Starting a million conversations, Rush and Ball emitting vocal vibrations, left coast to right coast.
The opinions, the views expressed by the host on this program documented to be almost always right 99.6% of the time.
Telephone number, if you want to appear, 800-282-2882, the email address.
lrushball at eibnet.com.
Oops, 67% of the American people approve.
Sorry, 67% disapprove of legislators fleeing Wisconsin to avoid vote.
This is a Rasmussen poll.
Half of America's voters favor public sector unions for government workers, but they strongly oppose the tactic by Wisconsin state senators to flee their state to prevent a vote that would limit the rights of such unions.
The latest Rasmussen reports survey shows that only 25% of likely U.S. voters approve of this tactic.
67% disapprove.
State legislators in Indiana have used the same approach to avoid a vote in their state.
Sizable majorities of Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party reject such a strategy.
Democrats are fairly evenly divided, blah, blah, blah.
When I read fair and even, I don't care what follows.
Democrats, I just toss it away.
Back to the audio soundbites.
Anderson Cooper's turn.
Last week, it was Nick Robertson a couple weeks ago, whatever it was, that poor old Nick was in Egypt in the belly of the beast attempting to drum up support for President Obama.
Now it's Anderson Cooper's turn.
Last night on CNN, Anderson Cooper, 19, spoke with unidentified Libyan woman about anti-government violence in Libya.
Government violence against protesters.
She said, why do you continue to report?
I will tell you something.
The Libyan public are angry from the statement was given by President Obama today.
Everybody was disappointed.
Oh, no!
CNN goes over hoping to find a lot of love for Obama in the Arab world, and they didn't find any.
The Libyan public are angry from the statement given by Obama today.
Everybody was disappointed.
Cooper says, what?
You think he didn't go far enough?
No.
I was expecting him commenting about the black people and the European, Eastern European people recruited to contribute in this massacre.
It's nonsense.
I thought that he's going to give even threats or warning for this to stop.
I expected more, to be honest.
I expected to read between the lines from his speech.
I could not see that.
I was very disappointed.
Everybody was disappointed.
I want America to support us.
That's what I just told a guy from Dexter, Missouri.
What's going on over there?
Well, they're looking for our support.
They're not finding it.
He didn't even mention Qaddafi's name.
The people protesting in Libya are hoping the United States stands with them.
And even reading between the lines.
What would have happened?
I mean, they're even admitting they might have to read between the lines to hear that support from President Obama, but they didn't even get it there.
And we just, we hearken back to the story from last April.
Gaddafi in a speech in London.
Yeah, Obama is my friend.
Barack Obama.
Policies good for the world.
He is my friend.
Hell, folks.
Even Gaddafi.
Birth certificate.
Let's go back.
Nick Robertson.
Let's relive this.
This is too good.
This is CNN.
I mean, they are on a roll.
They're all over the Middle East.
Egypt, Libya, bordering nations, if you will, border states, desperate to find support for President Obama in the midst of people protesting against their own governments for whatever reason.
So it's February 11th, nearly two weeks ago, live in Cairo.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has stepped down from power.
Senior international correspondent Nick Robertson and a man identified as Ahmed have this exchange about the Egyptian anti-government protests and President Obama.
Ahmed, you've been here down on the square for many days.
The United States international community just listened to President Obama say that America will support Egypt if it wants help and assistance and hopes that there'll be a good transition for jobs for the young people.
What would your message be for President Obama?
We do not actually who he supports.
He searches for his own burden and the Egyptian people seeks for our freedom and democracy.
Any local country should seek for the people, not for his own personal.
Hey, Ahmed, when you say that you don't know actually who he supports, he supports himself.
Looks at everything through that prism.
So, okay, there's our old buddy Nick Robertson.
What is your message for President Obama?
That's our message.
So next, Nick Robertson goes out and finds Mustafa and repeats the process.
Mustafa's joining me now.
We just heard President Obama say that he wants to extend support and assistance to Egypt and Egyptians if they want any hopes that there are more jobs for the young people in the future.
What's your message for President Obama?
Well, my message for Brilliant Owen is just we started this revolution without any outside help, and we are going to finish it also without any outside help.
Nick Robertson, 0 for 2.
What is your message for President Obama?
These people are fighting for their freedom or what have you.
They're not even thinking about Obama.
