FACTOR-01
Ending Illegal Wildlife Trade - Part 1>
Derek, Jessie Watters>
BILL O'REILLY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: THE O'REILLY FACTOR is on. Tonight --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILLARY CLINTON (D), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We're facing the worst refugee crisis since the end of World War II and I think the United States has to do more.
O'REILLY (voice-over): That crisis was caused by the Obama administration and now Donald Trump has to figure out what kind of immigration program he will put forth. Tonight, talking points has some suggestions.
RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: Donald Trump from the very beginning had an instinct about what was really troubling the American people.
O'REILLY: What has happened to Rudy Giuliani? He seems to have disappeared. Is he still being considered for secretary of state? We'll have a special report on that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do you want for Christmas?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I saw this really pretty crystal bracelet over there. Are you buying?
O'REILLY: Also tonight, Watters, the Christmas gift advisor.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Don't you think getting your daughter a doll reinforces gender stereotypes?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: Caution, you are about to enter the no spin zone. FACTOR begins right now. Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight.
Coming to America, that is the subject of this evening's talking points memo. One of the reasons Donald Trump won the presidency is that millions of Americans now believe they are being conned on immigration.
Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party had absolutely no interest in being responsible on the issue of people traveling to the USA illegally or even protecting Americans from vicious foreign criminals already here.
In fact, the far left wing of the Democratic Party actually wants open borders and blanket amnesty the undocumented living all across the country. That would create a dangerous security nightmare and run up far more government debt.
Liberal zealotry sees America as a nation driven by white privilege and wants to flood the USA with new citizens the fewer restraints the better, and it doesn't matter that Hillary Clinton might not be that extreme.
She put forth no vision on immigration other than the status quo, which has been a colossal failure. Thus, Trump's tough guy approach to enforcing immigration law, propelled his campaign despite the unending charges of racism that came his way.
So now the question becomes what is a fair policy in this most emotional of arenas. For that we turn to Australia, a nation of about 24 million people, but with the land mass almost exactly the same as America's and we have 325 million people.
So there is plenty of room to roam down under. Australia has a stone cold policy on illegal entry. If you are caught, you are forcibly taken by the Aussie military to remote locations in the South Pacific where you can either sit for years or to be deported home.
Australia accepts less than 15,000 migrants a year on a humanitarian basis. Recently announced it would take 12,000 Syrian refugees on top of that, but even more recently the Obama administration said it would take more than 2,000 refugees currently languishing in the South Pacific, human beings that Australia refuses to bring to its mainland.
Now my question is why not? Why won't the Aussies take these poor people? Surely desperate people in South Asia or Central America for that matter deserve sympathy.
During my time in El Salvador, I visited folks who are actually living in caves. Dogs in America have more conflicts. Judeo Christian philosophy compels its followers to embrace them forward and it seems that rejecting asylum seekers and migrants was against that tenant.
Thus the far left demonizes those who call for restriction on illegal immigration saying they are bad people. That's what the sanctuary city movement is all about. But you don't hear much condemnation of Australia.
And inside that country, both political parties, liberals and conservatives support the tough immigration laws. There is little moral debate. By the way, if Perth, for example, declared itself a sanctuary city, have big trouble with the Aussie military, which as I stated actually enforces immigration law, and a general reports directly to the governor in Cambara.
Australians generally believe that undocumented migrants destabilize their country and put themselves at great physical risk by crossing oceans to get down under. Also Aussie politics have created a generous welfare state that works for a small population.
That entitlement culture would be overwhelmed and go broke if mass illegal immigration was accepted as it has been here in the USA. Simply put, Australians do not want the enormous disruption that immigration chaos causes.
So they are sending more than 2,000 poor souls here, folks, they should assimilate and Barack Obama is happy to take them. Are we champs or are we the most compassionate nation on earth? President Trump will have his hands full trying to figure out how to get things under control on the immigration front.
Here is what talking points recommends, a moratorium on refugees for one year until Trump's new Homeland Security Department can reorganize and set up intense vetting procedures. Right now, under the Obama administration, the feds cannot properly investigate refugees who want to come here. The system is broken.
All undocumented people already here must register with the feds at their local post offices within six months. It becomes a felony if they fail to do that and immediate deportation if they are caught unregistered.
