All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 30, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:23
December 30, 2016, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Buck Sexton here in Forrush today on the EIB.
Thank you so much for joining.
If you stay with me, I appreciate very much you giving me some of your time today as we all make our preparation for New Year's Eve.
I rock out hard on New Year's Eve.
Um I avoid large groups of people and too much noise.
That's how I do it.
Oh yeah.
Buck knows how to party.
Ain't no party like a Buck New Year's Eve party because a Buck News Eve party is like two people max.
All right.
Um I I wanted to finish up with what I was saying before about the the different ways that media is already trying to convince people that Trump well, the agenda the agenda is unpopular, right?
People don't you don't want it.
That's part one, right?
What Trump wants to give you what the Republicans, more than just even Trump.
What the Republicans want to give you, you don't want, or Americans don't want, because the people that write for places like the Huff Post and Sli uh Slate, they know America.
I mean, if by America, they mean like a few cool areas of New York, Chicago, LA, I don't know, a few other large cities.
You know, the Bay Area.
Um, but yeah, sure, they know America.
Uh they say that the American people don't want it, and then they also say it can't be done.
As I said before, yes, we can has turned into oh my gosh, no.
Just can't do that.
It's impossible.
Uh and that's isn't it?
I think it's Homer Simpson who once said I can't do something about unpossible, right?
I think that's a Homer Simpson quote.
I could be wrong though.
I don't watch enough Simpsons.
Um they say it can't be done, and the latest in the sort of arsenal of the media in the oh no, we can't do this, is that the Trump deportation plan, this on politico.com today, could be impossible.
People who've been on the front lines, this is a subheading from this piece.
People who have been on the front lines of immigration enforcement say it will take too much money and too much time.
Now, let's just put this into the proper context for a minute, shall we?
Trump is first and foremost talking about deporting illegal alien criminals.
Now, of course, this is a sort of compli there there's no way to speak about this without uh sort of duplicating what's already been said, because an illegal alien's already committing a criminal act by being in the U.S. But I mean those who are criminals in addition to the illegality of their status.
So drug dealers, gang members, rapists, murderers, bad people.
Not people that just want to do the jobs Americans won't do, or people that have a different uh, you know, they're trying to want the American dream.
Maybe they're going about it in a way that's not how we would like it to be and not legal, but you know, there's sympathy for that.
They're the dreamers.
Yeah, people get into all that.
That's a separate discussion from the front line of the immigration debate right now, which has to do with deporting two to three million, as Trump says, two to three million gang members, drug dealers, and other criminals.
Now, I have seen some very uh self-satisfied smug liberals out there writing about how it's not two to three million criminals.
It's more like a little over a million.
Oh, okay.
Well, in that case, I guess there's nothing to be concerned about.
Uh one would think that deporting people from this country who are one, not supposed to be here and two, are actually actively hurting people and breaking the law in this country.
One might think that there could be a bipartisan I know, I isn't it crazy to even say the words.
Oh, fuck, you're being so naive.
A bipartisan consensus on the need to send these people packing.
Right?
You know, well, the the other illegals, the other millions, let's say it's ten million or eleven, but whatever it is.
That's an issue that once the border is secured, Trump has said we'll sort of see, we'll work through it, but it's gonna be different, it's gonna be better, we're gonna enforce the law, right?
I mean, this is uh only on immigration, I shouldn't say only in immigration, but on immigration, you see the liberals always trying to turn on a vastly complicated issue with tremendous moving parts, an enormous multi-multi-billion dollar bureaucracy, tens of thousands of people, probably hundreds of thousands of people when you add them all up in enforcement of the law and different aspects of immigration, immigration courts, immigration judges.
We have this vast apparatus.
And you're just supposed to be for comprehensive immigration reform, and if you're not, you hate people who aren't Americans.
Yeah, or you're racist, really.
Just say yes to comprehensive immigration reform or else you're racist.
Wait, there's all these different facets, and there's there's e-verify, there's employment uh uh or employer enforcement provisions, there's visa provisions that we could use against countries that won't take back illegal alien criminals, gang members.
Uh we force these countries to take them back, or else no more visas.
You know, this sort of carrots and sticks approach.
I mean, there's a lot of stuff to talk about here, but they just want to boil it down to well, let's just do amnesty and then let the chips fall where they may.
