All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 22, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:46
January 22, 2010, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back and greetings to you in general, my friends.
It's Rush Limbaugh, America's truth detector, the doctor of democracy, a prophet, a general all-round good guy on the EIB network on Friday, live from the Southern Command in Sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
And as Bernie Frank would say, I promise to get to the phones in this hour.
Yeah, in fact, even in this half hour.
So much to do each and every day.
800 282-2882 if you want to be on the program, the uh email address L Rushball at EIB net.com.
Just to repeat, yesterday, Paul Ryan, Republican Democrat uh Congressman from Wisconsin, ranking member of the House Budget Committee told National Review Online that House Democrats are planning to use the uh budget reconciliation process in order to pass Obamacare.
They're meeting with each other this weekend to pursue it, Ryan said.
Said he's spoken with many Democrats, and the message is this.
They're not ready to give up.
They've waited their entire life, uh, adult lives for this moment.
There they aren't ready uh to to let a hundred thousand pesky votes in Massachusetts get in the way of fulfilling their destiny, they will look at every option and spend the next four or five days figuring it out.
If they go reconciliation, as you know, it means they would only uh need 51 votes in the Senate for final passage.
Now, to start this process, here's what Pelosi would have to do.
She would need to bring a brand new health care bill to the House Budget Committee with reconciliation instructions, with the Senate doing the same.
They they'd have to go back to the beginning of the process, Ryan says, and then they would need to affix reconciliation instructions to a new bill.
Now he says that wouldn't be hard, and he says there's nothing we can do to stop this from a technical standpoint.
But he does say that if reconciliation happens, uh he predicted the Democrats will still have a hard time pulling it off because there are blue dog Democrats out there who are more survivalist than they are ideological.
One or two switches could be a game changer.
The question is whether the Democrats will continue to follow Pelosi off the cliff.
Uh after Massachusetts, the Democrats are quickly realizing that even if the president comes in to stump and you get all the union support you need, it's still not enough to get you elected.
Speaking of the president stumping, it has now been confirmed.
Thank goodness he is gonna go to Nevada to campaign for dingy Harry Reed.
And he is O for three now.
He's O for Virginia, he is O for uh uh New Jersey and O for Massachusetts.
Let's make it O for four in Nevada.
Uh have you people I'm this is it's it's had over two million hits now.
This video of Hitler being told by his staff that Scott Brown won in Massachusetts and that health care is finished.
It is hilarious.
It's literally hilarious.
And one of Hitler's lines is I can't believe it.
This has gone on longer than Stalingrad.
And it's true if they they spent the whole year on this.
If they want to spend another half year on this on something that only 35% of the American people want, let them bring it on.
Let them try it again.
Let them be seen.
Here they're trying to prove that they've seen the light.
They've saw they they they're trying to show that we realize we've overstepped.
Uh, we gotta start focusing on what you want, uh, jobs and blah, blah, blah.
Let them bring it back.
Let them bring it back.
Let them continue to just flip off the American people.
Let them illustrate that their their whole objective, their whole purpose is to govern against the will of the American people.
I am all for the Democrat Party illustrating that as often as they as they can.
Now, Supreme Court came out with his big free speech decision yesterday.
It's sweeping.
It is huge.
Did you hear Obama's response?
Obama said that uh he needs to develop a forceful response to this decision.
The public interest requires nothing else.
A forceful Response.
Now I want to point out that Obama was a law professor, or technically a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years.
Now, why would a law professor oppose a Supreme Court decision on a matter of constitutional law and not respect the authority of the court and honor our system of separation of powers?
Why?
Of course it's easy because he doesn't like the Constitution.
And this we know.
He thinks the Constitution restrains him and uh and restricts him for doing things to people.
The Constitution spells out what the government may not do.
And that's what he doesn't like.
Thomas Lipson writing about this in the AmericanThinker.com, no more need to set up political action committees in order to have a constrained voice.
