All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 1, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:13
September 1, 2016, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Buck Zexton back with you now on the EIB.
This hour, we'll have my friend Rebecca Heinrichs from the Hudson Institute joining to talk a bit about some stuff you might not have heard about the amazing Iran nuke deal that President Obama pushed us into, the same one that he more or less mortgaged all U.S. foreign policy interests in the Middle East to attain that one.
It's even worse than you thought.
Oh, and also, of course, it didn't pay ransom money for hostages.
It just...
It was a giant coincidence.
It was the same day.
It's a sort of coincidence of Hillary deciding she's going to delete emails and use a special program to make sure they're erased beyond any ability to retrieve them unless the FBI tries real hard.
It's just all coincidence with this government, this administration, left and right.
And I have to say, you know, as we continue to look into the Iran deal, by the time we figure out how bad it is, of course, it'll be somebody else's fault.
That's one of the frustrations here.
You'll never really have that moment of satisfaction to know that you were right and Obama and all the enablers and the media echo chamber around him on it were wrong.
That will never come because he'll be out of office and it will be somebody else's fault.
I don't know who, but they'll find some convenient target for when Iran is like, yeah, we're just going to start testing some nukes.
Thanks.
It's been real.
Maybe it's seven years from now.
Maybe it's 10.
Maybe who knows?
But whenever that does actually happen, it'll be too far gone for anybody to really be able to hold the administration to account.
Anyway, we'll have Rebecca Heinrichs joining us a little later on the show.
For now, I'm not a huge football watcher fan guy.
I watch it with my brothers and my dad.
And I really learned about football from the PlayStation game Madden, which that was where I really was taught these things.
I couldn't really play helmet sports because my head is so big and it just is tough to find helmets to fit my giant noggin.
This is all true, by the way.
Sad.
I'm sharing my childhood deficiencies with all of America.
My head was just enormous.
It's always been enormous.
Useful for opening doors, though, in an emergency.
But anyway, so I don't know that much about the game.
I do enjoy watching.
I do know a bit about it, but I do know politics, or at least I like to think I know something about politics.
And I know something about political protest.
And that's what brings me to this Mr. Colin Kaepernick.
I know Rush talked about him earlier in the week.
So he didn't stand up for the national anthem at a Green Bay Packers game, preseason game.
And this wasn't an oversight.
It wasn't like he was tying his shoelace and wasn't paying attention or something.
This was very pointed.
He did this, as you know, because, and I want to make sure I get his verbiage right here.
What does it say?
It's bigger than, wait, oh yeah, it's to me, this is bigger than football, and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way.
There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.
So this is a protest in favor of the Black Lives Matter movement.
So he gets attention for this.
And look, let's all keep in mind that Hands Up, Don't Shoot, and the other sort of protest themes of the Black Lives Matter movement have made appearances on the professional sports stage in the past.
Different teams, you know, I spend all my time thinking about politics and national security.
I don't watch that much in terms of professional sports, but whenever it crosses over into the, I know I'm like sounding, I'm from New York City.
I'm sounding less and less American by the second.
Next thing you know, I'm going to tell you I can't even drink beer, which is also true.
Allergic to it.
Yeah, I know, celiac.
It's crazy, isn't it?
So I watched all this.
I watched all this stuff unfold, and I think to myself, yet again, here we have somebody who's being elevated into the national dialogue, and I feel like I shouldn't be helping sort of shove up into the highest sort of reaches of political conversation, somebody who clearly doesn't really know what the heck he's talking about, but everyone's allowed to have an opinion.
This guy's created a platform.
From ABC News, NBC News, CBS, everybody's covering this Colin Kaepernick stuff because it touches some sensitive some sensitive points.
First off, this.
Oh, and the reason I bring this up again today, by the way, is because now he's planning to sit out the protest.
Sorry, to sit out the national anthem in protest on Military Night, which is in San Diego.
