Michele Bachmann: Don't forget about the immigration bill

July 10, 2013

Writer

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) spoke with Stu and Pat on radio this morning, and she warned that the immigration bill is still being pushed through behind-the-scenes even though no one is paying attention to it right now. Rep. Bachmann warns that a flowery sounding bill will ultimately be presented, but she advised that no matter what is put forth it should be voted against.

Read a full transcript of the interview below:

PAT: Congresswoman Michele Bachmann joins us today. There's the debate still going on, and we forget about this sometimes because other things come up in our lives and we forget that the Senate has passed an immigration reform bill that is nightmarish and then, you know, so we let our guard down and then pretty soon you know it's coming up in the House and so we thought we'd check in with her and see where that stands right now. And earlier this week Congressman Bachmann congresswoman Bachmann, you spoke on the house floor and your one of your main points was seal the border first, then we'll work on amnesty afterward, which seems so incredibly reasonable to almost all Americans and yet it's not being considered. How did that go over? Where does all this stand right now?

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: Well, Pat and Stu, thanks for having me on because we really are at the crucial hour right now. It seems that some sort of a weird tack has been made between the ruling class and D.C. That's both Republican and Democrat. And it seems like they've made a decision that this is it. Everyone is going to help Obama achieve his number one political agenda item, which is to bring in tens of millions of new voters to support his agenda. Why in the world any self respecting Republican would want to get behind this effort is beyond me, but it seems like this is what they want to do. Their first worry is not border security. The Senate bill was a fake border security bill. We were betrayed and lied to by the Republicans in the Senate. So we don't have a border security bill. And the way that you pass a bill is you've got to get a bill through the Senate, a bill through the House and on the president's desk. Well, two out of the three are effectively done. We know that the president will sign a bill that has amnesty in it. The Senate already passed it. Now it's up to the House. So what is about to happen to the House is that we're going to get what I call a Trojan horse. It will be a bill that will sound great, it will be all about border security, and who couldn't get behind that? But if that bill passes with the help of conservatives out of the House, it goes to what's called a conference committee. Because the bill won't be the same as the bill that came out of the Senate. That's where the politicians get together behind closed doors and they figure out one compromised bill that goes back to the chamber. Well, the one must have for President Obama is legalization, and legalization equals amnesty, which equals citizenship, which equals tens of millions of new voters that will vote to forever cement in place his progressive agenda. This is where the whole thing breaks down. So we have not had one minute of discussion for the whole Republican conference in the House.

Now recognize we're the only backstop that can say no, and we haven't had a minute's worth of discussion. We're going to finally, this afternoon at 3:00 Eastern time, have our very first meeting on this issue of immigration and what the Republican establishment is planning to do is introduce their two bills, the one out of judiciary, and the one out of Homeland Security† the Trojan horse bill, which is what I call it† and they will tell us look at this bill and how great the bill is, but the fact is it will never, ever come back to us for final vote in that form. And what I'm going to do is not vote for any bill, no matter how good it sounds, because right now we're lacking the political will in the White House to ever support and ever enforce border security. We saw that this week with the president. He decided he didn't want to enforce parts of ObamaCare. So he's not going to. It's unconstitutional, but he's getting away with it. And so that's what's going to happen.

We already passed a bill to build 700 miles of fence in 2006 and we paid for it. And so my question is, if we already passed a bill to build a fence, where is it? Where's the money? Where's the fence? Where's the billions? I want my billions back. Either give me a fence or give me my billions back.

STU: Michelle, you're

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: So we've already done that seven years ago. And if 27 years ago we promised that we would build a fence, why when Barack Obama's president and when Janet Napolitano would be the chief enforcer of building a fence, I mean, on what planet would we ever think that this is going to happen? And so it's time to wake up and slap some reality on your face and recognize this has nothing to do about with border security. It has everything to do with giving Barack Obama tens of millions of new progressive voters to finally change the country once and forever so that constitutional conservatives will effectively be blocked out of the marketplace of ideas in the future because, just because of numbers. There won't be enough of us.