By the way, we told you very early on in the presidential campaign that mass deportations would not take place if Donald Trump were elected president. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan confirmed that yesterday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. PAUL RYAN (R-WI), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: We're not working on a deportation force. Here's what we are working on with respect to immigration and securing our border and enforcing our current laws. Talk about criminal aliens, that's just enforcing laws for people who came here illegally and came and committed violent crimes. We should enforce those laws.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: Once the federal government knows how many undocumented people are here and their circumstance, a fair system of evaluating migrants can then take place, right? On the borders, all of those, all of them caught trying to enter illegally will be bussed back into Mexico or Canada after being fingerprinted.
Second offense, six months in jail, bang, six months. Then another bus ride. A congressional mandate on how many foreign nationals should be allowed into America each year should be agreed upon. Let's get a number and that number should be generous.
But legal papers have to be renewed every year and actual citizenship will have to be earned over a substantial period of time. A new law that suspends all federal transportation money to individual states that tolerate sanctuary cities must be passed by Congress, must.
Texas now in the process of outlawing sanctuary cities, punishing them financially. Every state should do that and if California says no, finance your own infrastructure. Same with all other defiant states. No money for transportation. Nothing. From the federal government. You will see how fast they change.
Finally, build effective barriers along the southern border using the Army Corps of Engineers. The barriers designed to stop of flow of people and drugs illegally into this country. Come on, enough is enough. If I could help every poor person and abused person in the world I would, but I can't.
So I do what I can without making things worse by supporting policies that hurt the country at large. Australia has figured this out. We can, too. And that's the memo.
Next on the rundown, reaction. Later Donald Trump threatening another company who wants to move to Mexico, is Mr. Trump pushing too hard? That report up ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O'REILLY: Continuing now with lead story, a fair immigration plan. Joining us from Washington, Charles Krauthammer. Fair is the key word here. Any quibbles with the memo, Charles?
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, there is a lot in the memo. Let me just say I think you have got to divide the problem in two. The first is to secure the border, meaning prevent new illegal immigrants from coming in.
The second is what do you do with those already here? I would postpone the second half of that because I think if you could secure the border, you would get a rush. You would get a national consensus to be generous and humane and legalize the overwhelming majority of those already here.
But you have to show Americans, the American people that this is the last time it's going to happen. Remember, they got swindled with the Reagan Amnesty in 1986, they were told we are going to secure the border. They amnestied three million illegal immigrants. The amnesty went through. Shutting of the border did not.
So I would emphasize a couple of things. I would include -- I agree with you about the barrier. I think it should be a serious border either a wall or a fence. I have advocated this ever since 2006. But, also, have you got to do interior enforcement, Bill.
Some of the illegal immigrants are people who overstay the visa. You have got to have a visa tracking system and the second is E-verify. If people come across the border and they are coming here to work. If they can't find work, because an E-verify system automates the checking to see if they are legal, they are not going to come over.
O'REILLY: Not a full proof system as you though know. We did it --last week, we did a phony document segment on this program, very easy to get. You can get a three pack in L.A. Everybody knows where to get it. I like the E-verify, but look, Trump has to present himself as a man who is not vindictive. Would you agree with that? He is not vindictive. I just want to protect the nation, right?
KRAUTHAMMER: Well, I think you can make that case -- by the way, on the E- verify. What you're doing is you are doing layers. You don't expect any layer to catch everybody. That's why you do the one layer --
O'REILLY: I understand that. People think it is fool proof and it isn't.
KRAUTHAMMER: It doesn't matter how you present it. You have got to have results. If I were Trump, I would institute these steps right away, working with Congress, you have got the majority. Do it, finally do it.
O'REILLY: Punish the sanctuary cities like I said.
KRAUTHAMMER: Absolutely.
O'REILLY: Jerry Brown, hey, Jerry, you know, hey, Jer, you are not getting any money for L.A. or San Diego. San Diego is not a sanctuary city, I don't think. San Francisco, you know, you are not getting any money. So you and your high tech train that you want to build, you can forget it all right. You will be lucky if you have a skateboard when we get through with you.
KRAUTHAMMER: First of all, Bill, the high speed train, I would cancel one way or the other. It's ridiculous. But, second, you notice how these liberals who want to do the sanctuary cities are speaking the language of the southern segregationists, the language of nullification and inner position, which incidentally was the language of the confederates.
O'REILLY: Yes, that's interesting point because it's way over my head.
KRAUTHAMMER: We live in a federal system.