And Military Night is billed as a tribute to hundreds of thousands of current and retired military personnel who live and work in San Diego, according to the San Diego Chargers website.
So now it's Military Night, right?
Now this isn't just about the national anthem as a general principle, which I think is always tied to the military and those who serve.
But still, now this is specifically, this is about the U.S. men and women who have served in and around the San Diego area and, of course, everywhere across the country and still overseas.
And Kaepernick is saying he's going to do this sit-down thing again.
So it's not like he made the point one time.
No, now this is going to be a continuing form of protest.
And, you know, you've seen the disparity between when the NFL and when different professional sports leagues will allow sort of political speech or political either imagery or whatever, forms of protest, and when they'll punish it.
And in this case, my friends who know more than I do about football, by the way, say that Kaepernick is close to maybe being cut anyway.
And so who really cares?
Although I do think that this is a situation where the league, which the NFL has made a very, and even somebody like me who's a more sort of casual NFL watcher, has made a very clear linkage between supporting the troops, really sort of a patriotic outlook, and the National Football League.
That's been an effort.
You see this with troops, with soldiers and sailors and airmen at games, and they're making this effort, right?
So this goes against that.
This is a private entity, and this is where you start to get into this.
Well, it's a free speech issue.
Well, yeah, you can stand up and say something horribly offensive in a conference room at your next company meeting and then claim that it's a free speech issue and see what happens.
Security is escorting you to the door.
Be like, I have a First Amendment right.
You do have a First Amendment right to not be prosecuted by the government for political speech.
You don't have a First Amendment right to keep your job based on whatever it is you feel like saying.
That's not, and this is, I feel like this keeps getting repeated.
This is a debate, a conversation that keeps happening.
People go, well, the First Amendment.
It's like, well, there's the principle of the First Amendment, and you would hope that most workplaces, including professional sports, would respect that, right?
So you can say stuff.
So, perfect example.
I shouldn't be fired for standing up at my job and saying I would vote for Gary Johnson.
Let's just, just to have some thoughts say that.
That would be wrong, right?
I mean, sure, you know, he's a libertarian who had to sort of do a walkback on whether there should be a carbon tax, but I mean, whatever.
But you shouldn't be fired for this.
You should definitely, you know, the one that comes to mind, I'm sure, for most of you is you shouldn't be fired if you stand up and say that you want to vote for Donald Trump or something like that.
Some people might say, hey, keep the politics out of the office.
When I was a federal government employee, we had the Hatch Act, and you could always, which was, by the way, the Democrats, the people that always had the, you know, like the Howard Dean bumper stickers on their Prius in the Langley parking lot.
And there were plenty of those, by the way, plenty of Howard Dean bumper stickers among federal government employees that I knew.
You know, people that tend to be on the left are the ones that point out Hatch Act violations, right?
People that are, you know, making these kinds of distinctions and getting angry at you or whatever.
They are the ones that will say, oh, well, you just violated the Hatch Act, right?
You've been the one that violated the Hatch Act.
And that means that you can't bring politics in the workplace.
So there's like some distinctions here in the federal government.
Okay, you shouldn't be doing government business on partisan business on government time.
Fine, fine, fine.
NFL trying to have very positive relationship, very positive view with the military.
And that's something that they should be able to protect as part of protecting their brand.
And this is where things get difficult for them because you've got somebody who's doing something, which on the one hand, I know he's saying that he's respectful of people who serve.
I'm trying to say, where's the quote here?
I have great respect for the men and women that have fought for this country.
I have family.
I have friends that have gone and fought for this country.
And they fight for freedom.
They fight for the people.
They fight for liberty and justice for everyone.
That's not happening.
People are dying in vain because this country isn't holding up their end of the bargain.
I don't even really know what he's saying, and I know that it sort of touches on Black Lives Matter rhetoric and thoughts.
I know that this is something that is tied into that and hands up, don't shoot and everything else.
The fight for freedom overseas and violence involving police officers, in some cases justified, in some cases not, to tie these two things together in an absolute way such that you would not stand for the national anthem on military night.