Corporations now can pay for their own ads, though they can't contribute directly to campaigns.
The political dialogue in America will become more varied and intense, with for-profit and nonprofit corporations able to spend money in order to influence politics.
The changes could be far reaching.
This diminishes the power of the left overall, as corporations now have the ability to speak as loud or louder than unions who have been unfettered.
Today's Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case means the anti-incumbent furor that has been growing is partly released from the shackles created by incumbent protection election and campaign finance laws, which is exactly how I characterized McCain Feingold, the incumbent protection act.
The dirty little secret about all campaign finance laws passed in Congress since 1972 is they were designed to protect incumbents by stifling competition and restraining their opponents.
Howard Feynman.
This is the more I hear people react to this on the left, and the more I read, the more I understand just what a huge win for freedom and liberty this decision was.
The liberals are having a fit.
Here's Howard Feynman.
I rarely attend a Supreme Court argument, but I did last fall for a rehearing of the campaign spending case.
I wrote a column about it.
I predicted that the Roberts Court would sweep away long-established restrictions on spending by corporations.
The most vivid image I saw was the red-faced chief justice John Roberts, his veins popping on his neck as he vibrated with disgust at the idea that government could limit what a corporate entity could do or say in the political arena.
The 5-4 opinion issued yesterday by the Roberts Court, written by swing voter Anthony Kennedy, was even more sweeping than I had imagined and predicted.
It's nothing short of revolutionary.
And here's how I add up the possible consequences, writes Mr. Feynman.
It adds to Republican chances of pickups in red states with small cheap media markets.
It turns the cottage industry of campaign consulting into a Hollywood lucrative major media sector.
It reduces candidates and political parties to mere appendages in their own campaigns.
It'll turn corporate boardrooms into political political cock fighting pits, since that's where the key decisions will be made.
It gives President Obama a populist issue if he has the cajones and imagination and sense of injustice to take it on.
It rips the veil of conservatism from this court, which just rendered one of the most wildly activist opinions in decades.
It makes a mockery of the legal theory of original intent.
The founders must be rolling over in their graves, other than that, it's not much of a story.
The left thinks this is judicial activism.
That's where we've come to.
Judicial activism is standing up for the First Amendment.
Judicial activism is simply recognizing the constitutionality of speech.
That to the left is an abomination.
They call that judicial activitial activism is rewriting the Constitution to say things it doesn't Say, interpreting it in ways that were never intended to be interpreted.
Writing new law from the bench is activism, but simply upholding the constitutionality of the First Amendment.
That is original intent.
It's certainly not activism, any way, shape, manner, or form.
I'll tell you, the Washington Post has a story here, and the argument that was advanced by the government in this case, you will not believe this.
It all started with Dave Bossy.
Republican campaign operative made his mark investigating the Clintons.
He wanted to come up with a counter to Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911.
So he um came up with his group, Citizens United, and they released Celsius 41.1.
And after it became clear that Hillary was going to run for president, they released another movie, Hillary the Movie, and it featured a who's who cast of right-wing commentators.
It is in 2008.
Takes viewers on a savaging journey, the post says, through the Clinton scandals.
The sole compliment about the then senator comes from conservative firebrand Ann Coulter, who said Hillary looks good in a pantsuit.
But Hillary the movie never became a blockbuster because the FEC, the Federal Election Commission, restricted Citizens United ability to advertise the film during the 2008 primary season.
Bosse said yesterday that the marketplace for my movie was completely and totally shut down by the FEC.
So he sued.
And thus was born Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission.
Now, Bosse said that Ted Olson was singularly responsible for winning this case.
Olsen transformed the case from a narrow one about McCain Feingold to an assault on the law's constitutionality, helping crystallize the issue for the justices.
When the Supreme Court first heard the case in March, the deputy solicitor general Malcolm Stewart, representing the FEC, this is Obama's lawyer, was pulled into a discussion of an issue that took him down a slippery slope.