O'REILLY: Way over my head. I can't grasp what you are saying. So let's get back to something I can understand. OK, why isn't Australia a racist nation? They have got 24 million people and we have 300 million more people it's the same land mass. And now we have to take 2,000 people that they shipped off to some island? We have to take them? They can't take 2,000 people? What's going on over there?
KRAUTHAMMER: Look, you are right about the racist. Until a generation ago, Australia had an explicit policy of white Australia for legal immigrants.
O'REILLY: They don't do that anymore though.
KRAUTHAMMER: No. A generation ago, but, nonetheless, it's not something that you would have had here. But, look, I think people understand if you can be generous, once have you secured the border, you can be generous with the people here. I would not ask them to register, Bill.
O'REILLY: I would.
KRAUTHAMMER: You are going to cause all kinds of social -- unless you have got a plan.
O'REILLY: I have a plan.
KRAUTHAMMER: Well, what's your plan?
O'REILLY: My plan is you register with the federal government. All right. Now we know where you live and how are. We crosscheck and the criminals won't. OK, so this gives you amazing -- a felony right off the bat. You can take them right off the street and the law abiding migrants that are here, we know who they are. We know if they are paying taxes and we can regulate them. Nobody knows where they are, Charles. They are running all over the place. That's not right. That's chaos.
KRAUTHAMMER: So your plan would agree with mine and you would legalize all those who are not criminals.
O'REILLY: No. I would register them and we would take a look at the situation after the border was secure as you suggested.
KRAUTHAMMER: Take a look --
O'REILLY: You know who they are, where they are.
KRAUTHAMMER: OK. Come on.
O'REILLY: All I would do. I have got to move ahead now. Have you changed your mind on Trump at all since he was elected?
KRAUTHAMMER: No, I haven't.
O'REILLY: Nothing?
KRAUTHAMMER: When he was elected, something happened, the question went from being should he be president to what's he going to do as president? Once the people have spoken, and they spoke, unequivocally, he is the chosen. He is now going to be our president. He has a legitimacy, and I would even say the majesty of the office in which I respect.
O'REILLY: You haven't softened up on him, his picks, the way he has conducted himself?
KRAUTHAMMER: I have a completely open mind. I'm judging him by what he does.
O'REILLY: And he hasn't gone up a little bit in the Dr. Krauthammer meter of approval?
KRAUTHAMMER: He has done things since he has been elected, since he won the election that I actually am encouraged by.
O'REILLY: All right.
KRAUTHAMMER: Some of his appointments, some of his moves, and I -- if he is going to govern like this, I would not hesitate in the slightest.
O'REILLY: We will check with you every few months and see if the meter of approval is going up. Where is Rudy Giuliani? I thought he was going to be secretary of state. The guy is in a witness protection program. Have you seen him for three weeks? Where is he?
KRAUTHAMMER: I have no idea, but I don't think is he going to be secretary of state.
O'REILLY: Isn't that strange though that he disappears?
KRAUTHAMMER: Well, he will be back. They all come back.
O'REILLY: But why did he leave? You must know.
KRAUTHAMMER: Well, I'm not exactly an intimate of Donald Trump.
O'REILLY: But you know everything. Where is he?
KRAUTHAMMER: No, I don't have the powers of deamination. You expect me to pull out Ouija board here and find him? Where is the world in Rudy Giuliani?
O'REILLY: I don't know where he is. I thought -- you know, he was going to be one of Trump's main guys --
KRAUTHAMMER: You tell me where Governor Christie is.
O'REILLY: Who?
KRAUTHAMMER: Chris Christie.
O'REILLY: He's in Jersey.
KRAUTHAMMER: He's a little bit harder to hide.
O'REILLY: It's hard to get across the George Washington Bridge. He's in traffic. All right, one more thing, who do you think is secretary of state material who would you like to see? Real quick.
KRAUTHAMMER: I think the most qualified would be John Bolton or David Petraeus. He may not be. You asked me who is the most qualified. The second choice would be David Petraeus.
O'REILLY: Both good choices. Charles, thank you.
Directly ahead, another American company threatening to move to Mexico. President-elect Trump's threatening action against that company. We will tell you what's going on.
Later, Watters advising folks on the Christmas gift situation. Those reports after these messages.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O'REILLY: "Impact" segment tonight, with Donald Trump achieving a big PR victory by stopping the Carrier Corporation from nearly moving a thousand jobs to Mexico is a major buzz in the American corporate structure.