That to me is just too much.
That's a bridge too far.
I feel like there could be some very clear sanction handed down from the NFL for this activity.
And that shouldn't surprise anybody.
But I wonder if they will.
I wonder if they're going to just sort of step back.
I think the answer is no, by the way.
I think they'll say, oh, well, you know, dissent is one of these things you'll hear people say, by the way, is, you know, dissent is patriotic.
Dissent is patriotic.
Not always.
The ability to dissent or to show dissent, yeah, it's covered under the First Amendment, and it's something that's special about this country.
But, yeah, I don't think that dissent in and of itself is.
It depends on what the dissent says or what the dissent is about.
Just dissenting doesn't make you patriotic.
That would be like saying speech is patriotic.
Well, I mean, can be.
If your speech is, I hate America and I hope that it fails.
I don't think that's particularly patriotic.
So that's not something that anybody should uphold.
So Kaeperdick may do this.
We'll see.
He's going to sit out on military night in San Diego.
He's going to make another spectacle of himself here and not stand up during the national anthem because of people being killed in the streets.
That's what he says.
Oh, my.
Oh, my.
We'll have to see where this goes.
I don't think the NFL is going to take Mr. Snerley, what do you NFL?
I'm not going to do anything, right?
No.
Nope, nothing.
Nothing here.
So all this stuff about supporting the troops and everything else, nope, they are not going to push forward with that.
All right.
800-282-2882.
Buck Xexton in for Rush.
I'll be right back.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush, 800-282-2882.
Let's take some calls.
Gary in South Carolina, what's up, Gary?
Hey, Shield.
Shield tie, Buck.
Shield tie, Gary.
Thanks for calling in.
Hey, I got a theory on this whole thing, and with the president, with Donald Trump meeting the president of Mexico, I just wanted to see what you thought about it.
I think, me personally, I think it was all a setup.
I mean, part of being a businessman is staying two steps ahead of the competition.
I think he had already made contact with the president of Mexico.
And knowing that Hillary would not go down there to be in a position to have to answer questions, he made a deal.
He made a deal with the president saying that, you know what, you make me look good and get my image up.
And then when the time comes, then we'll work together.
So you think that Trump that this was.
He set it up with the president of Mexico, and you think they both benefit from this.
Exactly.
I mean, maybe.
I mean, Pena Nieto is out there saying that Trump's policies are a threat.
But, I mean, that's sort of, look, for domestic political consumption at some level, right?
We can understand why the president of Mexico would say that.
Right.
And you don't know what they discuss behind closed doors neither.
Yeah, look, Trump says he's a deal maker.
I mean, I don't know if you take him at his word on that or not, but he certainly seems to suggest that he's the kind of guy who is going to be willing to sit down with his counterparts in a whole bunch of countries and at different levels and try and discuss ways to get it.
Look, he always talks about getting better trade deals.
Can he actually do it?
I'm going to be honest with you, I don't really know, but, you know.
Yeah, and you also remember during the primary, he even made the statement that said, I can be anybody I want to given the time of that person I need to be.
Yeah, he said that he would essentially make whatever concessions that he has to make at a given time in order to get done what he wants to get done.
So, Gary, I think that, look, the president of Mexico wouldn't have accepted the visit, wouldn't have gone along with the visit if he didn't believe at some level that it would look good for him, right?
And obviously, there are other people who are going to criticize the action and already have, but he must think he's getting something out of this whole process.
And so we'll see how it shakes out.
I mean, of course, there's also the whole aspect of does Trump even become the president?
We have to get past that as well for this really to have all that much meaning for the president of Mexico and for Trump personally.
I think this is going to, I will make a prediction.
And in this political season, the great part about predictions is that so many have been made and nothing ever really no one ever cares when people are wrong because so many people have been wrong at this point.
I think you'll see a bump in the polls for Trump in some important battleground states next week or whenever it is that they do their next set of real polling.