So this is very big. This is very real. I'm not here to cry wolf. This is probably the most important vote that we're going to take in the next two years and, quite frankly, we haven't seen the phone lines melt yet in Washington. And so what I just want to encourage your listeners at Glenn Beck to do is that on the Senate side is hopeless. Give up on them. Don't even bother calling them on this. We've been betrayed. Focus only on the House because I will tell you, you would be shocked at the number of people who are Republicans, who call themselves conservatives, who are in favor of an amnesty bill. You would be floored. So we need these phone lines melted and quick because the establishment wants to get this bill passed out of the House before August. And so right now my message is simple: No bill. No immigration bill. Until we can certify and see it for ourselves that that southern border is secure, there's nothing to talk about.

STU: And Michele, you only need a couple dozen Republicans here, right? You only need a couple dozen Republicans to entertain these ideas to† because the Democrats are all, of course, going to vote for it. So it's not even the fact that you need to win everybody over. They only need to pull a couple dozen from the establishment and they can get this thing passed, right?

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: Thank you for saying that because that's what's going to happen with the Trojan horse. You're right. We passed this sweet smelling bill out of the house, it goes to conference committee, it comes back. Pelosi and all† and nearly every Democrat will vote for the bill. So just like you said, Pat and Stu, all the Democrats need are a few Republicans who think they are being magnanimous, a couple dozen, and we lose. And the country changes forever. So this is crucial. It's really gone under the radar because we've been kind of overhyped with news lately. You know, with everything from a plane crash, everything else going on, people just aren't paying attention to this issue and that's why we† again, I'm not trying to cry wolf. I'm just saying that this is it, and this is going to come up very quick. It's going to slide through without a lot of fanfare. The mainstream media certainly doesn't want to talk about it because they want it to pass and so this is it. I mean, we need base conservatives to call their members. And don't assume just because you have a Republican member of congress that they're good on this issue. Get them on the record. Make them tell you that they won't vote for any bill. Because President Obama's already proved it. He's not going to enforce a law that he doesn't agree with. He's an unconstitutional acting president. And so that's why this is so crucial.

PAT: Now, if they call† and they can call 202 224 3121. That's the Capitol Hill switchboard.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: Yes.

PAT: Does it do any good, Michele, to call other people's reps, or are you suggesting they just call their own and make sure their own representative is on board with this thing?

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: Call your own. That's the most important†

PAT: Yeah.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: -- for people to do. But people also have a contact list on their computer, their smart phone or their iPad, and what I'm saying too is send that, put out on your Facebook or put out a tweet or send out to your contact list just a quick, you know, one sentence or couple of paragraphs. You know, just trust me on this, you've got to call your rep and tell them don't vote for any immigration bill, not until we get a fence built. Because I don't want any more promises. I want to see an actual sense that's actually doing the job because otherwise the bill that we will get will be perpetual amnesty. Until never again be any effective deportation done ever, and we will have ongoing amnesty. And we are literally looking at letting more people in, in the next ten years than we did in the previous 40. And amnesty isn't cheap. It will be over $6 trillion. Half of that alone will just pay for retirement benefits for illegal aliens. So the worst possible time, when we're $17 trillion in debt, and that's just part of the debt. When we're $17 trillion in debt and baby boomers like me are about to draw down on Social Security and Medicare benefits that we've earned and paid in for, we're looking at tens of millions of new people coming into the country who've never paid in and yet they'll be drawing down Social Security. They'll be drawing down Medicare. And they will have the right to bring in their parents who can draw down from Social Security and from Medicare. And just so you know, one portion of Medicare is said to be bankrupt. The hospital portion will be bankrupt by 2017. That's four years from now. So the one thing seniors fear is going to the hospital because they want to know that their Medicare will pay for it. Well, it's broke in four years. And so we're going to swamp the system with tens of millions of new people who are sicker and poorer and have no means of paying their hospital bills? This is a disaster and that's why we've got to stop it in its tracks and so we are putting everything right now into this effort to let the public know that you cannot trust your own member of congress on this issue. You have to be adamant. You have to be insistent. You have to call, call, call. You have to get everybody that you know to call, call, call and say, look, we're not putting up with any state border security bills. We can't trust the president to enforce the border and so we are not going to take up anything right now until you build us a fence. Build me the fence. Where is my fence that I paid for in 2006? Give me my fence or give me my money back. That's my message.

