing Hillary Clinton, not saying he wouldn't vote for Trump, but actively enforced endorsing Hillary Clinton.
Take a brief time out as we just chug on here today, folks.
We'll be back after this.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have doing that which I was born to do.
L. Rushbo, hosting the most listened to radio talk show in America.
Happy to have you here.
Okay, Nancy in Dayton, Minnesota.
It's uh great to have you.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
I'm responding to the Democrat this morning that was questioning and concerned about the children of illegal illegal immigrants.
Right.
That would be Bill Nelson, Democrat Senator from Florida.
And I just wish once our Republicans would stand up and say that I, as an American citizen, am not responsible for the destiny of illegal parents, illegal immigrants that bring their children here.
Why do you want to see that happen?
Because it's the truth.
They are taking their children out of a country, bringing them here, and are putting them in jeopardy.
And they blame us for what ha what happens to them, what their future is.
And I I don't understand why our Republican Party doesn't say that we are not responsible for people breaking our law.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
First of all, you understand that the Republican leadership in the House and Senate is pretty much for amnesty.
I do.
You understand that, okay.
So secondly, they're the leadership.
But I want you to envision something here.
Mm-hmm.
You are watching TV there in Dayton, Minnesota, and Bill Nelson comes out and says what he says, we're gonna start deporting people today.
We're gonna separate mothers and sons and daughters from their children and they're sending them home to places they've never been.
Oh my God, what are we doing?
What kind of people we are he goes away.
Next Republican shows up, it isn't my fault, damn it.
They shouldn't have come here in the first place.
If I didn't want to encounter a bunch of pain, don't try to blame it on me.
What do you think's gonna happen?
Well next on social media.
I th well on social media that's another issue, but I think the base of the Republican Party feels strongly that we should seal our borders, let those in, and we're a sovereign country.
We don't have to let anybody in.
And we let in people that make our country better.
And when we Okay, now I l I agree with all that, but I was answering you specifically.
You wanted to know why somebody didn't follow Bill Nelson with going out there and saying, hey, hey, yeah, they may be suffering, they may be dealing in a lot of pain, but we didn't bring them.
It isn't our responsibility.
They broke our laws.
I'm just telling you the juxtaposition of that.
No, I I I I get it.
And I I just feel that more Americans really believe that we cannot keep taking everybody in.
I'm not sure of that.
Oh boy, that scares me then.
I'm not sure that because of social media.
I'm asking myself this every day.
How what what what do you think has to happen to the average American before they realize how it's drastically affecting their well-being.
I've been asking myself that for twenty-five years.
I've been ask honestly, Nancy, I've been asking myself how how can I explain this?
Uh let me do it with today's news.
Okay, let what uh affirmative action and and we're gonna continue to have racial imbalance based on skin color and so forth.
And I keep asking myself at at some point when this finally begins to hurt and actually harm the proponents of this, what is their reaction going to be?
I keep waiting for that, and it hasn't happened.
They'll probably blame us.
Well, they they they will, but the the that's no, I I don't know.
I don't know how bad it has to get.
I don't know when uh they don't have jobs and I I think you gotta come here.
I think you have to come to grips with the fact, Nancy, that there are a lot of people, and I'm not talking about elected Democrats.
There are a lot of your fellow citizens.
You don't know them, you don't know where they are, but there's many more of them than you than you know and realize, and they revel in all of this.
They love the chaos.
They love the majority being disturbed, bothered, shaken up by it.
They are not in any way, shape, manner.
These are these are not happy people to begin with.
They are pretty much unhappy or miserable, they've blamed everybody their whole lives for it.
And to them everything is about getting even.
Yep.
And so the more pain and suffering you admit to, the happier they are.
No matter what effect it has on them.
Because as far as their lives are concerned, they're already in the sewer.
Maybe we need some new unique leadership, like Trump, to change the course of the country.
Because the old guard just isn't doing it anymore.
We need a lot.
I t there's a fascinating piece today by a teacher, college professor, and avowed communist Marxist and socialist.
And he decided to travel the world to see the glories of the things he believed in.
And all he saw was misery and suffering and poverty, and he was shocked.
I'm not making this up.
I'll get to the story in due course.
And he's now be he's abandoned Marxism.
He's abandoned communism.
He traveled, he went to Cuba.
