Rush Limbaugh Program - January 3, 2017, Tuesday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 3, 2017 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:23

January 3, 2017, Tuesday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Bucks Exton InfoRush today on the EIB.
	Thank you so much for joining.
	Thank you for tuning in.
	Couple of updates.
	Confirm Megan Kelly leaving Fox News for NBC News.
	What do you think about that?
	I can tell you Megan was the first prime time host to actually have me on as a guest at Fox.
	She's moving over to NBC now.
	Also, I'm going to need someone to explain to me how this can be.
	Now, we're sort of returning to a story from the last hour for a second, then I'm going to move on to Trump saving some jobs.
	Or at least that's what we're being told today.
	Tomorrow it'll be he's destroying America by saving jobs.
	I don't know.
	There'll be some other way they report this.
	But first, let's start for a second with the New York Times number one news story on New York Times.com right now, biggest story, main story on the site.
	House Republicans back down on bid to gut ethics office.
	You're seeing that word a lot is in the CNN write-up of this, everyone to gut the ethics office.
	Very, very visceral, very uh very intense phraseology that they deploy here.
	This is some serious stuff to gut the ethics office.
	And then they say in the first line of this piece, House Republicans, this is a quote here, House Republicans facing a storm of bipartisan criticism, including from President elect Donald J. Trump, moved early Tuesday afternoon to reverse their plan to kill the Office of Congressional Ethics.
	Okay.
	End quote.
	That's what they say that to kill is to get rid of eliminate ban gone.
	But then they go down to the New York Times piece, and it says that the comments, because Trump said that uh that there should be other priorities.
	But it's a break with rank and file Republicans who overrode, this is again back a quote from the same New York Times piece, who overrode their top leaders on Monday in a vote to significantly curtail the power of the ethics office.
	Okay, well, is it to kill the office or could curtail the powers of the office?
	Those are not the same things.
	This is essential.
	And this is the New York Times reporting on this.
	You're either you're either saying this is gone, which is a discussion we could have, whether that matters or not, but if they're just changing some of the rules of how this thing operates, and you're gonna call it gutting, why not tell us what they were really planning on?
	But you see, again, this is a case where the narrative is all that matters.
	The administration, here are the the the Trump tweets that are out there just now.
	Trump tweets are sort of replacing the uh gonna replace the Roosevelt fireside chat or whatever.
	I mean, this is gonna be the way that it is now, I think.
	We're all gonna be told what the president's thinking via tweet.
	Um he tweeted out that with all that Congress has to work on, do they really have to make the weakening of the independent ethics watchdog as unfair as it is?
	So even he thinks he's saying he thinks it's bad.
	Um focus on tax reform, health care, and so many other things of far greater importance.
	And we will do that too, by the way.
	I don't I don't want to be in a dead horse here, but I just want to point out New York Times reporting are saying that well, Republicans have backed down because they're claiming this as one of the victories.
	They want there to be more of this.
	Right?
	They just they they want to intimidate Republicans into with public pressure via the media and Democrats and selective leaks and the whatever they gotta do.
	They want to intimidate Republicans from backing off on their agenda from day one.
	And that is where we are.
	Here is day one, and they're saying, see, it's day one, we've already got a victory.
	They're going to see if they can use the Trump scare to their advantage.
	And the Trump administration decides to back off on this.
	It's sort of like uh discussing with the team here before.
	Anytime you try to make the case about minimum wage, you're gonna lose.
	Meaning that raising minimum wage doesn't actually have the effect that the proponents of it say that it will have that uh overwhelmingly uh raises the minimum wage have been shown to not benefit those who are at the bottom of the income uh spectrum, and uh a lot of people who earn minimum wage are in two income households, and it's just it's it much more, and of course, then there's a cost to businesses, and but already I can tell some of you are probably like, all right, minimum wage.
	And it's well, do you want workers to have more money or not?
	Buck.
	Kind of a jerk are you?
	Okay, yeah, of course.
	I would love think that hardworking people should make more money.
	Well, then you should be for the minimum wage.
	The reality doesn't matter.
	And the reality of his congressional Ethics, whatever that, you know, they keep in the two of them.
	There's the Office of Congressional Ethics and there's a House Ethics Committee, okay.
	The OCE, whether it was going to be actually gutted or just tweaked a little bit, a little bit of spice here and there, change things around.