And I think you can tie it to Rocky to the immigration speech and what he did in Mexico.
That's what I think.
Could be wrong, though.
All right.
I think he made Hillary look like an idiot.
Okay.
All right.
All right, Gary.
Thanks for calling in.
We have Brian in Fairfax, Virginia.
What's up, Brian?
How are you, sir?
Good, sir.
How are you?
I think the meeting yesterday, both of them were very good.
They could have been great.
And I would like to see him make a pivot, to use that word, from being the deal maker, the art of the deal, to the art of the sales.
And all he had to do yesterday with the president of Mexico was say, all we want to do is what Mexico has done and just hold up a picture of the wall that they're building or have built with Guatemala.
And then in the sales or in the rallies that he held last night with the that talked about his immigration policy, all he had to do was talk about how Mexico puts a two-year felony on people who enter illegally to Mexico, 10 years for re-entry, as well as imprisonment for document fraud and a lot of other stuff.
So to come up with his debate with Hillary, all he needs to do when he's asked about it is pull a little tape recorder or digital recorder out of his pocket and play that 2003 audio of her talking about she's adamantly against immigrants and people have to stop hiring illegals.
And then just turn to Hillary and say, Hillary, do you allow uninvited guests into your house?
And do you then want to pay for their expenses for a month, a year, or 10 years?
Or would you rather actually vet the people that are coming into your house to know that you and your family are safe?
So Hillary, please answer that for me.
And if you started asking questions, knowing what the devastating impact of the content and to show absolute incompetence and expose that, I think he would then go into the land of art of the salesman and get away from the art of the deal.
Look, the fact that other countries, and this brings us back to the start of the show, are allowed to enforce their borders, are allowed to build fences and build walls, and no one says that it's, or at least we never hear about anyone saying that it's based in racism or anything else.
This is only a charge that somehow gets leveled against America, which already is a million people a year are made permanent residents or citizens every year in this country.
I mean, the number is huge.
The number of people we're taking in, that's legally is already huge.
Never mind the number of illegals that are coming in and that continue to live here.
And who knows what that number is?
I mean, anybody who thinks that the government has a real handle on that, I think, is sadly mistaken.
It's been $11 million for 10 years.
Does anybody really think, I mean, it hasn't moved up or down?
It's just been 11 million for the last decade.
I don't buy it.
But thank you very much for calling in, Brian.
I appreciate having a chance to chat with you.
I think we'll talk some Iran deal coming up here in just a minute.
That'll be interesting.
Buck sexed in for Rush.
Much more coming.
Stay with me.
Buck is back with you now on the EIB.
We are joined by my friend Rebecca Heinrich.
She is a fellow at the Hudson Institute and an expert on national security issues.
Rebecca, thank you for giving us a call.
I'm so happy to be here.
Thanks.
So tell me about this.
This is an exclusive from Reuters.
U.S. and others agreed to secret exemptions for Iran after the nuclear deal.
What is going on here?
This is pretty amazing.
You know, for the longest time now, Republicans continue to ask for any possible documents for the JCPOA.
That's what we call the Iran deal.
It's the official title.
Any secret documents that may be associated with it, any sort of side deals.
The administration continued to say there was none.
Everything's on the up and up.
You know everything.
And of course, now we're finding out that, no, in fact, there was a side deal where the Obama administration basically just allow Iran to not meet some of the requirements of the deal by implementation day.
And that was the day that was set.
That was the deadline before sanctions could be relaxed on the Iranians.
So they didn't meet their standards.
They didn't meet what they were supposed to do.
They didn't hold up their end to the deal, but the administration went ahead and said, okay, that's fine because otherwise we wouldn't have a deal.
So it's pretty amazing.
And the report, the Reuters report, is actually looking at a report by another think tank, and it's a very reputable think tank.
The author, one of the primary authors of the report, is a former U.N. weapons inspector, nonpartisan guy by the name of David Albright.