If the movie were a book, the government lawyer was asked if the movie were a book, would the government ban publishing the book if it mentioned a candidate for office within the election time frame?
And this guy representing the FEC said yes, the government would ban the book.
And the justices shot up, stood up and said, What the hell are you talking about?
Alito said that's pretty incredible.
And then came questions about electronic devices like the Kindle.
And Chief Justice Roberts said if it has one name, one use of the candidate's name, it would be covered, correct?
And you could ban it?
The book?
And the government lawyer said that's correct.
And Robert said that's a 500-page book.
And at the end it says, and so vote for X, the government could ban that book, the government lawyer said yes.
He had to.
If he's going to ban a movie, he's got to be consistent and say, Yeah, we're going to ban a book.
Dave Bossey said that was the argument that turned a majority of the bench against the FEC and in favor of Citizens United.
In the LA Times on the opinion page, conservatives embrace judicial activism in campaign finance ruling.
The Supreme Court's decision in favor of corporate spending and elections makes previous rhetoric laughable.
Look at it, if they want to call me an activist for speech and liberty, then I'll raise my hand.
I'll gladly be an activist.
You know, it's a sad damn thing.
We need activists for speech and liberty in the United States of America, folks.
It's a damn sorry sight that we need activists for speech and liberty.
The liberals say that the framers never meant to protect corporations.
Uh the hatred for corporations on the American left, I'm still dialing in on that.
It is it is more intense than even I'm uh and was aware of.
Snurdly, I'm not surprised the ruling wasn't unanimous.
You got four libs.
I mean, you got four huge libs.
I'm not surprised at all it wasn't unanimous.
But these are banning banning books.
Well, they have tried to ban books.
These are the these are.
The left is a monster, the likes of which average people still have not come to grips with.
The Washington Post, high court shows it might be willing to act boldly.
And Roberts said, you know, you people disagreeing here, if we held a pre- see, the liberals think starry deceases is that's it.
That's you've got to hold a press.
You cannot overturn precedence ever.
And Roberts said, Oh, yeah, if we held the precedent, segregation would still be legal.
Minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional.
The government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without a warrant.
If stare decisis cannot be seen as an extral command, if we can't overturn precedent, then I'm sure you liberals do not want to go that route.
In the New York Times, the courts blow to democracy.
Listen to this.
Listen to this characteration by the character characterization of the New York Times.
The majority is deeply wrong on the law.
Most wrong-headed of all is its insistence that corporations are just like people and entitled to the same First Amendment rights.
It's an odd claim since companies are creations of the state that exists to make money.
They're given special privileges, including different tax rates to do just that.
It was a fundamental misreading of the Constitution to say that these artificial legal constructs have the same right to spend money on politics as ordinary Americans have to speak out in support of a candidate.
Well, corporations are made up of ordinary Americans.
But what does he mean here?
Corporations are created by the state.
Because you got to get a charter.
You got to.
Well, no, he means the state.
He means the central planners.
Corporations are created.
The state creates nothing.
They may grant the creators of an idea permission to do it, but they create zilch.
You know, it is amazing.
All what these liberals are saying, there's no way that people can compete with corporations when it comes to spending and political speech, that this is simply too much freedom.
Well, I'm going to tell you something else.
Leftists, there is no way that average Americans can't compete with the unions either.
We cannot compete with the unions.
We can't compete with a union, one alone, which gave Obama 60 billion, was it?
Or million.
$60 million.
We can't compete.
One union gave him $60 million.
This is just leveling the playing field.
Howard Feynman says it's an activist opinion.
All corporations are to be censored during elections.
Why are media corporations accepted then?
This is one question I would love to ask all of these people in the media.
You work for corporations.
Yeah, but we are the press of First Amendment.
Well, everybody has First Amendment protections.
Everybody is acknowledged to have the right to free speech.