	Uh, or it was going to be eliminated wholesale, that's not going to matter either, because it's the headline is all people are going to pay attention to and care about.
	The headline is Republicans don't care about ethics, getting rid of ethics, got this incredibly ethically compromised, because we tell you that every day, president elect and dominant uh Donald Trump, you know, he's got connections all over the world, and he's in the pocket of the Russian oligarchs and he wants to go play basketball with Kim Jong-un, and he's the worst, right?
	He's like the worst guy ever.
	They tell you that every day.
	And so this is a fight the administration doesn't really want to have, and so they're backing off on this.
	But I just want to point out that even in the Times, right now, you go and read it, they go from kill the office to uh curtail significantly curtailing the power of the office.
	Those are not the same things.
	So someone has to explain to me which which one it really is.
	Um and I just wanted to point that out.
	Uh we're also we'll get into more of this coming up here.
	But on to some happier stuff.
	I want to talk about the ways that perhaps the attitudes and pronouncements of the administration to be, right?
	Not yet.
	We've got a couple of weeks here before this actually happens.
	But it seems to be having some sort of an impact, and that's on job creation.
	A lot was made of Trump and the carrier deal, and then of course it was dissected, and people said, Well, there were this many jobs were actually saved, other jobs were not saved.
	But Trump is clearly trying to, or making an effort to find some way to bring jobs, particularly manufacturing, higher paying manufacturing jobs to America.
	This is a very complicated issue.
	But the overarching signaling on this, right?
	If we're going to talk about how headlines can dominate over the argument, right?
	A headline can beat anything else.
	The nuance of who's right, who's wrong, what the nitty-gritty of the situation may be, a headline can overcome or can drown out all of that.
	And in this case, maybe the headlines can have a positive effect.
	Because let's not pretend.
	Okay, here's the the the top line on this.
	Ford to scrap, this is from Fox News.com, Ford to scrap Mexico plant, invest in Michigan, the CEO cites Trump policies.
	And this is a this is Donald Trump before he's even actually become president.
	You got Donald Trump being cited, I don't know how else to put it, people pointing at Donald Trump and saying he's the reason for this.
	And Ford Motor Company saying that a 1.6 billion dollar plant that was going to be built in Mexico, instead, they're going to invest $700 million in a Michigan assembly plant.
	And this is directly tied to the quote, pro-guo uh pro-growth policies championed by president like Donald Trump.
	Signaling, messaging, all that stuff really matters.
	It matters to markets, it matters to the economy, to employment.
	We know this.
	All you have to do is talk to anybody about how freaked out the financial sector gets and really the whole country if they're paying attention to it.
	But the moment that, you know, is the Fed going to raise interest rates?
	Are they moving in that direction to raise interest rates?
	Are they signaling with the, you know, are they signaling that they're going to signal something with the raise in rates?
	These things can have a dramatic impact.
	We were also told, of course, on election night when there was that very momentary drop in, I think it was 500 points or something like that.
	And uh, what was it?
	Dow Futures, uh, that this was evidence that Hillary Clinton was going to be business as usual, which is good for American business, and Donald Trump was going to be the sort of end of American capitalism, and there are it was going to be replaced with some sort of dystopian crony capitalist quote stand to borrow from Paul Krugman there.
	Uh and yet we know that people, a lot of what economic activity is based on is confidence, right?
	People look at consumer confidence, they actually try to measure that.
	And those who know the market, and I'm not a stock market guy, I don't know much about the stock market, would never pretend to, but I know a lot of people who do, and they'll tell you that it's a very obviously a lot of a lot of stuff going on very it's a very complicated system, a very complicated thing.
	But you can boil it down to some simple truths, and when people are fearful, they sell.
	When people are optimistic, uh they buy.
	And much of that is based upon few, you know, it's based upon future expectations of what you think is going to happen.
	So whether the jobs that are saved here, and and it's I think it's uh in the hundreds so far, yeah.
	Their decision reportedly saved about 700 jobs.
	So Ford is going to save 700, keep 700 jobs in America.
	A lot of people are going to point at that number and they're going to say we're country of 320 give or take million, and 700 jobs is a grain of sand on the beach.
	I was just down in uh Palm Beach area, and it was quite lovely, by the way, I will say.
	Florida, you've got some nice beaches.
	High five.
	But I was I was down around there, and and oh, well, sorry, back to I just drifted back to vacation for a second in my head.