CNN wants to know, what is your message for President Obama?
Two for two.
But Nick Robertson not giving up here.
Sticking with old Mustafa one more time.
Are you pleased that President Obama has come out, however, now and said he supports this change and supports the people and supports the young people and what they've done?
Well, actually, Brilliant One's views were kind of conflicting during the last weeks.
But now he's saying that he's supporting the change.
I love this, folks.
I'm sorry, I could listen to this all day.
It's all day because it is so informative and instructive.
Okay, so here's Nick Robertson.
He's 0 for 2 from Ahmed and Mustafa.
So he tries again for Mustafa.
But look, Mustafa, can't you at least say that you're at least pleased with Obama?
He's now come out for jobs of it.
Three for three.
So you've heard it now.
Nick Robertson's 0 for 3, getting people to say anything supporting President Obama.
Here is how Nick Robertson wrapped it up with Mustafa.
The view from here is one I'm very happy now to hear that President Obama has swung behind the people.
I did not hear that.
I didn't hear any of them swing behind Obama.
I didn't hear any of them happy to hear that Obama swung behind them.
Didn't happen.
And then you've got poor old Anderson Cooper 19 trying with a woman.
Well, no, we didn't hear anything.
But you have to, CNN's doing everything they can here.
I mean, they're giving it the old college try.
Just not working out.
Last night on CNN's Piers Morgan tonight, this is the guy that took over for Larry King.
He interviewed Larry King.
Piers Morgan, ratings plummeting, went for broke last night.
Well, let's bring the old guy back.
Put him in the guest chair.
They had this discussion.
Quite interesting.
Listen to this.
On the scale of all the dictators you've interviewed, where does he rank, do you think, Gaddafi?
Because he has a certain notorati. in America for obvious reasons.
Love could be in other things.
Well, as a dictator, he's among the worst.
As an interview, he is the worst.
He's not an easy person to talk to, as opposed to, say, Chavez, who is terrific to talk to.
Some people are like American.
Chavez would be a successful, in my opinion, American politician.
He has flair, has dynamism, he has exuberance.
He comes into the room.
He changes the room.
There you have it.
That's what you need to be a good American for Larry King.
Dynamism.
Come in the room and change the room.
Be a successful American politician.
Larry, you left something out.
Successful American Democrat politician.
Successful American liberal politician.
But screw Gaddafi.
Hell.
Gaddafi, the dictator is among the worst.
Now, Chavez, there's a great dictator.
Now there's a dictator.
Great to have you with us, my friends.
Rush Limbaugh serving humanity would have my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair to Cincinnati.
Ron, hello, sir.
Glad you called.
Nice to have you with us on the EIB network.
Hi, Rush.
Rush, I've been a loyal supporter and listener of yours since the late 80s, and so is my wife.
Rush, what might be interesting is to know that my wife is a teacher.
Yep.
She's been a teacher for 35 years.
Some of the remarks that you made earlier in the week were disappointing to us both.
And we both care enough about you.
We both love you enough that I wanted to call you today, and I wanted to give you an opportunity to say something that I think you believe in as well, but maybe haven't had the chance to do it.
I know you believe that all professions don't necessarily walk in lockstep to a political party or a particular point of view any more than actors are all Democrats and liberals.
Some of them are ogonites and some of them are independents.
But early in the week, you referred to a study where there was, it was a troubling study where you said a certain percentage of students graduate not being able to read or write.
And we both came away with the impression that you were blaming the teachers.
There was a story specifically in Wisconsin that over half of Wisconsin eighth graders had sub-par reading levels.
Yes.
And Rush, the education of a person involves not only a quality teacher, and we all admit to that, but it also involves the interest of the individual student and the discipline he gets from his guardians.
Now, I would have ordinarily said parents, but nowadays we say guardians.
Moms and dads are something that only exists in half of the households.
I just think that this society is dysfunctional enough that we shouldn't be blaming a particular entire professional group, that 90% of which are college educated.
What does that have to do with anything, though?
That may be one of the problems.
The disparity of income between themselves and the other private sectors.
Most teachers are a lot more.
Yeah, but my point is, what have they learned in college?
What have they been taught?
How have they been indoctrinated?
Look at, I have talked to enough parents about some of the drivel that their kids are being taught in school.