He went to over a hundred places in the world trying to find the evidence that the countries that lived as he thought they should were on the way to utopia.
And he found the exact opposite.
He found misery, found.
Now it's amazing to me that a college professor would have to actually go anywhere to know the truth of what Marxism and communism and socialism cause.
But he did it.
And he's now writing against all of that.
But my point in bringing it up is that a lot of this starts in the education system of this country.
And as early as pre-K, certainly kindergarten and on up.
And it just festers and is amplified and grows deeper and deeper in all of these young people, year after year after year, to the point that we lose them.
Grabs on by 27.
I've got a little bit more coming on the sit-in, but it just ended.
And what happened was that uh Nancy Pelosi, surrounded by by John Lewis and uh not Chaka Fatchak.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
James Kleiburner, congressional black Caucasian guys followed her down the steps.
Rank wrangle.
It followed her down the steps, and they were proclaiming victory and so forth, singing, we shall overcome.
And you say, we shall overcome.
What's it got to do with?
What the hell does it have to do with gun control?
What is we shall overcome?
And it just proves my point.
This stuff never ends, folks.
There's never an end to any of these liberal complaints.
Liberalism is a series of grievances, in addition to everything else that it is.
And everybody lives under the idea that, okay, if we address the grievance, will you shut up and go away?
And they, oh, yeah, yeah, we just want to flip it.
But it never does.
It never happens.
There's every liberal supposed solution is simply the beginning of a new problem by design.
So here we have the end of the sit-in.
They've walked down the steps singing We Shall Overcome, and John Lewis heads there to the mic.
There's about a hundred and fift media people.
One hundred and fifty media people.
For all intentions and purposes, they're applauding this valiant effort of these brave Democrats, avoiding the dogs and the hoses and so forth of Bull Connor on the floor of the house, doing everything they can to deprive the American people of their second amendment constitutional rights.
They're being applauded for it.
Here's John Lewis at the microphone.
It's not a struggle.
It lasts for one day, a one week, a one month, a one year.
It is a struggle.
Are we going to win the struggle?
We must never ever give up.
Give in.
We must keep it faith.
And we must come back here on July defeated.
More determined than ever before.
Right on, they're going to come back July 5th because Ryan shut the place down.
He said he shut it down, sent them home since they wouldn't stop to sit in.
The only way he could gain orders.
They're come back to life at the struggle, the struggle.
I think whenever Michelle Obama does a public appearance, the word struggle is part of it.
Every one of them, the struggle.
They're all in a struggle.
What's the struggle?
It's SH, T-R-U-G-G-Liban, the struggle.
And the struggle is never ending.
Ongoing.
And the struggle, what is it?
Why, it's discrimination.
It is intimidation.
It is bullying.
It's the denial of rights.
It's the denial of humanity.
It's the ongoing struggle against the inherent unfairness of the United States of America.
They won that fifty years ago, the civil rights act they I know they overcame fifty, but that's the point.
No, no, no.
It's never over.
He said so.
This is my point.
Play the beginning of this again.
It's never over.
The struggle.
Next day, next week, next month, next year.
It's never over.
Play it again, say one day.
A one week.
A one month, a one year.
It is a struggle.
Are we going to win?
The struggle.
We're going to end the struggle.
We're going to win the struggle.
There you have it.
Joanna in Lafayette, Louisiana.
You're next as we uh head back to the phones.
Great to have you with Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
I think you're great.
I listen to you all the time.
I agree with 99.7% of everything.
Oh, here comes a but.
Yeah, but I had to call in.
Because I do believe I I know of cases it is happening that uh some of these kids that weren't born here, but they've lived here all their lives, they are being deported.
And I also know of cases where the kids are born here, they're American citizens, they're put in foster homes and their par parents are deported, and their parents are begging to get their kids back.
That actually is happening.
Really?
Yeah.
Rush.
This is what I want to say to all those Americans out there, okay.
Hang on just a second.
Just a second.
All Americans, stop what you're doing.
Listen, very, very important coming.
I want to make sure they hear you.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, it's important.
We we as conservatives believe more than anything in the Constitution of the United States, and we want our laws to be constitutional.
Well, because of my own situation with my husband who is from England and studying the law, I believe there are parts of the Immigration Act of 1996 that are not constitutional.