	Uh but the messaging that this sends to the market and to other companies can't be ignored.
	Now I know some of my conservative brethren are going to say, well, what you've got here is a uh would-be chief executive of the United States government, and or or will be, I shouldn't say, would be, uh soon to be, President elect Trump, who is picking winners and losers in the market.
	Now, first of all, the left can't have any say on this stuff whatsoever because whether it's green jobs, for some fun, just like a trip down memory lane, man, just Google Cylindra.
	Just remember that hundreds of millions of dollars shoveled to a solar energy panel company that really did.
	I mean, there's the old joke about how you know you're gonna sell at a loss, but you'll make it up on volume.
	That was their business plan.
	I mean, for every unit sold, they were losing money.
	But, you know, if you if you give a hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer guarantees in case they lose everything, and of course they did, maybe things will get better.
	And oh, there are some people that seem to have some interesting ties to the Obama administration that were very closely tied to Cylinder.
	I mean, this is nothing new.
	Now, this is not to excuse uh picking of winners and losers and inherently pretend that this is some kind of a good thing.
	I understand why this troubles people.
	But we first have to start from the realistic premise or the the premise of reality that there's already all kinds of stuff going on that means that the market is not free and fair all the time.
	And there needs to be a lot done both through regulation and uh repealing of regulation, in some cases perhaps uh getting rid of whole regulatory departments.
	I don't know.
	It's all there's a discussion we should have uh to make the market more free and fair.
	But in the meantime, there I I think it's unfair to ignore the aggregate benefits, particularly benefits for jobs in certain sectors of America that will come from a president who is just indicating that this is a priority and that his administration will do everything they can to improve this area for the American people.
	That just that sentiment in and of itself will have an impact on how can on how companies invest.
	Uh you know, are companies fearful or optimistic, just like people who are investing, just like people who are you know managing their 401ks.
	Uh do they think that the future is going to bring them more prosperity?
	Do they think that there's going to be some tax relief for corporations the near future, great more investment, more hiring?
	Is that the expectation?
	A lot of this is done on expectations.
	And a lot of the expectations, of course, have to be built upon what, in this case, the president-elect, soon to be president, is saying what his temperament is on an issue.
	Um really, as has been pointed out now by many of the defenders of Obama's uh dismal record, whether on national security or here at home on the economic front, right?
	Look at the labor participation rate, and there's that's a whole long discussion in and of itself.
	The failures they're the weakest recovery since the Great Depression.
	I mean, the failures of the Obama economy, there are some pieces that you can find online that have been written.
	One of the go-to excuses for the Obama administration has been, well, the role of the president, and then of course we had the pen and the phone and the executive orders, but the role of the president is largely to persuade.
	So if that's true, and it was true until the executive orders stuff really sort of took center stage, and Obama was just deciding he was gonna do it on his own and you know, the Constitution be damned, separation of powers be damned.
	Uh Trump now signaling to the market and singling to major corporations that he is going to be a friend to job growth and creation.
	That's not just uh you know fluffy happy talk in the air.
	That can mean good things.
	And that alone can have real consequences, and we're seeing the start of that perhaps.
	With full understanding of all the complexities and the people who are going to say that the president shouldn't be in the business of the American people in this way, picking winners and losers.
	Well, he might be able to help some people with just showing that we want as many winners as we can get.
	Companies, individuals, you name.
	Buck Sexton in for Rush.
	We'll be back in a few.
	Buck Sexton in for Rush Limbaugh today.
	Thank you so much for tuning in.
	800-282-2882.
	Take some calls here, um, whatever you got for me.
	Richard in Los Angeles.
	You're on the Rush Limbaugh show.
	Thank you.
	Thank you so much for taking my call, Mr. Sexton.
	You can call me a buck.
	Thank you.
	Well, okay.
	Uh I've enjoyed some 80 years on this planet.
	And I've always, as far as I can remember, I've always noted that the unions have been backing the Democrats forever.
	With with what's happening with with uh Mr. Trump and what is happening with the carrier and with the Ford, when are these guys going to come around and realize that the Trump people have their backs and they're gonna support they should support them?
	Well, it's it's interesting.
	The union uh I I did see uh a comment at the let me see if I can find a few here on the fly.
	Um but there has been some yeah, I'm thrilled that we have been able to secure additional UAW four jobs for American workers, according to UA vice president Jimmy Settles.