So it's pretty serious, pretty serious allegations.
And, you know, there's going to be a lot of people upset about this.
This is just another example of the administration lying to the American people in order to have this Iran deal.
I mean, how would you gauge the success or lack thereof of the deal at this point in time based on what we know?
I mean, you're already hearing some administration officials in year one claiming that this is essentially already a success.
What do you think a year into this thing?
Because it was, I mean, technically it was implemented in January, but it was really signed around, it was really 12 months ago last summer.
How would you assess the progress of the Iran deal so far and Iranian actions?
I think it's one of the Obama administration's signature failures.
The Iranians are cleaning our clock.
This deal isn't really, you know, it's not a treaty.
There's nothing set in stone.
There's nothing official, nothing ratified by the U.S. Senate.
All of this went around the U.S. Congress.
And it's sort of this rolling agreement.
We're still finding out some of the concessions that the administration continues to make so that the Iranians can actually hold up their supposed end of the deal, which they're not.
And, you know, it was supposed to be only related to the nuclear program.
We know we continue to hear it's only related to the nuclear program.
But then we also saw this $400 million ransom given to the Iranians in order to get the release of some of our prisoners.
And now, you know, all of this is sort of tied in with the Iran deal.
All of this is part of what the administration is trying to do to sort of reset relations with the Iranians.
And really, they have all of the leverage, and they just continue to run around the administration and make the Americans really look quite foolish.
I also want to ask you about the latest on Hillary's emails.
Now there are reports out.
These came out yesterday saying that she was emailing classified even after she wasn't Secretary of State.
What do we know about this?
You know, Hillary, a couple of things on this point.
I think we're going to continue to hear more and more about these emails and about how irresponsible she was with this private server and with classified emails.
But it also just shows just the depth of just the corruption and the dishonesty that she and her campaign possesses.
The FBI has uncovered another 15,000 emails.
30 of them are now supposedly related to the Benghazi attacks, even though Hillary claims to have turned over all of the work-related emails that she had over to the FBI.
And so this story just sort of continues to unravel.
She can't seem to tell the truth, and we're going to continue to see that, you know, she doesn't treat classified emails the way they ought to.
And normal, everyday people who handle classified information get fired for this stuff, for one-time offenses, for emailing an improper acronym over an unclassified line, et cetera, can make you lose your job or lose your clearance.
So, you know, I think the American people, the more they learn about this, the more they're just going to see that she's totally and utterly corrupt and isn't being held accountable.
And what do you say to people who point out that she has, it is true, she has more foreign policy experience than Donald Trump because Donald Trump has never worked in foreign policy.
But I assess her record as Secretary of State as actually being a major vulnerability, especially going into the debates.
What do you think?
No, it's a major vulnerability.
I mean, you look at her foreign policy record and you can see that she would be an absolutely terrible commander-in-chief.
She was Secretary of State during Russia reset.
She owns that policy.
It's been a failure.
She continues to support the Iran deal, even though, as we just discussed, it continues to be prove over and over and over again that it's terrible.
The more the American people learn about it, the less they like it.
She's been naive.
Her judgment's been bad.
It was her idea to intervene in Libya without a plan to do what to do next or to leave the place better than it was when we went in.
So she has a terrible record.
So the more she continues to point to this, the more I think Donald Trump is going to have plenty of opportunity to show that, yeah, she's had plenty of opportunity, and she's had terrible judgment and terrible results for it.
And we can't have more of the same.
And what do you think about the last 24 hours in terms of what it does for Trump's message, specifically from a sort of security, both on our streets and at the border perspective?
Yeah, you know, Donald Trump, he's going to have to continue to stay on message here and talk about the security issue.
Lot of Americans care a lot about security, and the border has a lot to do with it.
So he has to put forward, you know, a positive message about what he's going to do differently, and he has to continue to point to what Hillary Clinton has done and how she contrasts with him.
But really, she would be more of the same.
A lot of people try to cast Hillary Clinton as the sort of more moderate version of Barack Obama.