Yeah, but we're special.
We're the press.
Yeah, but you work for corporations.
Your corporations are putting you out there.
You're not independent contractors.
Look at your paycheck.
It's coming from ABC or Disney, or it's coming from GE or NBC.
Or coming from uh CBS and whoever the hell else.
You work for corporations and you despise them.
What the what the Lib media are trying to do here, folks, and the and the Democrats as well, they're trying to misuse the language again.
I mean, the simple fact of the matter is that when the when the court upholds the Constitution, that's not activism.
When the court rejects activist precedent from prior courts, that's not activism.
Rejecting the Constitution is activism.
And they're trying to misappropriate this word, activism, for their own purposes.
Dred Scott would be the law of the land.
Slavery would be the law of the land.
Plessy versus Ferguson would be the law of the land.
That's segregation.
Koramatsu would be the law of the land, ladies and gentlemen.
That's the internment of the Japanese Americans.
On and on and on.
All of these things, if we couldn't overturn precedent, we'd still have slavery and segregation.
Following the Constitution can never be activism.
Following the Constitution Is fidelity to the law.
Corporations are nothing more than individuals organized into a group for the purpose of conducting business.
At the core of the attacks on this decision is the hate for liberty and competition and debate.
That is what the media doesn't like.
It's what the Democrat Party doesn't like, and of course the left doesn't like any of that.
Liberty, competition, and debate.
As far as I'm concerned, the left does not get to decide, my friends, which parts of the Constitution have meaning and which parts do not.
But they want to have that power.
It is we, the conservatives, who stand for the Bill of Rights.
They don't.
The right to speech, the right to religious liberty and freedom, the right to bear arms, the right to private property, et cetera.
Thank God for the Bill of Rights.
And it has just been freed.
Freedom awoke from a 100-year coma yesterday with this decision.
Here's David Rodham Gurgen.
Uh, and uh that's actually a montage here of a bunch of people who do not like this one bit.
The court here is guilty of uh something conservatives say they don't like, and that is judicial activism.
This is judicial activism.
What the Supreme Court has done today is they've shown their political activism.
The conservatives talk about not having interference with the democratic process.
This is judicial striking down of the law.
The notion that John Roberts and his court were careful proceduralists who looked to original intent and you know only went incrementally in the law, that's completely out the window.
This is one of the most radical decisions in a long, long time.
Ah, they're squealing like stuck pigs.
It tells you how good a decision it is.
The media wants freedom of speech all to themselves.
Even if they do work for corporations.
Okay, I promise.
First thing we're gonna do after this break is take some phone calls.
Sit tight, folks.
We're coming right back.
Let me put this in perspective.
This this caterwalling of the left over upholding the First Amendment.
These people who are upset with American citizens who happen to work in corporations, who happen to be directors in corporations having the ability to participate in our political process.
These are the same people who want to grant constitutional rights to terrorists and do.
These are the same people that want to put on a show trial with the masterminds of the 9-11 disaster, grant them freedom of speech, grant them every constitutional right, including Miranda rights, the fruit of kaboom bomber.
And yet they hate American corporations.
They have they have some ingrained genetic despisal of corporations.
Because corporations competitive, they uh they foster and thrive in free open markets, all of which are opposed by the left.
All right, we're gonna start in Indianapolis with Alex.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hello, sir.
It's an honor to speak with you.
Thank you very much.
I had one quick question.
Um, I agree with about 95% of what you say.
I listen to you every day.
I haven't missed in quite some time, but there's one point that I'd like to ask you about.
I'm a member of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, the UFCW.
It wasn't an option.
It had I had to do it with my job, and it's a great job.
But they make sure I have I have better pay than I would have otherwise.
I have friends that aren't in unionized groceries and they get paid less.
I have good health insurance.
I have good overtime rules, good vacation rules.
And I'm just wondering, do you see that there's some benefit to unionization for the individual workers?