	This was in a press release.
	The men and women of Flat Rock Assembly have shown a great commitment to manufacturing, etc.
	etc.
	So yeah, so the unions, or at least a union, I should say.
	There's a lot of different unions for a lot of different things.
	Uh union boss, uh a vice president here of the UAW saying that this is a good thing.
	And yeah, we'll see.
	Uh we'll see how this actually shakes out.
	But the the problem the thing with unions is first of all, you got to separate private and public sector unions because really where the the Democrats get a lot of their support now is in the public sector unions, and that's just because then government becomes the self-looking ice cream cone, right?
	You've got uh, you know, public school teachers banded together, the donations go to the Democrat candidate, the Democrat candidate fattens up their pensions and you know does everything he can to make it as attractive as possible or give as many perks and benefits as possible to the uh teachers' unions and and and on and on it goes, right?
	And this is true of all the different public sector unions that are out there, and even at the at the dawn of unions, the very beginning, even people that were pro-union were like, well, we should never have this for government employees, because that would be crazy because they're just gonna end up fleecing the American public, and that's what's happened.
	Uh, but as for private sector unions, uh, you know, now now you get into some issues of well, are are they relying on government interference and regulation to remain relevant and remain competitive?
	So I mean, you know, unions have done a lot of damage in a lot of places too, Richard's what I'm saying.
	And so I'm not sure, you know, some of them liking this Trump action is noteworthy, but I don't know if Trump is gonna really deregulate a lot and do a lot of regulation cutting across the country and make things make industries more competitive, lower corporate taxes and lower the regulations that prevent some upstarts and disruption in certain industries, then he's gonna run afoul of the unions, right?
	So I'm just it's it's a it's a big area with a lot of different uh a lot of different angles.
	Uh I think you'll see some support from the unions for Trump for sure.
	Look, he won one Michigan, one Wisconsin, I mean one place is where there's obviously a long-standing and very strong uh union traditions, including Michigan.
	Um, but I also think that if he does what he's promised, then then people are gonna get upset because especially with the public sector I mean, public sector unions should just be gone, and with some of these private sector unions, they uh are only able to sort of continue on because of the laws and regulations that pass on a lot of people.
	You would you had mentioned earlier that uh that they weren't really excited because it was only three or four or five hundred jobs.
	I think it was seven hundred, yeah.
	Obviously, for those seven hundred families, it makes a big difference, and I don't I didn't mean to minimize that.
	I'm just saying on a national level, you know, seven seven hundred jobs is is not going to uh necessarily get people too focused on the Trump policies here.
	Um but I realize we've got to go into a hard break here.
	So Richard, thank you for calling in from Los Angeles, Buck Sexton InfoRush.
	We have so much more show back in just a few minutes.
	Buck in for rush today more on me at the Blaze.com slash Buck Dash Sexton, host of the Buck Sexton show.
	We've got a whole bunch of calls coming in.
	Lit up like a Christmas tree in here on the call and call in board.
	We got Frank in St. Louis.
	Frank, this is the Rush show you're speaking to Buck.
	Hello.
	Yes, sir.
	I just want to mention that I think we're going through one of the greatest revolutions in the history of the world without a shot being fired.
	That's quite a stable countries like Spain, United States, England, France, Italy, and soon to be joined by Germany of countries throwing out their liberal politicians and replacing them with conservatives.
	Hmm so you think but is this the uh the populism versus uh globalism fight playing out or you view it as as liberal versus conservative because I I think it's uh it's the liberal versus conservative well the people have realized that socialism doesn't really work have they realized that though yeah they you think they've realized that in Europe?
	Uh where where have they realized huh?
	You think they've realized it here?
	We have to see I mean I I think that the the Democrats are all just hoping that Trump has a couple of stumbles and then they can more or less neutralize his policy agenda from go and he's going to be a one-term president.
	And then they figure they've got the three million edge or close to three million, whatever isn't the popular vote and you know the next time around I I I don't think that there's this I I think there's been an awakening of sorts Frank but I don't think that the the forces of socialism are by no means defeated my friend I wouldn't I wouldn't give that much credit to people that have uh have had some victories in recent years.