Now a company named Rexnord also from Indiana says it will fire 300 workers and move its ball bearing business to Monterrey, Mexico. Mr. Trump has tweeted "That would be vicious."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm praying God, just give me something that I can hold on to, some hope, and then he tweeted.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: To Rexnord employee, Brian Bussam (ph), this late night tweet from President-elect Donald Trump was a small sign. It said, "Rexnord of Indiana is moving to Mexico and rather viciously firing all of its 300 workers. This is happening all over our country. No more."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: Joining us now from Boston, Mary Anne Marsh, and here in New York City, Katie Pavlich. So Governor Sarah Palin, a conservative, is against all this strong arming the corporations and if you move you're going to get slapped with a 35 percent tariff and all that. That's a conservative side. Liberals say Trump is fascist or whatever. What do you say?
KATIE PAVLICH, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, the left is going to complain about anything that Donald Trump does at this point.
O'REILLY: Yes. That's why I led with Palin.
PAVLICH: Right. On Sarah Palin's aspect, there is a very serious conservative economic principle here and that is that it's great that Donald Trump is able to keep some of these companies here on a case-by-case basis that's not sustainable long term. He has to be able to level the playing field for all companies in the country so that everyone is able to make their own decisions rather than the government --
O'REILLY: We will lose because of worldwide economics.
PAVLICH: That's not necessarily true.
O'REILLY: You're going to lose thousands and thousands of manufacturing jobs. Sure it is. The reason this ball bearing plant is moving down to Monterrey is cuts its labor by a third.
PAVLICH: But let's look at what caused businesses that kind of money in those countries, regulations by the Obama administration, 21,000 new regulations --
O'REILLY: No, it's labor costs.
PAVLICH: Labor costs, too, but guess what, that's a result of regulation. These overtime rules the president has put into place just in the last year, just blocked by a judge. The EPA also costs businesses money. There are things that you can take away to level the playing field.
O'REILLY: You are against Trump twisting these people's arms and threatening with a tariff. You're against that.
PAVLICH: I think he should level the playing field for every --
O'REILLY: I don't know what level the playing field means. You are against the 35 percent tariff, yes or no.
PAVLICH: I'm against some picking winners and losers or against taxing 35 percent because ultimately that will be passed on to consumers.
O'REILLY: Nobody will buy their ball bearings. They'll buy other ball bearings because not everybody is going to get 35 percent.
PAVLICH: The costs have to be paid for somewhere.
O'REILLY: Mary Anne, you say?
MARY ANNE MARSH, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I'm for anybody trying to save anybody's jobs and especially blue collar jobs like the folks in Indiana every single time. The question is, as Charles said in the last segment, what's Trump going to do?
Because now he's set a precedent for every company who threatens to leave the country, they're going to come to him with a ransom note and say here is what it is going to cost you to keep me here and then Trump is going to have to try to pay it again and again and again.
O'REILLY: You don't know if he will do the same thing every time.
MARSH: That's the point you don't know what he is going to do.
O'REILLY: You know what is he going to do on one front what I just grilled Katie about, he is going to charge companies who leave the United States 35 percent when they try to sell back to America from Mexico or Ireland or China or Vietnam, wherever it may be. That is what he wants to do. Do you favor that?
MARSH: No. It's going to hurt the very people whose jobs he tried to save because it will get passed down to the consumers.
O'REILLY: As I just said, very astutely to Katie, you won't buy the ball bearings from those people. They will buy them from other people who don't have a 35 percent tariff. This is a free marketplace.
MARSH: It's not sustainable because company after company is going to do that number one.
O'REILLY: No, they won't do it if they add the 35 percent.
MARSH: It does nothing to stop companies as they go to Trump every time to try to get these incentives. They will go and build their manufacturing in other places, expand their operations in other places --
O'REILLY: They will pay the 35 percent. I favor that go ahead.
PAVLICH: You asked what does level the playing field mean. If he is going to tax certain companies 35 percent like he says, those people will buy ball bearings by another company not paying tax. If you tax everyone equally, it's levelling the playing field. But the better option is to foster a business friendly corporate environment in America.
O'REILLY: It's too theoretical.
PAVLICH: It is not. There are so many things that Donald Trump can do to make business more friendly in America.
O'REILLY: Let me impart some wisdom to you, OK. In the last 50 years, United States has lost manufacturing jobs to China and other third world nations whose labor costs are much less.