Let's do amnesty and sort of see what happens.
Amnesty first, then we'll figure the rest out.
That's the left version.
The conservative, the Republican version should be.
I can't speak for all of them, and I know the gang of aid, and okay, there's a lot of.
Okay, we got baggage on the right here, too, let's be clear.
I mean, we got all kinds of problems.
Uh but the sensible or reasonable conservative approach would be okay, we're gonna we're gonna look at all the different problems and fix each and every one of these problems.
Right?
We're gonna have a secure border.
We're going to uh sanction employers who hire illegals.
We're gonna we're going to do these things that by the way, until very recently the Democratic Party was on board for, at least when it comes to paying lip service to them, the Democratic Party was on board for these things as well.
But now it's become Republicans only.
I mean, if you listen to Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton and the Democratic primary, remember that sort of fake contest?
I mean, it was sort of the the WWE of primaries in the sense that we all knew who was going to win because the DNC was going to make sure that a certain Mrs. Clinton won, but I digress.
Uh no offense, WWE, by the way, I'm just saying.
My my understanding is like whoever the very famous wrestler is, he tends to beat the guy who comes in that no one's ever heard of.
Okay.
So they used to be on board for all the stuff, and you saw Hillary and Bernie in the primary, and they were more or less advocating for open borders.
Because if we can't all agree, and now I'm bringing this full circle, what's up?
If we can't all agree on deporting people who are gang members, who are rapists, who are murderers, and who aren't U.S. citizens that are in the country illegally.
What can we agree on when it comes to immigration?
Right?
So let's sort of start there.
But already you're seeing they don't want to fight on the grounds of right and wrong in that debate.
They want to fight on logistics on what's possible.
They want to have this argument over immigration, not on the merits of deporting gang members, rapists, murderers who are not supposed to be in the country in the first place.
And as we saw with the tragic shooting of Kate Steinley, some of the illegal alien criminals in this country have been deported multiple times, come back, deported, come back, deported, come back.
But we're told the border is secure and everything's cool and Obama's actually been deporting a lot of people.
I mean, it's just we're all sick of being lied to, but we're also sick of the kind of hocus pocus, look at this hand, not the other hand.
We want to take this issue by issue, right?
There's no way, there's no magic wand to make the immigration issues this country faces disappeared.
There's no magic wand to wave over this, there's no civil silver bullet, there's no panacea.
I've run out of different ways of saying the same thing.
You get what I'm putting out there, but they want to say it's about logistics now.
Politico telling us all that the cost, there's a cost quote and hassle of sending detainees through the overburdened immigration courts, which already faces a backlog of more than 526,000 cases.
Because of this bottleneck, DHS detention facilities are overflowing with 10,000 more detainees than the number of beds provided for in this year's proposed budget.
The Justice Department's executive office for immigration review received 420 million in fiscal year 2016 and currently employs 295 immigration judges.
Uh okay, why not put more resources into places where there's a ball neck?
Uh why not enforce the law as written on some of these cases, which means that actually people are going to be deported.
They're saying, well, there's not the resources to do it.
Okay, well then you increase the resources.
It's really just though that they don't have the political will and they want to make it a resource issue.
Again, yes, we can has turned into oh no, we we most certainly can't.
I disagree.
I think that if you were to look at this and you look at the various aspects of immigration honestly, you would see that there are fixes here, but they're just fixes the Democrats hate.
They're fixes that go contrary to really one of the central tenets of the entire Democratic Party.
Really its core right now is is identity politics.
And a major part of or a major sort of piece of its identity politics puzzle is that immigration should be as close to open borders as possible, and anybody who doesn't go along with that is some kind of horrible vile racist, some some you know crypto KKK member or something.
Anyone who wants stable and secure borders is a bad person.
And even in the case of criminals, as you will see here, even we're talking about, and that's what they're mentioning specifically in this piece.
It will take years and cost billions.
I don't know.
That sounds like uh a bridge that never gets built.
I mean, you know, we look at what the government does in different places.
Okay, it's gonna take a little time, fine.
You know what else has taken?
Some years, Obamacare.
You don't see them saying, Oh, it's gonna take years and billions.
Maybe it's worth spending a few years and billions of extra dollars getting a handle on our immigration problem.