	Now now we have to see okay fine if the entitlement state is unsustainable whether it we're talking about in a in America or in Europe although Trump's not really touching entitlement so but if massive debt and massive government uh not just spending but also government enlargement is uh government constantly enlarging itself is unsustainable what's the alternative now we have I would agree there are some places where we're seeing the people choosing the alternative but now we have to see what that means and and what the results are.
	I mean that the Trump presidency is is going to have to show results because it's already all laid out there that if they make some mistakes there this is going to be this he's going to be one term.
	I mean the media is going to make sure of it although they're not as powerful I guess as they thought they were because they couldn't get Hillary elected.
	But it's it's it's a revolution against the elites they're saying Frank that's been the which is interesting given that you have a guy who would by most standards you know Ivy League educated billionaire tend tends to be considered elite but I think it's more elite elitist uh policy or elite policymaking as opposed to just somebody being themselves personally elite.
	But we'll see Frank thanks for calling from St. Louis uh Jim in Detroit Michigan you're on the Rush Limbaugh show you're speaking to Buck.
	Hey Buck how are you I'm good sir how are you?
	I'm doing okay I just wanted to make an observation about President elect Trump and some of the things that people are saying about pick some winners and losers.
	It seems to me that Ford Motor Company and Carrier General Motors, they're already winners.
	And I think what he's trying to do with the threat of, not threat, but the idea of taxes for taking jobs to other countries, is to get their attention to let them know that he's working on issues like that and to keep them or to curtail them from taking the profits they're already making as winners investing in them in another country instead of investing them here to the American people.
	Yeah look there's some things that Trump has said he's going to do and I I at this point I say you take him at his word may sound naive, but I I can't see why he wouldn't uh push uh memory he has to push Congress has to act, but he can push for uh change in the corporate tax code.
	He can push for uh repatriation of a vast amount of American capital that's currently parked overseas.
	And these I think undoubtedly would have a really good uh really good effects on on the economy.
	I I think that that's that should be a pretty bipartisan uh feeling, but of course it's not because anything that's Trump, remember, we're in the Trump scare.
	Anything Trump must scare you, it is bad, is it is evil.
	But I agree, man.
	You know, you know, sometimes with with everybody, you've got to kind of push them into uh into seeing the mission, you know.
	Yeah, I I think that uh again uh there's only so much real analysis of Trump economic policies or just Trump policies, period, that we can do at this point because he's not president yet, right?
	So we there is uh uh a sense of getting ahead of ourselves, I think, but the other side is already trying to sort of lay the groundwork for everything Trump does is bad and evil every day, and you can either let that sit out there and seep into the minds of the American people unchallenged, or you can try and put uh provide a counter narrative.
	But keep in mind, we we are debating really, with the exception of some of his tweets and things like he's done now with the GM deal and and carrier and such.
	Um but we are debating the the future policies that may or may not be enacted or even attempted by the president and by the uh Republican Party.
	So there is a lot of wait and see that we have to keep in mind here.
	And I think that the indicators, though, especially on the economic front, are pretty positive.
	And I think the people that he's choosing for key roles uh on the uh economic side of things actually understand what they're doing.
	They're not lifelong bureaucrats who've never had to worry about getting fired, who have never run a payroll, who have never you know dealt with uh the private sector in any meaningful sense.
	So there's some very good signs.
	But Jim from Detroit, thank you very much for calling in.
	Good to talk to you.
	And uh we can get more here.
	Ken in Arizona.
	What's up?
	I'd like to bring up an unreported hibuck, by the way.
	Uh underreported story in Great Britain's Sun about how Weesky Leaks actually got through information.
	They reported that an ambassador Murray English swept to DC Park, and it was handed to him by a disgruntled or just disillusioned Kelly Staffer and Fox is writing an exclusive interview with Mr. Assange tonight.
	And one thing about him, nobody has said he's ever a liar, always put out false news stories, so this was gonna be real interesting.
	Uh well, the inf yeah, the information that WikiLeaks uh has put out there has not been, at least nothing that I've seen has been discredited as being fake.
	Uh so start there.
	I mean, uh Assange uh Ken Assange did request Russian protection while in the Ecuadorian embassy in the United Kingdom, uh his ties to Russia are deep, and you'll also notice that WikiLeaks uh overwhelmingly seems to get information that is critical of the United States and its policies uh and its leadership out there and not there's a whole bunch of places where there's a lot of corruption going on,
	a lot of really ugly stuff uh that could use a bit of sunlight, uh, can use a bit of that uh disinfectant so to speak, and they don't get it because uh you know WikiLeaks, okay, it's uh it's uh with ties to Russian intelligence.