Not when they get involved in politics, but just for individual workers.
Look it.
I'm all for freedom.
Yes.
You want to join a union, if it makes sense for you, and if it makes you happy, and it's the best you think you can do, go for it.
I have no problem with that.
My problem is is with is primarily the public employees' unions, although they're all aligned, but the leadership of these unions are all leftist to the point of there's a there's a there's there was a piece uh in uh written by the ahead honcho of the Service Employees International Union.
This is the bunch that donated $60 million to President Obama during his campaign.
There was an article published this week urging the Democrats to continue to not stop this, that the union people of this country demand it.
Now the union people are 8% of the population.
This article appeared in the Communist Party of the United States magazine.
The unions, the public employee unions, and the leadership of most unions are not just Democrats.
They are far left liberals.
They work expressly for the destruction of the private sector.
Look at what just happened with President Obama.
He's got this tax plan, this tax increase on anybody that has a what he what he considers to be a Cadillac health insurance plan, meaning uh if your health insurance plan costs your company twenty-three thousand dollars or more per year, uh, then there's going to be a forty percent tax on that.
Well, almost every government worker, government unions health care is a Cadillac health care policy.
Obama exempted the unions.
Eight percent of the population will not have to pay his forty percent tax.
The other ninety-two percent of the people that work in this country who are not unionized will have to pay it for them.
Yeah.
Like I said, I I think when they get involved in politics, it's it comes really poorly, but I think that if they could find a w if the unions like UAW, UFCW could find a way to stay out of politics, but still impossible.
The whole thing is I know.
I it would be nice, though.
But I I just wanted to let you know that they do help me out and they help me take care of my family and they help me.
I understand a lot of ways personally.
This this is the great seduction.
This this is the great hook.
I actually believe that uh I don't I don't know what you earn annually.
I know that that uh many government workers, many government unionized people.
If you add their salaries and benefits together, you'll get an annual compensation of 175,000 a year.
They are not being laid off.
They are not losing their jobs.
The unemployment rate in government worker unions is three point six percent, it's seventeen percent throughout the rest of the country.
These these look at what the UAW did.
Look at what UAW did to General Motors and Chrysler.
They tore him apart, yes.
I see that.
I know it's it's a double-edged sword.
But when I go to when I go to the store or when I'm trying to pay my bills, you know, it is nice to see that.
It's I I wish they could do it without tearing GM apart.
My dad lost his job with GM because of unions, but it's it is nice on an individual basis sometimes.
But I mean, now like I said, 95% of the time I'm right there with you, but I just want you to understand that when I cash my check, I I do in some ways appreciate the UFCW.
Well, you you're you yeah, not that union, however, I that's that's you're you work at a at a uh uh a uh private sector store, right?
You don't work for a government entity.
Yes.
That's not a government union, although the the the they all pool their resources and the vast majority of them um uh whether they're in government or not, uh, still advocate liberalism and Democrats, and they have had an unfair political and financial advantage uh for a hundred years, fifty years up until yesterday.
That's now gonna change.
That's why they're all squealing like uh like stuck pigs.
But I I think you know in large measure, this is not true in virtually every case, but when you look at an American company or industry or type of industry in trouble, the odds are you're going to find a union smack dab in the middle of it.
And not the workers.
Not I mean, you you guys are just like rank and foul Democrats who really don't know what their leaders are really all about.
You're Democrat because you were born that way and your parents were, your parents have always been union and it just passed down to the family.
Uh and you look like you, you you you owe your life, you think.
You owe your salary, your living, uh, your ability to pay bills, your ability to eat uh to the union.
I'm not trying to talk you out of that.
Uh this is free country.
If you want to be a member of a union and you got you derive that from it, fine and dandy.
But they're also I want you to know what they're doing with their mandatory dues that they are uh that they're taking from you.
I mean, they're they're they're they're financing a a a leftist liberal movement in this country.