Maybe it's worth eliminating the various loopholes and excesses and all of the problems that the current immigration system has built into it.
And also, of course, at some point you'd like to think that Congress will be held accountable for the laws that it passes.
And instead of saying we pass a law that says this, but oh no, we're gonna leave it to the executive branch to not actually enforce the law because certain constituencies find it unpalatable.
Well, if the law is bad, don't pass the law.
And if it's really bad, repeal the law.
But currently the law says that if you're an illegal alien and you're a criminal, one, you should get deported, and two, if you try to come back, there are stiff penalties for re-entry, illegal reentry when you try to come back.
And oh, by the way, countries that won't take back illegal alien criminals should have all future visas revoked until they agree to do so.
We are not housing gang members from all over the world here because America is some kind of uh forced soup kitchen where the people that actually run the place don't get a say, right?
Or the people that I should say provide the soup, you, me, the taxpayers.
That's not the way this is supposed to be.
But yeah, they're telling us that it's it's impossible.
What they really want here, important to underscore this as well.
What they want more than anything else is to get Trump, and they're going to cajole, they're going to beg, they're going to plead, they're going to threaten, they're going to do everything they can.
Democrats, media, Hollywood, you name it.
All the people who annoy you, they're going to do everything they can to try to get Trump to betray a core promise of his campaign.
Because once they have that, they can create a civil war within the GOP.
They can just deepen the fractures that have already existed, but they can make them much worse.
They can turn the GOP in on itself, and this is, I think in their minds, their best means of attaining power once again.
This is how they pull it off.
This is how they do it.
They just want if they can get Trump to sell out on immigration and say, you know what, let's go back to sort of gang of aid style bill with legalization first, and then they know it.
All the other dominoes start to fall.
Why vote Republican?
Why vote Trump?
Why vote Republican?
Why even pretend to care?
At that point it is all a joke.
At that point, Russia hacking our election, whatever.
Big whoop.
No one's really going to pay much attention to it anymore.
If you can't trust a core promise of the presidency that you voted for, or even that perhaps you now are willing to just give a chance to, what can you trust when it comes to these politicians?
And they know that.
They just need Trump to sell out once.
Will he?
I don't think he will on this one.
Because why?
They already hate him.
They're already trying to take him down.
We'll have to see.
800-282-2882.
Buck Sexton in for Rush.
Back in just a few.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush Limbaugh today.
Thank you so much for joining on the EIB.
Always a great honor and pleasure to be in for El Rushbow himself.
800 282-2882.
I know I said that super fast, but we've already got a bunch of calls, so I'll just move on to the calls.
Hey, how are you?
Good, sir.
How are you?
I'm good.
I just wanted to say that I think this topic of border security hasn't been getting much talk.
I've heard uh Paul Ryan and them talk about the first things they need to do is fix Obamacare and the tax code.
But in my opinion, if uh Trump doesn't secure the border, he won't have uh a second term because I think that's the big reason people were people voted for him and rallied around him.
Oh, yeah, no, if he sells out on the border security and and immigration, I I think even I dare say even some of the most hardcore Trump believers out there would have a real moment of pause and and might might throw their hands up in despair.
I I think that I think he can't he can't do it.
Um it's it's too central to his whole message and and to his campaign.
So but that's also because of that, that's where you're gonna see the Democrats pushing the hardest to get him to bail.
They j or or I should say, even to to sort of um you know massage his position, to add a little nuance to it, to do a little uh a little sort of road trip off into the countryside, away from his central message.
Whatever it is, they're gonna want him to uh to sell out and and essentially to be caught in a lie on that one.
And if they do that, I think they figure they can take down the rest of his presidency because it will destroy the support he currently has uh from within the Republican Party and and even beyond, even outside the party.
I mean, you look at people, you look at the uh exit polling results and what happened in the key states, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, people who pre- or I should say uh counties, precincts that have previously gone for Obama went for Trump.
Well, you gotta assume that there are some Democrats who decided they were gonna vote for Trump, right?
And immigration and jobs is the you know, I I think those are the that's the the most important, those are two most important areas for him going for uh going forward into his presidency.
That's right.