It is frightening.
Some of the stuff I've heard about what's going on down here in South Florida, you would not believe.
Well, Rush, for 35 years, I've sat across the table from my wife, and we've talked about certain things that happen.
And I am absolutely convinced that you have a student body today in a parental or guardian group that simply didn't exist 20 or 30 years ago.
And I think that has to at least be considered when you talk about the asylum.
How?
What, are we going to let the inmates run the asylum?
What do you mean?
What is your, I don't want to lose focus here.
What is your B for complaint?
What did I say that bothered you that got you on this?
Well, I think you sort of referred to teachers as being all liberals and Democrats.
And again, my wife is, she loves you.
She's been listening to you for 20-some odd years.
So the profession as a group doesn't necessarily fall in that category.
Many teachers are supporters of yours or independents.
So to speak of them sort of as a group that falls lock in step with their union is not necessarily true.
I can't tell you what percentage, Rush, but I can tell you they're independent thinkers, they're college graduates, and they should be given credit for not necessarily all falling within that group that you referred to earlier in the week.
Yeah, but all of this is in context.
It's kind of the context here is what's happening in Wisconsin.
It was those teachers being discussed, those who have walked off the job, those who are accepting fraudulent medical excuses from fake or fraudulent doctors.
Wrong.
What do you mean, wrong?
All that is wrong, Rush, and those people should be fired.
And both, Jane, and we both look for the day when merit becomes the rule.
I firmly believe if merit were the rule, my wife would make more money today than she does, and that bad teachers should not be allowed in the classroom.
And I think we're slowly working our way towards that.
She is not interested in being a duespayer member of a state or national local organization, but Rush, she has to be.
If she isn't a duespayer member of that organization, she loses certain rights that are key to protecting her, particularly in terms of liability.
Precisely.
And that's been the focus of the discussion this week, not so much teacher incompetence.
This has been a discussion this week about the union stranglehold on education, what its real purpose is, which isn't education.
It's empowerment of the Democrat Party.
That's what this whole discussion has been about this week.
Your wife, members of my family are teachers.
Cousins, they're teachers.
Bad teachers are allowed in the classroom because the unions won't let them be fired.
You're kind of making my point here.
The unions are working against the interests of good teachers.
Look at what Obama did in Washington.
We had this brilliant plan, brilliant voucher program where kids of inner city parents' depth of poverty were allowed to go to a great private school, and Obama cut the program.
He cut because it was a threat to the teachers' unions.
He is totally beholden to unions.
So my point is the union which is standing in the way of people like your wife prospering because the union is not about education.
The NEA guy, the retiring outgoing general counsel for the NEA, we read his going away statement yesterday.
He said, we're not here for the children.
We don't have, our effectiveness has nothing to do with our merit, our ability.
It's all about the power that we have acquired.
Rush, the good teachers in school are as upset about the bad teachers as you are.
And they would like to see some way where they can also somehow there be a program or some kind of a merit system where they would be gotten rid of.
They are as disappointed and as upset as anybody.
I think the system is changing.
It's going to eventually go to a merit system, eventually go to a voucher system, and eventually the participation in the union is going to be something a teacher can opt out of.
So I appreciate, though, the things that you're saying and the points that you're bringing up.
And as you mentioned, Wisconsin being the battleground, Ohio is also a battleground for these issues.
Well, Democrats went off the job there, too.
You've got the same thing coming your way.
Yes.
But earlier in the week, to get back to what was disappointing was when you sort of said teachers, and not so much footnoting, saying, well, a certain segment of the teacher profession.
I just got that impression that you were talking about the entire profession.
And I'm sorry if that was not what you were.
Well, of course I'm not talking about the entire profession.
I'm.
I'm speaking here of unions, but I will say this to you.
The good teachers need to rise up against the union leaders.
You know, it's one thing to be upset with somebody like me when you think I'm lumping everybody together.
But, you know, the teachers' union, if the teachers' union is not representing its membership, then the membership needs to do something about it.
Whose fault is it?
Why don't the teachers take over their union if they know that horrible teachers are still there only because of the union?
The teachers, the good teachers ought to be out on the streets supporting Governor Walker.
Where are they?
The good teachers, such as your wife, the teachers who are upset with what's happening, where are they?
We don't hear from them.