	I don't know what else to say.
	So uh you you look at what Assange is telling us all.
	I I think you should look at what Assange is telling us all with a a degree of skepticism, not skepticism of the information.
	No one has said that the pedestal emails or any stuff was fake, but what he's talking about the acquiring of it, and we're he's essentially being asked, are you a Russian front?
	Right, there's no reason for him to fake the information because that then discredits the whole operation with the hacking of the emails.
	But are you a front for Russia?
	That does discredit them.
	So, you know, they are they are gonna have some uh they're gonna do a little bit of tap dancing there, I think.
	I think Assange is going to uh obfuscate the truth.
	And he keeps saying, by the way, received.
	I mean, I look at the language he uses, you know, we didn't receive it from any state actor or something like that.
	Okay, but did the did the people you receive it from, were they acting on the behest of a state actor?
	You know, I mean, this is there are ways that he could say what he said without necessarily uh lying, but it is uh it is a misdirection.
	I look, I don't I don't trust Assange.
	That doesn't mean that he doesn't get his hands on leaked information.
	That's very that's interesting.
	Let's also remember that this is the same guy that leaked a whole lot of diplomatic cables and U.S. military cables that were classified to what to what purpose, other than to try to sort of uh embarrass the United States and you know, the the whole notion of Bradley Manning as a or Chelsea Manning now, right?
	Change changed his name as a whistleblower is blowing a whistle on what?
	Uh the what was the whistle being blown on?
	So uh I have a slightly uh or a a somewhat, I should say, not slightly different take on some of this stuff.
	But Ken, thank you for calling in from Arizona.
	Uh this is Buck in for Buck Sexton, Inforush Limbaugh.
	We have much more coming, and I'll be back in just a few.
	Buck Sexton here in for us.
	Oh my, this is gonna make some people nervous.
	Exclusive via Reuters.com.
	Trump team seeks agency records on border barriers and surveillance.
	Ooh.
	This is going to start quite a discussion, I think.
	The uh president elect's transition team is asking DHS, Department of Homeland Security, to assess all assets available for border wall and barrier construction.
	Oh we were told that he, you know, people were saying never gonna do it, never going to build this wall.
	It's all a big ruse.
	It's just meant to get those who are easily misled to vote for him.
	Well, they're asking for the information.
	They're also asking, according to Reuters, about the department's capacity for expanding immigrant detention and about an aerial surveillance program that was scaled back by the Obama administration.
	Uh so they want to know.
	Now you see, you're gonna have a new team in charge across the board with a very different view of these things.
	And they have the ability to go deep into the government records here, and they have the ability to demand these records, and they want to see.
	I have a little prognostication for you, a little prediction.
	They're gonna find out that the Obama administration has been pulling the wool over the public's eyes when it comes to immigration for quite some time, actively.
	For example, we already know that they changed their definition of what constitutes a deportation such that anybody turned back at the border is considered under the government's sort of published numbers to have been deported.
	So it makes it seem like a lot of people are going through a deportation proceeding when in fact they're just being stopped from illegally crossing the border.
	It's not the same thing.
	The president at one point, the the storyline I should say, around him was that he was the deporter-in-chief, that Obama was too much of a hardliner for the left Democrat Party.
	And then we found out that, oh no, that was just to sort of create the fertile political ground for the gang of eight bill and for Amnesty to pass, because once that had happened, it would all be over.
	Then there'd be no turning back.
	It would be a feta completely.
	Now we're going to find out more.
	I think one of the most interesting things that the Trump administration, once it takes office, can do when it comes to immigration, is to tell us really what have the enforcement priorities been?
	What have the uh rules of engagement, so to speak, been for border uh border patrol officers?
	How much have we been putting towards the borders actual security versus uh these programs that in many cases just transition immigrants who either come through loopholes claiming asylum or any number of other uh means then end up staying in the country, never showing up for their deportation proceeding, and they've really just been picked up by border patrol and dropped off in the U.S., and that's the end of it.
	I think we're gonna find out a lot more about this.
	Um we're gonna find out, for example, what happened to Operation Phalanx, which was an air aerial surveillance program that authorized 1,200 Army National Guard airmen to monitor the southern border for drug trafficking and illegal immigration.