PAT: Appreciate it, Michele. And thank you. Thank you for what you're doing. Thanks, and tell Steve king and Louie Gohmert, the three of you are spearheading this thing, thank you for what you're doing. And there's about 70 representatives who are on board with stopping any bill from being passed in the House for all the reasons that Michele just so eloquently outlined. Appreciate it. Thanks a lot. We'll talk to you again soon. 202 224 3121 is the number to call to get in touch with your representatives. That's the Capitol Hill switchboard. And then just ask for your representative. And if you don't know who your representative is, Google it. It's really not that hard to find. We can't tell you who your rep is because we're not positive where you're listening right now. So, you know, just find that out. Call your representative. Hopefully you voted for†

STU: Yeah.

PAT: or against your representative. So you know.

STU: You should probably know at this point, yeah.

PAT: But the number is 202 224 3121. And it is important. Because if they pass any bill, then they reconcile the Senate bill with the House bill and that's where the trouble comes in. It comes in, in the compromise and the reconciliation process and then you've got something that we can't live with. And it's amnesty without any border security.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: And it's going to turn out to be a nightmare.

STU: And two things to think about how important the left feels this is, and as well as Michele correctly pointed out over and over again, the Republican establishment. How important is this stuff to them? First of all, remember, the president of the United States wanted the DREAM Act so badly, as did many people who were in the Republican establishment and they tried so hard to get it and then they just did it because they couldn't get it voted in. So they just did it by executive order. And then the 2006 bill she talked about, that was a bill that was passed, 700 miles of fencing, and then they just passed something else the next year in part of another big bill that said, well, we don't really have to build that fence. This is what they'll do.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: They will do anything they can.

PAT: And they got the same provision in this new Senate thing, too, that Napolitano can call it off and, you know, she will again.

STU: Of course.

PAT: She just will.

Twitter mob goes ballistic over Father's Day photo of Caitlyn Jenner. Who cares?

Dimitrios Kambouris/Getty Images

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?

These 5 governors are refusing to send national guard troops to the border

CAITLIN O'HARA/AFP/Getty Images

These days, when Americans decide to be outraged about something, we really go all out.

This week's outrage is, of course, the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy toward illegal immigration along the southern border. Specifically, people are upset over the part of the policy that separates children from their parents when the parents get arrested.

Lost in all the outrage is that the President is being proactive about border security and is simply enforcing the law. Yes, we need to figure out a less clumsy, more compassionate way of enforcing the law, but children are not being flung into dungeons and fed maggots as the media would have you believe.

But having calm, reasonable debates about these things isn't the way it's done anymore. You have to make strong, sweeping announcements so the world knows how righteous your indignation is.

That's why yesterday, the governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut declared they are withholding or recalling their National Guard troops from the U.S.-Mexico border until this policy of separating children from their parents is rescinded.

Adding to the media stunt nature of this entire "crisis," it turns out this defiant announcement from these five governors is mostly symbolic. Because two months ago, when President Trump called for 4,000 additional National Guard troops to help patrol the border, large numbers of troops were not requested from those five states. In fact, no troops were requested at all from Rhode Island. But that didn't stop Rhode Island's Democratic governor, Gina Raimondo, from announcing she would refuse to send troops if she were asked. She called the family separation policy, "immoral, unjust and un-American."

There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

The governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York all used the word "inhumane" in their statements condemning the Trump administration policy. There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

In a totally unrelated coincidence, four of these five governors are running for re-election this year.

I've made my position clear — separating these children from their parents is a bad policy and we need to stop. We need to treat these immigrants with the kind of compassion we'd want for our own children. And I said the same thing in 2014 when no one cared about the border crisis.

If consistency could replace even just a sliver of the outrage in America, we would all be a lot better off.

Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images

I think we can all agree, both on the Left and the Right, that children who have been caught up in illegal immigration is an awful situation. But apparently what no one can agree on is when it matters to them. This past weekend, it suddenly — and even a little magically — began to matter to the Left. Seemingly out of nowhere, they all collectively realized this was a problem and all rushed to blame the Trump administration.