And if Paul Ryan is true to what he said in his 60 minutes interview, how Trump had the pulse of the nation and he knew what was needed politically, and he gave them all coattails, then he'll he'll make sure that something gets done on border security.
All right.
Uh thank you very much, Joey, from calling in from Oklahoma.
Good to talk to you.
Let's get Mike.
I'm sorry, Marty in Arizona.
Marty, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program.
You are speaking to Buck.
Hey, how's it going?
Good, sir.
It's always a great day here on the EIB.
I am for the wall, actually.
I'm an Hispanic American, so and I think if for some type of uh reformation as well, but how do we get Mexico to pack these stuff up to the plate and kind of help with uh influx of those that are coming north to our border?
And then when we actually say we're gonna put the wall up, which I'm all for, because y'all have us in Hilton Yen.
Um it's just it's really the message about keeping out those the unf the unfavories uh from coming across and making it uh not a nice place for us.
So what are your thoughts on that?
I I I'm thinking that Trump's gonna be able to fall through with it, honestly, because it it really is important, and it'll kind of show it'll show uh uh those here across on the border that um we need to take care of our own, and Mexico has to take care of their own.
So I'm just I'm really for it, basically.
Well, I I think in in some places it's going to be a wall, and some places it'll be uh a double fence, and some places as long as it's a barrier that prevents uh the the crossing of people uh through illegal means, right?
I mean, that's and and do I think you'll be able to look.
We already have built the wall in some places along the border, and uh I think it's interesting that always on this issue the perfect is used as the enemy of the good, right?
That that if you can't complete a wall along every single square inch of the southern border, well then the whole thing is a joke.
Well then why do we have walls in some places in the first place?
And and why, by the way, when you look around the world, are more and more countries, particularly on international boundaries, uh building walls, uh Building walls themselves.
They do seem to be effective.
I mean, talk to somebody who lived in East Berlin or talk to somebody who lives now or has spent time in the West Bank and Israel and talk to people who have been around walls.
They work.
Walls do work.
This notion that walls don't work is one of the sort of bizarre myths used by the Democrat to sort of make this issue go away.
But I also want to speak quickly about the visa overstays in a second.
I'll hit that.
But thank you for calling in.
We'll talk about this and more.
Buck Sexton in for Rush.
Much more coming.
Stay with me.
Buck InfoRush on the EIB.
More on me at the Blaze.com/slash Buck Dash Sexton.
You can download my podcast there.
Please do.
Let's take some calls, because it's open line Friday.
We have Mike in Iowa.
What's up, Mike?
Mike.
Do we not have Mike?
I I guess we don't have Mike.
Perhaps we will take Jerry in South Carolina.
What's up, Jerry?
There.
Thanks for taking my call.
Thank you, sir.
I want to comment on uh what that why I don't think the Russians did any of the hacking on those emails.
Uh because I was in the military back in the early 80s when the USSR was still in existence.
Thank you for the service, sir.
Had to learn about the different uh techniques on how the KGB would try to compromise people.
So I think that if the Russians had done the hacking, they wouldn't have released the emails.
They would have kept them under wraps.
And then if Hillary had been elected at some conference, they would have sent an envelope over to her with a very incriminating email saying if you don't want these released, then you need to do what we want you to do in our interest.
In other words, they would have used it for blackmail purposes.
Right.
So you're saying instead of instead of uh disinformacia, they would have used it as uh compromisat.
So so instead of disinformation, it's compromise uh compromising information on people, right?
Um look uh the the the I can't this is where this becomes an issue.
Um you'll have to explain to me then why I mean uh look I was a former CIA analyst, you know, doing my thing, writing writing reports, making some coffee.
Uh why would the intelligence community come out and and pretty it's widespread now, right?
I mean, there it's a lot of different agencies have they all agree that Russia did something, so why would they all get it so wrong?
I mean, there's there's politics at work in these agencies, but I I don't think I don't think you get them all to I mean look the FBI initially disagreed on the motivation behind the hacking, so there's clearly some level of of disagreement there.
But you know what I'm saying?
Why would the Intel community, why would the IC lie to us about that?
That's where I don't because they're they're not saying they think.
They're saying they're sure Russians hack these emails.
They don't say I think, they say they're sure.
They're not going to provide us.
People say, oh, Buck, show me information.