PAVLICH: And regulation is less.
O'REILLY: No level playing field going to compete with that not in America. You have to earn a certain wage to live. All right, very good, Ladies. I think I dominated that and I'm sorry. I apologize.
MARSH: It was your segment, Bill.
O'REILLY: My show, I know but I don't want to be a jerk.
PAVLICH: That's all right.
O'REILLY: That's all right. Pavlich. That's all right. We know he is a jerk.
PAVLICH: I'm glad we got that squared away.
O'REILLY: Plenty more as THE FACTOR moves along this evening. Did you know actress, Bo Derek, once appeared in a film with President-elect Trump? We've uncovered amazing scene.
Then Watters on Christmas gifts.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JESSE WATTERS, O'REILLY FACTOR CORRESPONDENT: What kind of toys are you buying your kids for Christmas?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I got Xbox 360.
WATTERS: Xbox 360? How about a book instead?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What?
WATTERS: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: We hope you stay tune to those reports.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O'REILLY: "Personal Story" segment tonight, as you may know Marine four- star General, James Mattis, has been selected by Donald Trump to be secretary of defense. Back a few years ago, however, Mattis and President Obama clashed and the General was relieved of his command months before his assignment in the U.S. Central Command was over. What was the source of that friction?
Joining us now from Washington, Congressman Ryan Zinke, who knows General Mattis very well. He is also the author of the book "American Commanders Serving the Country Worth Fighting For And Training The Brave Soldiers Who Lead The Way."
People don't know you. You a former Navy SEAL. You served with General Mattis in Iraq. You are friends with him to this day. I need to know what the friction was between the General and President Obama.
REP. RYAN ZINKE (R), MONTANA: Well, multiple points, no doubt. First, the Iranian treaty which in my mind is nearly treasonous. Secondly, the commitment of troops were too late. We remain too late. The military all ask for more troops in Afghanistan, he didn't get them and he understands, if we are going to fight then fight to win.
O'REILLY: OK, let me stop you. Let me stop you. So, General Mattis didn't like the nuke deal that Kerry put together? He didn't like it?
ZINKE: I'm sure. Multiple times he testified before Congress he properly identified the threat is Iran. It's always been the principle threat and this deal that was made, the president lied about how bad it was and we're still finding information.
O'REILLY: Does Mattis though believe that? Does Mattis believe the commander-in-chief lied to the American people? Does he believe it?
ZINKE: You know, he is going to be asked that question. I'm sure in his confirmation hearings, but I know he is upset and the other thing is Mattis, you know, Mattis is he understands the strength of our military. He's a sergeant and a chief. And when we don't have the necessary resources at the front line, you know, that concerns Mattis.
O'REILLY: OK.
ZINKE: And Mattis is going to have to have one heck of a job.
O'REILLY: So General Mattis is in Afghanistan and President Obama draws down, and Mattis objects to that drawing down? He didn't want to remove those troops from Afghanistan?
ZINKE: Well, when you are going to fight, you have got to fight to win. If you draw the troops down so much, what you become is a defensive posture. You're not heavy enough to take Taliban and go on offense nor are you heavy enough if one of our troops gets hurt then you got to bring them out with our helicopters.
That means you need support and logistics footprint of moving the needle is significant. But we continuously draw the troops down in numbers even though all the military commanders are saying we need more on the front line.
O'REILLY: All right. But that goes against President Obama wanting to end all these wars, bring back the U.S. military presence over there because his party wants that. They don't want to be in Iraq and Afghanistan. How bad was the friction between Mattis and Obama? Was it personal? Did it get nasty?
ZINKE: Well, you know, as a four-star, it's either you move up or out. And having a four-star who doesn't believe in your policies, you know, on foreign shores is one thing. Having them in the Pentagon and at home is another.
So I think the president, he certainly can choose as commander-in-chief. I didn't think he wanted General Mattis around to dispute the policies. And first of all, what's our policy? The military is supposed to support a policy. We are rudderless as far as our policy. We don't have a policy in the Middle East.
What's our policy in Syria or Iran or Iraq? They were playing it by play- by-play without knowing where the end zone is and Mattis is a type of warrior that number one respects policy, and number two, tell me what the policy is and I will put the military in force to make sure that we win.
O'REILLY: All right, Congressman, we appreciate it. Thank you very much.