But on matters of domestic security, on matters of foreign policy, she's exactly the same, only worse because she hasn't been able to even point to the flaws of the Obama administration.
She isn't able to actually point to me and say, look, I would have done this differently.
She looked at it and she said, yes, we just need more of that.
So I think all of this works to his advantage if he can actually make the arguments in a clear and coherent way and can make it through the noise of the media.
Rebecca Heinrichs is a fellow at the Hudson Institute.
Rebecca, really appreciate you calling in today.
Thanks for your time.
Thanks so much, Buck.
Take a call, right?
We'll go to our break.
We'll go to our break.
I'm feeling saucy today.
Why don't we go to a break?
We'll be back at a few.
We'll take some calls.
We'll finish up strong.
This is Buck in for Rush.
I'll be right back.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush.
I just see this now, and this adds to everything else I was saying before.
Do you see this, Snarl?
That Colin Caprick has been wearing socks with pigs with police hats on them?
This is from CBS Sports.
Yeah.
Yeah.
CBSSports.com.
Not good.
Not good.
Unacceptable on many levels.
Legal, but unacceptable.
So, yeah, this is beyond.
This is not somebody who wants to have a, well, I mean, this has been clear from the beginning.
He doesn't want to have an adult or serious conversation about any issues facing America.
He just wants to be inflammatory and act like a punk.
All right.
Robert in Georgia.
You are on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
You're speaking to Buck.
Hey, Buck.
How are you doing?
Good.
How are you?
Doing just great, man.
I was listening to you earlier and heard all the nonsense about Cap not standing up for military night.
And it infuriated me so much.
I'm an eight-year veteran of the United States Marine Corps and spent two tours overseas.
And it infuriated me so much that I actually called the National Football League myself and spoke to one of their representatives and asked them, you know, what's going to be the repercussions if Cap doesn't stand up for the national anthem on Military Night down there in San Diego.
And they basically said that they cannot be quoted, but he would probably be fined.
You think they will fine him for that?
I'm hoping they do.
If not, I may have to start watching synchronized swimming on Sundays because that's just going to be really upsetting and just a downfall for the NFL if nothing happens.
I mean, the man's entitled to his point of view, but the NFL represents more than just one man.
Look, I have to tell you, I'm surprised.
The NFL has a lot riding on this from an image perspective.
And as I said, they've really made a very clear effort and have done a good job, I think, of showing respect for the military and having that be a part of what the NFL is supposed to represent and what the brand is all about.
They've done a very good job of that.
And so to allow a player to do this kind of thing and have it pass without any sanction whatsoever, I think that that would be, I think it would be foolish, but I think they're also worried about possible backlash.
So we'll see.
But I mean, you know, you serve, Robert, and clearly you find it very offensive.
Absolutely.
All right.
Robert, I appreciate you calling, and thank you very much.
Thanks for sharing your opinion here on the EIB.
Let's take Fred in Colorado.
Fred, you're on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
You're speaking to Buck.
Buck, it's an honor to speak with you.
I've always appreciated and admired your remarks on all the programs you've been on.
So thank you for all of your service.
Thank you, sir.
Appreciate that.
You bet.
Hey, you know, I guess what I want to say about all this Black Lives Matter is one area that's being addressed.
And there's many other sectors of our society that are being singled out with very precise and exact intent to further divide and separate this country.
But it's always been my experience that when I get offended or I'm around a group of people that doesn't want me around them or all of a sudden they make nice to me and try and make up to me, I have to take a look at this gesture that Brown University is making.
And after almost 200 years, they're going to make some financial concessions to allow a few people to have either a reduced tuition.
I didn't really get the whole grasp of what you were saying about that.
And I guess where I'm going with this is that when I get offended, I have principles and values that I live by in my life.
And I have to ask myself, why would these people even want to be associated with an institution that in their minds, apparently what I'm hearing, that they have been racist and they have been prejudiced for almost 200 years, and all of a sudden they're going to make nice and make everything good?