And because of that, American citizens in family relationships with immigrants are losing their constitutional rights.
Okay, let me let me s let me specify something right here.
You are not specifically addressing today's Supreme Court decision, and you are not specifically addressing the reaction to it.
You're talking about you just said Immigration Act 1996, your husband from England.
Well, we're not talking about nearly the same because I tell you something, immigration's continuing.
The southern border is being flooded.
The border patrol agents are being told to stand down.
There is no stopping it, Joanna, and there are deportations going on.
Deportations happen every day, but not mass.
There's no denial, but I'm specifically talking about Bill Nelson going out there today after this Supreme Court decision, which merely said to Obama, stop what you're doing because it's against the law.
He's out there saying that today we're gonna start separating families from their children and start sending people home, and it's not happening.
Um, Rush, look, I'm I think it's horrible that uh the all these people are being allowed to immigrate.
Of course, I'm a conservative, and and imagine how I feel when me and my husband did everything legally, but he gets deported on I can't I don't want to go into the long story.
He gets deported, and then I'm seeing all these illegals coming in and they won't allow them to stay.
Yes, of course, that's wrong.
But Rush, what I'm telling you.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, what do you mean illegals coming in and won't allow them to stay?
No, we are unfortunately Obama is allowing them to stay, and they're illegal, and that is wrong.
I totally agree with that.
But I believe there are situations which we need to show compassion, and I believe one of them is when of no fault of their own, they grow up in America, they know nothing else but America, right, and then they get deported, and that does happen.
And also I think it's I want to know where this is happening.
I want to if if this were happening in great numbers, I will admit to you that deportations ta happen every month, but they are few and far between, and mostly uh for show.
They it's it's not By any stretch imagination official policy, it's not a deportation number that's anywhere near dealing with the problem.
But if it were happening to the extent that you're implying it would be front page news, there would be pictures of these childless or parentless kids arriving back home in the dusty plains of their home countries with no money and an out-of-date American food stamp all over the nightly news.
Well, Rush, you're right.
It's probably not happening in large numbers.
But I think there are small numbers, and of course, under Bush it happened more.
And there are parents that are in Mexico and places like that that are still begging to get their kids back.
It has happened.
Um, you know, it depends on what news you listen to.
I speak Spanish fluently, not because I just learned Spanish in high school and in college.
Uh but uh but I I mean I'm an American, you know, my father was an Italian, and my mother was Scotch-Irish, and I'll go all the way back to the Mayflower.
Okay, so you know, I'm part German and part Irish, and I think there's a little great brand.
In fact, there's even a town in Germany that was named after my family, Limbach, so forth, and I don't know, I I might even have some Indian blood in there.
I don't know.
What difference does it make?
What I'm saying is is that I believe that the Immigration Act of 1996 needs to make exception in the law for immigrants who are in families with American citizens in order to protect the constitutional rights of the American citizens, because right now that's not happening.
Well, uh I'll tell you something.
You know, on the surface, and speaking from the heart, it would be very, very difficult for somebody to come along and even argue with you about it, because they would immediately be considered heartless and mean-spirited and unfeeling and anti-child.
And of course, that would ruin them.
That would have said nobody speaks up.
But you have just described one of the greatest tricks in the immigration movement going.
Why do you think?
Why do you think for the past two actually starts in in January, February every year, goes to the summer?
Why do you think there is a literal flood of children only, teenage and younger, from Central American company, not Meiko, we're talking El Talador and Guatemala and other why do you think those kids are being put on trains by their own parents, then later to be sold to coyotes and mules and brought into the country?
Why do you think that's happening out there?
I mean, here we have the opposite of what you're talking about.
We have the arrival of young children.
And the regime is doing everything it can to relocate them.
We are not tagging them, geo or otherwise.
We're not even medically examining them to great detail.
We're ramroding them through all these clearance centers.
We're putting them in various towns all across the fruited plain for one reason.
So that someday, not long ago, not long from now, someday in the near future, somebody like Senator Bill Nelson can go to the nearest camera and microphone and say, what kind of country are we?
To participate in separating mothers and fathers from their children.
Right now we have, and whatever the number is, 800,000 children, 15 and under, who've arrived in our country in the last two years.
And where are their parents?
We have not let them come in.
And we can't deport them.
Why send them back to the hell holes they it's a trick to get their parents here, playing on the compassion of the American people, such as yours.