Because of the way sources and methods work, yeah, they're not going to show you.
They're just going to tell you what they think, and they have.
And the the ODNI, the Office of Director of National Intelligence released uh a report on this back in October, I think it was, where they said that this is Russia.
So I mean, I'd I'd have to ask you, uh, Mike, respectfully, why would the IC lie?
You also have the founder of WikiLeaks and a good friend of the founder, uh, a British ambassador who actually said he came over here to America and made contact with the individual who had the emails and gave it to the WikiLeaks.
And I think uh it's probably like a lot of uh bureaucrats who are but you do you think it's more likely that that the intelligence community would would lie?
I mean, wouldn't there be leaks from within the intelligence community if there are people that were a part of this that thought this was all a big conspiracy?
I mean, conspiracies are hard to keep secret.
That's one of the problems that conspiracy theorists run into a lot of the time.
Um so what I mean, and you you're gonna take Julian Assange who wants what is it, Russian protection when he's at the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK.
I mean, you're gonna take his word over the word of our intelligence community.
I mean, I gotta tell you, I have a lot of friends still uh who are patriots, and yes, even some conservatives uh who work inside these Intel agencies who work inside places that have access to this investigation, and I I don't think they would sit by quietly if they thought this was some big ruse uh on the American people.
I really I really don't.
But uh, some of you probably think that's that's naive, but I mean I also used to be inside, and I can tell you if I knew as a CIA analyst that the agency was lying to the American people about Russian interference, I I'd speak to some journalist friends and say that this is going on.
Anyway, uh but I I I take your point.
I thank you for your service, and I thank you for calling in Mike.
Uh let's take um oh, I'm sorry, that was Jerry in South Carolina.
Pardon me, Jerry.
Pardon me.
Uh we have Mike still on the line here.
Does Mike's phone work?
Do we have Mike?
Mike?
Oh, we don't have you.
Okay, sorry.
Let's do then Matt in Utah.
Matt, you're in the Rush Limbaugh program.
You're speaking of Buck.
Thanks, Buck.
How are you doing?
Uh, I'm great, sir.
Fine and dandy.
How are you?
Uh a little sick, but I wanted to call in with an idea.
What if uh we wanted to throw a Trump uh swearing in party on January 9th?
Do you think we could find a liberal bakery to bake a Trump cake for it?
Oh, I see what you're saying.
This is kind of like when the left uh when people go and find the one evangelical baker in town and want him to sort of bake a cake for a gay wedding, then we we can do the sort of Trump uh the right wing equivalent and force people to bake cake for Trump's.
Uh a couple things on this.
First of all, because I've I've been looking at some of the numbers and also a lot of the analysis on uh hate hate crimes and and particularly hoax hate crimes, which are I should say almost entirely a sort of disease of the left, right?
Hoax hate crimes.
And what's interesting is when I've pointed this out, I've seen people on the left say, oh yeah, well, look at this one Trump supporter somewhere who says someone defaced their Trump sign.
And it's interesting to me, so so I guess now they're conceding that anti-Trump hatred is also or you know, anti-uh Trump supporter hatred is a hate crime and therefore should be sort of a protected uh category.
Wouldn't that then also expand to conservatives on campus, to Republicans, etc., etc.
And I think the answer to that, by the way, is no, but they just need on the fly some means of pretending that hoax hate crimes aren't just something that happens on the left.
They happen to both sides.
And we know in fact that that is uh not the case.
Or I should say it is almost entirely, not entirely, almost entirely, an issue uh of the Democratic Party of the left and of progressives.
Um I I don't think anyone's gonna make any cakes for for Trump.
And uh and I think the whole uh issue of getting performers to go, and it wasn't like one of the raquettes um said that she didn't want to she didn't want to dance or something for Trump.
I mean, you're gonna see a lot of this, yeah, right.
Um this is now a means of burnishing your credentials and enhancing your career in media, in the arts, in entertainment.
Anti-Trump hatred is a sort of new currency.
You saw this with a review of a Trump restaurant recently, I think it was in Vanity Fair, a ma you know, a very sort of hoity twity magazine.
I read it sometimes, whatever.
Uh, you know, has some occasionally a good article.
But it wrote a review of a Trump restaurant, and it was the most scathing review of a restaurant you could.