Why would I want to associate with a group of people that has such poor values and principles at this time because they're going to cut me some slack on my tuition?
Well, I think you're making an interesting point as well about if these institutions that benefited from the slave trade, if that sort of still runs in the veins of these institutions in such a profound way that there has to be some form of compensation made for that.
And if it's something we have to take action on today, right?
In the case of Georgetown, something that happened in the 1830s, they're going to take action on it today.
Why would anyone want to be a part of such a system or such a university, right?
If it's so polluted by the money that it got from the slave trade, you would think that there is at least an argument to be made that you wouldn't want to be associated with such a place.
But of course, when you're talking about institutions like Yale and Georgetown and others, plenty of people want to be associated with them.
I mean, the admissions rates at these places are, in some cases, in the single digits or in the low single digits.
So a lot of people want to go.
Very few people actually get to go.
And I just wonder, you know, why does anyone think that this really does this grapple with any of the wrongs of the past in a meaningful way, or is it just for show?
Is it just virtue signaling, people getting a chance to say, look at how great and how awesome I am?
And I think we all know it falls into, well, at least my opinion is that it falls into the latter category.
But I appreciate you calling in, sir.
Thank you very much.
Ron in Florida, what's up?
You're speaking to Buck.
Hi, Buck, 28-year retired Air Force Dittos.
Save the word, Argentina.
Ditto, sir.
Thank you for your service.
Thank you.
On immigration, I was trained as a planner in the military to look for root causes in certain things.
And it is my understanding that these shadows we talk about for immigration are legal shadows created partly by Jamie Gorelik and the Clinton administration that prohibit the INS from cross-referencing databases such as DMV, tax records, medical records, a school board registration, even library records to find the people that we should cross-reference and see if they have legal status to be here.
I think we could easily point out that this is a self-imposed legal restriction.
We could easily advocate stripping away these shadows and run a cross-check and find a lot more data that we, the people, need to consider when we vote this fall.
Well, so you're saying that there are ways to really know how many legals are here and who is illegal.
Absolutely.
If they were allowed in INS to cross-reference via computer, these people have legal status either through birth, through green card, et cetera, prior to the Obama administration.
And where are they in actual fact, address, phone number, et cetera, and all these other databases, they should pop up and say either legal, including green cards, or not?
Well, clearly, I mean, the administration, I mean, I don't think the federal government wants to know.
First of all, they don't want to know who's illegal, and they don't want to know how many legals are here because both of those would part of what they rely on right now, part of what the Democrats rely on, is a sense that, I mean, come on, who's really going to how can we even deal with this problem when we don't know who's illegal?
We should just make an amnesty and then everybody will come out of the shadows.
If we knew who was in the shadows, that might change, and how many people were in the shadows.
That might change the way that this is dealt with, and I think the American people would have a different view of the situation.
Precisely.
And it frustrates me to no end that Mr. Trump didn't start with facts and figures, particularly in, for example, crime rates.
Crimes committed by immigrants, both illegal and legal, were the basis for some of the policies I believe he's advocated.
It's not racism, obviously.
It's not xenophobia.
There needs to be a fact-based discussion and say this is the business case for why we're advocating certain policies.
And one of those is the research.
How is the problem?
How big?
Where is it?
Where is it concentrated?
And who's benefiting from their presence?
All right, Ron, I got to bust, but I got to bust out.
But thank you for calling in.
This is Buck in for Rush.
We'll be right back.
Well, this is Buck Sexton closing it out today on the EIB.
I want to thank Rush's team here in NYC and El Rush Bo himself.
He was forced to take these two days off to get a little RR, but he'll be back very soon.
I always appreciate getting to take a ride around in the EIB Maserati or Ferrari, as I like to call it.
Uncle Rush throws me the keys for the day, and I enjoy it very much.
Thank you all for listening.
Looking forward to the next time.
▲
Export Selection