They're the ones that make it look like they are in solidarity with the unionized teachers.
The teachers are responsible for their union.
You know, and look at, when you first called, you wanted to blame the guardians or the parents.
Well, okay, fine and dandy.
But where do the teachers come into this equation?
Teachers have to have some responsibility for it.
You can't just say that, well, we've got a different makeup here in the student body.
It's different than it was 20 years ago.
You can't say that the teachers are immune here from the faltering performance of the students.
You can't say, well, it's the union and it's the teacher, it's the parents, or it's the guardians or whatever.
Good teachers need to stand up for the profession.
If the profession is being sullied, if the profession is being impugned, and there are teachers who are privy to this and see it, where are they?
Where are they standing up for the concept of a decent education and a responsible one?
So when that doesn't happen, when the media portrays all teachers as being on one side of this, you're going to have to understand that some people are going to think that all teachers are in unison anti this governor, anti-anything.
They're just totally pro-union, whatever the union wants to do.
So the good teachers that you talk about, we never hear from.
They might call here and talk about it, but we don't see them in public.
What it appears to us as is that they're all unified.
They're all standing as one in Wisconsin against the governor.
Anyway, I got to take a timeout.
I'm glad you called.
Ron, thanks very much.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network, and a brief timeout here at the bottom of the hour.
Back with more right after this.
Hammerback, it's Rush Limbaugh.
This is the EIB Network.
Wisconsin teachers are now required to teach their students labor union and collective bargaining history.
This is from the Daily Caller today.
Wisconsin's teachers are required to teach children about the history of the labor union movement and collective bargaining in the United States per a law former Democrat Governor Jim Doyle signed in December 2009.
The Wisconsin Assembly Bill requires the state's teachers to incorporate the history of organized labor in America and the collective bargaining process into their lesson plans.
Describing the new law, Wisconsin's official Department of Public Education website says, Wisconsin has long been a leader in labor rights.
The progressive movement, which had its beginnings in our state, led to laws limiting child labor and safety in the workplace.
Unions such as the AFL-CIO or the Teamsters allow us to enjoy an eight-hour work week and vacation time.
In fact, it has been argued by some historians that the history of the United States itself could be a history of labor.
This is they don't teach the other side of it.
What do you mean teach the other side of it?
Don't make me chuckle here.
You get me to start chuckling and I might not stop chuckling.
So with propaganda, it's indoctrination, snurdily, propaganda, yeah, but it's indoctrination.
Since 2009, Democrat Governor Jim Doyle, Wisconsin's teachers required to teach kids labor union and collective bargaining history.
And of course, it's, I'm sure, shaded in ways.
Who's next?
Is there a law about how the country was founded?
I don't know.
I don't know.
Now, normally I would say, yeah, that would be part of every curriculum, but I'm not that confident.
I mean, the founding, the founding of this country could well be taught that we kicked the Indians off the land.
Now, that may be how the founding is.
Who knows how it's taught in some of these places?
John Silber, who used to run Boston University, this is 10 or so years ago now, did a survey of the top five history textbooks used in hash scrolls throughout the country.
He found the largest, the longest reference to Abraham Lincoln was two paragraphs.
In a couple of textbooks, there were chapters devoted to Bill Clinton.
Two paragraphs devoted to Abraham Lincoln.
Look, this is the fundamental of this is the left has gotten hold of the entire education institution, just as they have gotten hold of the media.
And they use it for indoctrination purposes.
That's what's coming to a head now in any number of places.
Brad in Seattle, I'm glad you waited, sir.
You're next on the EIB network.
Thanks, Rush.
Actually, it's Brady, but that's okay.
Brady?
Yeah.
Sorry about that.
There's no why here.
Obviously, a call screener input error.
No, no, no, that's fine.
Pleasure to talk with you today, Rush.
You bet.
I wanted to talk about this declaration by the administration, the Justice Department, saying that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.
And I was asking myself, why do it now?
And I thought about it, and it sounds to me, my thought is that the administration might be trying to set up a trap for conservatives.
And it's based on something that you've talked about for years.
And it has to do with how so many of the bluebloods in the Republican Party have always said, if we could just get these conservatives to let go of the social issues, we could win elections.
Right.
But if you look at conservative leaders, both in the House and then at the state level, particularly with these governors in the Midwest and the way they've exposed the public sector union monopolies and the way they're, I mean, they're laser focused on economic and fiscal issues right now.