Look what it's doing.
We're in we're we're 10.
uh 10 percent unemployment, probably 10.8 percent in reality.
If you count the people who've stopped looking, uh it's up to 17 percent unemployment.
There's no hope.
There's nothing.
The people that run this country have the same mentality of the people who run these government unions.
And they don't have any love or appreciation for the private sector.
They all hate corporations, even though they make deals with them for salary, wages, and benefits, and they end up doing them great harm.
It's the most amazing thing to watch.
I'm glad you called, though.
I appreciate the opportunity to answer the uh answer the question.
I have I have no animus at all toward people who work and members of unions and so forth.
The only people I disagree with are liberals, whether they work or not.
And I'm always in going to.
I think they will destroy this country if given half the chance.
Don in Miami, I'm glad you waited, sir.
You're on open line Friday.
You're up next.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
I respect this opportunity.
Thank you, sir.
I think the Republicans have lost their vision.
The president is not a lame duck because of Massachusetts.
The opportunity seems to be the Republican opposition seems to be proud of derailing the health of America.
But the Democrats, from my scope of vision, seems to be on the right direction in the right direction.
We'll soon see the derailing of the right-wing voice of opposition.
Well, tell me uh specifically, what about the from your scope of vision?
What is it the Democrats are doing right?
Democrats trying to raise the standard of the middle class at the same time bring the standard of the lower class up.
And uh I'm not I'm a conservative, trust me.
Don, I don't think I don't think the the upper class in this society uh should be so selfish as to not uh like the president's uh uh chance to um go straight down the middle and help the economy.
Don, may I ask how old you are?
Oh, sir, you wouldn't I'm up there.
Okay.
And you believe this all your life.
I'm a registered Republican, I vote Democrat, and I believe this all my life.
Well, that's because Don, I I um I know you take opposition that you this is free speech.
Well, it's not it's not just I take opposition, it's just I'm sad.
Uh because you sound like a smart guy, but you couldn't be more wrong.
I mean, that this administration, particularly Barack Obama and this bunch of Democrats, is destroying the middle class.
They are putting more people in poverty.
They never try to elevate people at the low end of the scale.
They always try to punish people at the top, which is what Obama's doing now by double taxing the banks.
Uh there's not one thing this man has done for the people of this country.
Not one thing, Don.
He hasn't done one thing for the middle class.
He hasn't done one thing for any group or individual that you can find.
He hasn't done one thing.
Name for me, anybody, exactly one thing he's done good.
You think they are trying.
You didn't even say they've done it.
You think they're trying, which means that you are falling for their rhetoric.
You are falling for their good intentions.
Look how they've destroyed black families in this country, Don, with their welfare programs.
Look how they have kept people in poverty with their poverty programs.
Look at how they have kept more and more people dependent on government for their lives, for their very existence.
And they live as paupers, and yet those people think the Democrats are fighting for them.
It's a it's an age-old myth that way too many people believe.
But we are in the process of changing gazillions of minds.
Glad you called.
And we're back, El Rushbo, serving humanity on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
800 282-2882.
You want to be On the program.
Do our last caller, Don.
Don, I know you're still out there.
You want some proof on harming, taking aim at and harming the middle class.
Take a take away the words, Don.
Forget what they're saying.
You're caught up in believing they're trying to do a bunch of things.
Look at what they do.
You talk about you want it what they're intending to do, try the taxation of Cadillac health insurance plans.
Cadillac health insurance plans are held by many people in the middle class.
Those are excellent health plans.
Obama is taking aim at excellent health insurance plans, and he wants to force them out of existence.
He wants to tax them out of existence and force people who have them to go on a government insurance plan.
They want to lower living standards for people.
They don't want to raise anybody's living standards.
And they're doing it, Don.
It's happening all around us.
Time you started voting Republican if you're going to register that way.
George and Warren, Ohio, you're next on Open Line Friday.
Hello.