Here's Rachel Maddow yesterday:

Rachel Maddow chokes up and cries on air as she struggles to deliver news that migrant babies and toddlers have been sent to "tender age" shelters pic.twitter.com/O6crm8cvyR
— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) June 20, 2018

I seem to remember getting mocked by the Left for showing emotion on TV, but I'll give her a pass here. This is an emotional situation. But this is what I can't give her a pass on: where the heck was this outrage and emotion back in 2014? Because the same situation going on today — that stuff Maddow and the rest of the Left have only just now woken up to — was going on back in July 2014! And it was arguably worse back then.

I practically begged and pleaded for people to wake up to what was going on. We had to shed light on how our immigration system was being manipulated by people breaking our laws, and they were using kids as pawns to get it done. But unlike the gusto the Left is using now to report this story, let's take a look at what Rachel Maddow thought was more important back in 2014.

On July 1, 2014, Maddow opened her show with a riveting monologue on how President Obama was hosting a World Cup viewing party. That's hard-hitting stuff right there.

On July 2, 2014, Maddow actually acknowledged kids were at the border, but she referenced Health and Human Services only briefly and completely rushed through what was actually happening to these kids. She made a vague statement about a "policy" stating where kids were being taken after their arrival. She also blamed Congress for not acting.

See any difference in reporting there from today? That "policy" she referenced has suddenly become Trump's "new" policy, and it isn't Congress's fault… it's all on the President.

She goes on throughout the week.

On July 7, 2014, her top story was something on the Koch brothers. Immigration was only briefly mentioned at the end of the show. This trend continued all the way through the week. I went to the border on July 19. Did she cover it? Nope. In fact, she didn't mention kids at the border for the rest of the month. NOT AT ALL.

Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not?

Make up your minds. Is this an important issue or not? Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not? Do you even care to fix it, or is this what it looks like — just another phony, addicted-to-outrage political stunt?

UPDATE: Here's how this discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Glenn gives Rachel Maddow the benefit of the doubt

Rachel Maddow broke down in tears live on her MSNBC show over border crisis.

Obama's tribute center in Chicago will cost taxpayers $200 million

Scott Olson/Getty Images

Progressives think the Obamas are a gift to the world. But their gift is apparently more of the metaphorical kind. It doesn't extend to helpful, tangible things like saving taxpayers money. Illinois has approved $224 million to pay for street and transportation upgrades around the planned site of the Obama Presidential Center. The catch is that Illinois taxpayers will have to cover $200 million of that cost. For a presidential museum.

Eight years of multiplying the national debt wasn't enough for Barack Obama. Old fleecing habits die hard. What's another $200 million here and there, especially for something as important as an Obama tribute center?

That's all well and good except Illinois can't even fund its pension system. The state has a $137 billion funding shortfall. That means every person in Illinois owes $11,000 for pensions, and there is no plan to fix the mess. Unless Illinois progressives have discovered a new kind of math, this doesn't really add up. You can't fund pensions, but you're going to figure out a way to milk the public for another $200 million to help cover the cost of a library?

It's hard to imagine who in their right mind would think this will be money well spent. Well, except for maybe Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, "The state's… investment in infrastructure improvements near the Obama Center on the South Side of Chicago is money well spent."

Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

The spending has already been signed into law, even though the Obama library has not received construction approval yet. Part of the holdup is that the proposed site is on public land in historic Jackson Park. That doesn't seem very progressive of the Obamas, but, you know, for certain presidents, you go above and beyond. It's just what you do. Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

Here's the thing about taxing the peasants so the king can build a fancy monument to himself – it's wrong. And completely unnecessary. The Obamas have the richest friends on the planet who could fund this project in their sleep. If the world simply must have a tricked-out Obama museum, then let private citizens take out their wallets voluntarily.

As the Mercury Museum proved this weekend, it is possible to build an exhibit with amazing artifacts that attracts a ton of visitors – and it cost taxpayers approximately zero dollars.

Glenn's Show Prep