I mean, it it was like they were serving people uh, you know, r rotten fish and and and calling it a souffle.
I mean, it was as nasty as it could possibly be.
The point behind writing that anti-Trump article was for that writer and more to the point that publication, Vanity Fair, to show we hate Trump.
And you know what happened that week, by the way?
They saw a huge surge in subscriptions.
So by writing an anti-Trump restaurant, literally a restaurant that's part of the Trump conglomerate, uh, review you uh it's career enhancing.
And the opposite's obviously true as well.
Um, but we don't want to play the game the way they play it, Matt.
We don't want to force people to do things.
Uh we actually believe in liberty.
We don't just sort of the way the Democrats have rediscovered the Constitution and the restraints on executive power now that they're not gonna have Obama in office anymore.
Like, oh, the Constitution says it's like, oh, you read the Constitution now, isn't that interesting?
Uh we don't you we can't use all the tactics of the other side without abandoning some of our own principles.
So no, I don't want to make anybody to to make a cake for Trump.
But I think they would argue, and this is sort of the answer to your question after my long ramble here.
Uh I think they would argue That uh Trump is not a protected uh category, right?
That you can't force people to engage in that protected speech.
And I know that people would say, well, what about the Christian Baker and evangelicals?
And but that's where we get into the argument about what's coming with gay rights and with churches and with those who are people of faith.
That fight is going to continue on, and I don't have too much time to hit that right now.
But Matt, thank you for calling in.
We do, I hear have Mike.
I've said his name several times, so I figure why not take him.
Mike and Iowa, what's up?
Hi.
Uh, I was wondering when Trump uh keeps that wall built, how will he uh enforce that?
Will we have to hire more uh border patrol agents or again?
You'd have to uh screen processes.
What's your you know it depends?
I think there's a lot of changes.
Actually, I've spoken to uh members of border control and and know some who have been down on the border for many years, and when when you ask when you talk to them about this, one of the things they say is first of all, they're not really allowed to do their jobs, and they know they're not gonna get backed up in doing their jobs if anything goes wrong,
which any law enforcement officer uh will tell you is uh is a huge uh cloud to operate under, dark cloud to operate under when you're not sure that you know you'll be sort of if you're if you're operating in good faith within your responsibilities and within your duties,
that the powers that be aren't gonna at least you know have your back and maybe even give you the benefit of the doubt, which is a whole other issue we could talk about, by the way, under the in recent years that law enforcement police have been dealing with, but at the border, it's sort of a similar issue happening, and the way that the administration plays the game is they say things like, Well, if you're caught now, you're you know, and you are eventually deported.
Even if you're turned away at the border, I should say, that's considered a deportation.
Um so they're changing the verbiage.
How do we need more on the border?
Yeah, I think we probably do need more on the border.
I think we need to also be very clear about what their authorities are, and they need to feel like the uh the the powers that be in DC have their back as long as they're operating in good faith and and doing what they're supposed to be doing, and and they're operating according to protocol.
But they can't they can't place real faith in the protection of operating within the protocols right now under this administration.
They know that.
And quite honestly, they couldn't really under the Bush administration either.
That's a whole separate conversation we could have.
Uh but Bush was not good on the border in a lot of ways.
So uh there were there were problems there too.
This has been a bipartisan issue, a bipartisan failure for for quite some time.
Um but uh we shall see.
I mean, logistically, it's never gonna be perfect, by the way.
But i if we're if we're striving for perfection in any government program, we're gonna be very disappointed.
Right.
I mean, name me a government program, and I'll tell you how it fails.
Uh, name me a government program.
We'll talk about waste fraud abuse or you know, the inability to even achieve core mission, depending on what we're talking about.
So enforcing the wall.
Oh, and this this is a perfect transition also into visa overstays.
I think the numbers for the last maybe it was twenty fifteen, because we don't have complete numbers for 2016 yet.
But I think the numbers for 2015 were that there were a half a million visa overstays still in the country.
So that's another aspect of this too.
Maybe you can come into the country initially legally, but then you just stay.
Well, you've got to assume that a lot of that half a million are intending on not just it's not like they're on vacation, they want a few more days down here, you know, on the beaches in Florida, which lovely as they are, I don't think people would want to risk never not being able to come back to the U.S. for I don't know if it's five years or ten years, but you don't want a visa overstay unless your plan is to just stay for good.