	Why wasn't why wasn't that something that got more attention from the administration?
	Oh, it was not just didn't get much attention, it was downsized by Barack Obama.
	So there were clear efforts to lessen border security.
	I think we're going to find out a lot more about that.
	And you'll see that there's been so little reporting too on illegal crossings, and this is just sort of fallen by the wayside.
	And it's sort of like it reminds me of the old uh the old trick the media would pull it every time a Republican came in office, they'd start writing stories on the on the crisis of homelessness across the country.
	And then a Democrat would come into office, and now there's no homelessness anymore.
	There's there's old tricks the media will sort of pull.
	They were telling us that Obama was too strong on the border, and he was upsetting his own party with that.
	And now they're telling us well, they're not telling us very much at all.
	Then they finally had to come clean or it came out.
	And that was not true.
	Obama wanted amnesty.
	And we're seeing the Trump transition team coming in, and they're saying they want the info.
	They want to know the truth about what has been done in the border in recent years, where the resources have gone, where the priorities have been.
	And I can just tell you this.
	I mean, my my prediction, and it's not a not one that I think puts me in a in a significant minority.
	I'm sure a lot of you would agree with me on this.
	My prediction is that we're gonna find out there's been so much uh so much done by the administration to essentially leave the border more open in some places than it should be to change enforcement priorities so that they're really uh priorities to allow backdoor immigration, uh turn illegal immigration into just another form of immigration, because once you stay once you get into the country, you can stay in the country.
	Um but this is the part that's gonna drive the left really mad.
	The whole fence thing, the build the wall, you know, that was supposed to be for the you know, NASCAR attending hillbillies who don't know any better, who don't read the Washington Post, who wear these make America great again hats at these rallies, and oh, they're all so foolish.
	Trump's never going to build the wall.
	Well, they're asking about how they could build the wall.
	They're asking what resources are in place to do it, where they can do it, what it will cost.
	That's kind of an interesting little change of pace, isn't it?
	Buck Sexton Infrarush, back in a few.
	Buck Sexton Infrarush here on the EIB today.
	Let's take some calls before we go into hour three.
	Have so much to talk about today.
	I wish I had six hours with you all.
	Mitch in California.
	You're speaking of Buck.
	I'm in for Rush.
	What is up, sir?
	Yes, hi, Buck.
	I wanted to talk to about uh Meghan Kelly.
	You're asking about some thoughts on that.
	Sure.
	I uh you know, I don't know that industry, but uh I heard earlier in the year she's asking for like 20 million dollars.
	I don't know how long that contract lasts for, but uh I it seems a little exorbent, possibly.
	Um particularly when I listen to her show, it seems like when you when you have a conservative versus liberal, you know, panel, it's gonna get heated anyways, but it seems like she kind of stokes the fire a little bit to keep the maybe the ratings up.
	But I think that's a good thing.
	Well, I mean, I I think I think you want to have a you want to have a robust back and forth.
	I mean, I could tell you there's some other cable news networks where the anchors are definitely stealth Democrats and they the producers and everyone will stack it so that the conservative is talked over, they go to break before the conservative can respond.
	I mean, I've I've heard like I say, I've I've heard stories of somebody in this industry.
	I know some things about some stuff.
	Yeah, so uh anyway.
	And I'm talking about not I'm talking about not Fox, by the way.
	Not Fox, right?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, but it seems like the Fox the Fox's position is that they try to maintain, you know, um fair and balanced.
	Uh but uh it seems like and then to me when particularly like on folks.
	Look, I'll say this, Mitch, I don't mean to interrupt you, but I just want to point that because you said the fair and balanced thing, and a lot of people get very snied about that on the left.
	I got a bunch of friends who are Democrats who go on Fox, they love it.
	They they they can't go on Fox enough.
	I mean, they're they they think that it's they're able to speak and they speak their mind and no one tells them not to.
	And I have yet to hear from a Democrat who goes on Fox who says that they feel like uh it is unfairly stacked again.
	They know they're gonna be right, they're gonna go.
	I mean, if you're going on a Riley show, obviously, I mean you know what you're dealing with.
	You're dealing with someone who's gonna be you know taking you to task on stuff, but by the same token, they still go on, right?
	It's it they uh you were saying, Mitch, I digress.
	Oh, wait, no, I digress into the third hour.
	Sorry.

▲