Yes, sir.
Hey, I wanted to tell you a little bit about uh the auto rescue that uh Mr. Obama put uh put together through the Treasury Department.
What rescue?
Well, yeah, exactly.
The uh they forced General Motors into bankruptcy, and one of the things that they had to do in order to get GM out was to get their their ex uh uh part supplier out too, and that was Delphi Corporation.
And in the uh in the end, what they did was they they really ended up taking care of all of the union folks, paid for the uh UAW pensions, brought it up to full funding, same thing with almost all of their health care.
The IUE and the steel workers also got uh full pensions, but the salary people got thrown under the bus, and they justified it by saying that those people, the salary people, had no commercial value.
Think about applying that uh to uh I don't know, health care, you know, or uh social security.
No commercial value.
This is how the United States government determines how to interact with the people of the United States.
That is a great way, I think, of illustrating exactly how the left looks at corporations.
They look at them as blood suckers, the white-collar people feed off of and steal what the real workers, the real brains, the real impetus behind the corporation, they always get paid the least, and these fat cats, they're white-collar jobs who don't do anything, they get all the money.
Ergo, we've got to hate them.
And so when white-collar people get laid off, or when white-collar people do not get made fully fully whole in a such circumstance like you're talking about, nobody's upset about it.
Happy.
It's about time those white-collar people got what they deserve.
It's about time they found out what it's like to be what us blue-collar people are.
That's that's and that's a direct result of the left-wing union leadership of the Democrat Party pitting groups of Americans against each other, which distracts people from what the leftist agenda really is.
Um for example, I I don't know uh how how well when when let's say somebody I don't like gets it gets their taxes raised, and I sit out here and say, you know, that doesn't make one difference in my life.
But I'm supposed to be made happy about it.
I'm supposed to be satisfied, my life isn't getting any better, but I'm supposed to be happy that somebody's taxing somebody I don't like.
And that's what the left wants you to believe.
They're no they're not promising to raise your living standards at all.
They want you to be happy because they want you to believe they're getting even with your enemies.
And man, do they have them?
They have enemies all over the place.
They make them up.
They can't exist without demons, villains.
And every week it's a different one, a new one.
Here's Ralph and Houston, your next sir.
Great to have you with us on open line Friday.
Hi.
Hi, Mr. Lindbach.
Thank you for taking my call.
You bet.
Diddos.
Uh, I have a simple question.
Whenever you read a story in a newspaper or hear a report on a television news broadcast about a state that uh is uh Republican controlled, they always refer to that as a red state.
Yeah.
Well I'm a little bit younger than you are, but when I was growing up, you know, you always hear red China, you think communist countries, you see red flags.
Who's the one to determine that Republican states would be called red and the Democrats blue?
I think this was either the the media or the Democrats themselves who came up with the categorization.
The reason that Democrat states are called blue is because the color of unions is blue.
Blue collar, blue this, blue that.
Obama's logo color is blue.
They didn't want any association with red whatsoever, precisely for the reason that you mentioned.
But they're blue states because their blue collar unions are blue.
Well, that makes that makes sense.
I hadn't thought of that.
Well, that's why I'm here.
I'm that's why that's what Open Line Friday is for.
See, you have used the opportunity extremely uh wisely.
Kudos to you.
You bet.
Glad you called, sir.
All the best have a great weekend.
Thank you.
And the same to you, Mr. Limbo.
Thanks very much.
We'll be back after this.
Service Employee International Union uh Stern.
There's no reset button.
Labor movement is pressing for action on health care reform.
This story appears in the Communist Party USA's People's World, a magazine formerly known as the Daily Worker.
That's where the unions go to get their message out.
That and of course the uh others in the drive-by media, state control media.
Open line Friday will continue a brief obscene profit timeout here at the top of the hour.
We'll be back and wrap it up.
The final hour zips by folks.
Make sure you're here.
▲
Export Selection