Visa overstays are a huge component of the illegal alien uh issue going forward because all you need is a flight and a visa to get here and you can stay.
Right?
It's not like uh three three weeks aboard steamship or something or however long it used to take.
Um and it's a lot easier to get here now.
So visa overstays and workplace enforcement, you have to turn off the magnet too.
If you're not willing to do that, well, um that's a problem.
Oh, I've really not gone very long here.
Thank you for calling in, Mike.
Uh Buck Sexton in for Rush.
We'll be right back.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush, all kinds of changes coming in 2017, and a lot of them are of the legal and regulatory uh kind.
Obama unleashes this is from the Washington Examiner, uh 3,853 regulations, 18 for every law, and a record 97,110 pages of red tape.
So as his lame duck administration is on the way out, they're pouring on the regulations as fast as they can.
These will be undone uh hopefully.
I shouldn't say that.
Hopefully they'll be undone by the Trump administration, but it just creates uh more headaches, more red tape, more difficulties, uh, more time wasted.
But you know, progressives never let any individuals day, any individual's time or property get in the way of a great idea that's been disproven a thousand times in history, but nonetheless.
Um there's some interesting state laws that will be taking effect too coming up here.
Um when the calendar switches from 2016 to 2017.
Uh, for example, uh hat tip the hill for this one.
Illinois is going to be adding catfish to this l to the species that can be taken with a bow, an arrow, a spear gun or pitchfork.
And I must admit that I did not know pitchfork fishing was a thing.
It is, apparently.
It's all on the wrist, pitchfork fishing.
Probably actually it's more like in the shoulders and the back.
But anyway, whatever.
Let's say it's all on the wrist.
Uh, but more politically charged.
There's a lot of interesting stuff that's getting changed.
There'll be some weed regulations here and there.
So I think weed is going to be kind of decriminalized in some places, right?
Uh yeah, revelers on the Las Vegas Strip will be able to legally possess marijuana for recreational uses.
Well, you know, it is Vegas.
So uh and then, and this is one that's going to get some attention, I bet in the new year.
California state employees will not be reimbursed for out-of-state travel to places that allow discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, or sexual identity or sorry, gender identity.
Uh that's in response to places like North Carolina and other states passing measures that force transgender people to use the bathroom of their birth.
So now California state employees, if they are traveling to a state that has that law in place, they will no longer get money.
So that's uh an interesting means of asserting the state's uh politics there, I suppose.
Uh, there's some other things too here.
Um there's some other ones that come into use.
Oh, this is a great one.
Sorry, this is what I was looking for.
Michigan.
The state of Michigan is banning the banning of plastic bags.
Yeah, you read that right.
Now when they tell you that you know you can't have a plastic bag in the grocery store anymore, you'd be like, I'm sorry, I'm in Michigan.
And you know what the law says?
You can't ban my bag that is made of plastic.
It's a ban on bans.
I love it.
We need more of this, right?
We need more of this.
Need to take a chainsaw out of those regulations.
It's gonna be fun in 2017.
Trump administration should just be using a hacksaw and all that stuff.
All right.
Pucks exit in for rush.
Close in and out in a minute here.
We'll be right back.
Yes, this is Buck Second In for Rush Limbaugh today on the EIB.
This is the last dispatch from the EIB you'll have before 2017, I think, right?
Isn't tomorrow's Saturday?
Yeah, so this is the last one.
It's the last Raw on EIB of 2016.
Quite a year, depending on your perspective on things.
For some people are saying it was a tough one.
They did not enjoy.
I was going to offer some advice to sort of bring us all together on New Year's Eve.
You know, maybe just find a liberal to hug and hold close and tell them it's going to be all it's going to be okay.
It's all the country's actually not going to turn into some dystopia.
Things might even get a bit better.
You might actually like what America's like in 2017.
But I realize as I say that that they would probably shove you and you'd be accused of mansplaining and being a part of the manarchy and all other words they make up for this stuff.
So just hang out with some cool conservatives on New Year's Eve or some loved family members and friends.
Do that instead.
Um, Bucks Excellence for Rush.
Just want to say happy new year to all of you.
▲
Export Selection