And then let's not even talk about chain migration, immigration, which is another trick.
But but all of these things are designed to penetrate the heart exactly as it has yours, so that there can be a modification in the law, a moderation in the law here for this instance, and over here for another instance, and there for another.
And then ultimately somebody says, you know what, our immigration all sucks.
And we need to redo the whole thing, comprehensive immigration reform.
And what that's going to be is anybody who wants to come and vote Democrat, we're gonna send them a limousine and bring them in.
Here it is, Professor rejects Marxism after traveling the globe and concluding socialism doesn't work.
It's from buddies at the college fix.
At least one professor in America does not feel the burn, as in B.E.R.N., Bernie Sanders.
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, Professor Jack Staughter says that his political and ideological conversion away from socialism and Marxism occurred when he actually witnessed the systems in action.
After traveling to more than 110 countries to pursue various forms of research, notably cultural anthropology, Stauder considered or described his conversion for Marxism as a process of disillusionment.
He said, I uh gradually became disenchanted with Marxism by visiting many of the countries that had tried to shape their societies to conform to its doctrines.
And I was disillusioned by the realities I saw in socialist countries like the USSR, like Eastern Europe, like China, like Cuba.
I came to recognize that socialism doesn't work and that its revolutionary imposition inevitably leads to cruelty, injustice, and the loss of freedom.
These are all the professor's own words.
He said I could see the same pattern in the many failed left-wing revolutions of Latin America and elsewhere.
And by combining actual travel with the historical study of socialism and revolution.
I succeeded in disabusing myself of the utopian notions that fatally attract people to leftist ideas.
Returning to my roots also helped me transition away from the leftist ideology that exists in the intellectual atmosphere of university life.
By spending my summers in the Southwest in the company of rural working people, farmers and ranchers, I developed perspectives on the real world, very different from those that prevail in the academic world.
People seem to feel the need to believe in something, and when intellectuals abandon traditional religion, as most have done, they tend to seek substitutes.
Now I see things like this, and I love our, you know, our buddies at the College Fix website are good.
But I hope it's true.
I hope this guy, Jack's daughter, really was a commie SOB and had his mind changed.
But sometimes some of this stuff reads like I don't know how to uh somebody that's conservative in the first place, but says they're liberal, they go out, they study these places, they come back.
You know what?
I used to be a raging leftist lunatic, and now that I've seen what I believe in, I've changed my mind.
It reads great, it's cited a lot, it ends up being persuasive, but my uh how can a college professor, and I'm not denying this, I'm just I'm I'm sharing with you my reaction to this.
How can a guy, I guess it's possible, because it's it's happening a lot.
How can a guy supposedly educated and smart, why does somebody have to travel to Cuba to know that it's a hellhole?
Why does somebody have to travel to a communist Marxist country to know that it is not anywhere near a utopia?
I mean, I'm glad he did it, and maybe the answer is that every one of these tenured professors ought to be sent somewhere.
You know, one country, two countries every year or so just to investigate that which they are teaching to find out whether or not it has merit.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
I'm not spitting a gift horse in the mouth, and I'm not challenging college fix.
I just I don't know, as you know me, I'm the mayor of Realville, and some things just seem I don't know, weird.
But I guess it's entirely possible.
I know, I mean, there's nobody That can deconstruct a liberal better than I can.
So I guess it's entirely possible these people live in such a fog.
I've always thought that they know it's a failure, that they know it doesn't work, but that they're living on the come.
They're living with great hope, that we just haven't had the right people do it yet, or we haven't had enough money implemented.
I've I've I've always believed they know it's an absolute bomb and failure everywhere, but they've not given up on it.
And maybe that's not true.
Maybe they maybe they literally don't know.
Maybe all these liberal intellectuals don't have any idea.
I guess it's entirely possible.
They're devoid reality in any number of other ways, so this could be true as well.
Heather McDonald of the Manhattan Institute.
She is a think tank thinker, is a scholar at a think tank out there.
And she's got a new book called The War on Cops.
She's exploring the phenomenon known as the Ferguson effect, which shows the Ferguson effect, the aftermath, created more crime than stopped it.
And her research has shown that blacks commit eleven times more homicides than whites in America, which is why the numbers of those imprisoned are higher.
▲
Export Selection