And I just wonder if the administration is trying to do this to get conservatives off track of what they're doing, what they were elected to do, to try to get them focused on social issues again and say, you see, they're not focused on the economy.
Do you see where I'm coming from?
Well, there may be some of that, but if that's their calculation, it's failing because the reaction to it is not the substance.
People's reaction is the lawlessness.
The conservative reaction is this is brazenly lawless.
Who cares what he has determined he's not going to defend?
It's lawless.
There are any number of ways Obama could have done this.
He could have, for example, assigned the most inept lawyers in the Justice Department to do these cases when they come up and lose every one of them.
He could have done this in a way that nobody would have ever known it.
He just made sure that this act never amounted to anything by making sure he always lost.
In other words, throw the game every time they go to court with this case in question.
But no, he makes a big production out of saying, I am the law.
This isn't because I don't like it.
I haven't seen a whole bunch of social conservatives get distracted from Wisconsin because that's as much social as it is economic.
It's what their kids are being taught.
So it's an interesting thought, but if that's their strategy, it isn't going to work.
Because the people who are up in arms about it, such as Mua, are not up in arms about it because it's got to do with gay marriage.
It's because it's lawless.
A president does not have this kind of power.
That's why I went through my whole routine.
Imagine President Palin instructing her Attorney General to not defend Roe versus Wade anymore.
She doesn't like it.
Imagine President Palin without a birth certificate.
Imagine President Palin telling her Attorney General, these EPA rules, don't defend them anymore.
I don't believe in them.
Just go on down the line.
Everything that Obama's done, this DOMA thing is not an isolated instance of lawlessness.
Imagine if, imagine if the law of the land, well, let's just say the law of the land is no drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
And President Palin comes along and tells her Attorney General, we're going to start drilling.
We're not going to defend in these cases.
Start drilling in defiance of the law.
Imagine they would be on the case for her impeachment.
And that would be all you would see in the headlines.
So they may be thinking they can distract people from Wisconsin by going after this thinking that I don't doubt that you have a point here because I think they totally misunderstand the social issues crowd.
I do think that they believe that if they do something like this, that Tantamount says we're all for gay marriage, that the social crowd will drop everything and focus on this and dilute what's going on in Wisconsin, Ohio, the budget, and everything else.
Isn't it going to work?
Isn't working?
Hasn't happened.
And it won't be the case.
But it's still good thinking.
Shows you're paying attention out there.
Donna and Frederick Maryland, you're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
To use one of your favorite quotes, and I could hear you saying this: do not doubt me when I say what America's witnessing right now is a historic wake-up call, which is a systematic, basic destruction of our country.
And this president and his cronies are using our republic against the will of the people from all fronts.
And I think he's underestimated the resolve of the true patriots in our country.
I don't think he's underestimated the resolve of his opposition at all.
I don't think he cares.
He wants dissension.
I think it's pretty obvious.
Well, there's no question.
He loves the disunity.
He loves the chaos.
He loves all of this because at the end of the day, people are going to be turning to him to fix it all.
At the end of the day, people are going to be going to government.
Hey, you've got to solve this.
You've got to solve this.
You've got to get involved.
You've got to solve this.
Any request for more federal involvement, he would, of course, crave.
And I think he's working with groups overseas in tandem with them for the destruction within our country.
Like what groups?
I would say things like the radical Islamic groups, even domestic terrorist groups like Code Pink and some of those.
Why do you think that?
I think the writing's on the wall.
And, you know, the media is doing a good job avoiding the issues, with the exception of, you know, right-wing radio and talk shows.
You know, they're not getting to the truth of the matter.
And that's what's alarming because I don't think when it's all said and done, several of these groups are not going to have what they thought they would get in the end.
Well, I know that's always been the case, but I don't, they're, they don't want to get to the truth of the matter.
They're part of the whole cabal.
They call themselves journalists or call themselves the media.
They're just another group of leftists.
And they are all aligned.
Here's the thing.
I don't think Obama needs to have any alliances with foreign groups to do what he's doing.
If that's going on, that's newest to me.
I just think he's an agitator.
He just loves to agitate.
He's got a chip on his shoulder about this country.
I just, I mean, this evidence is there.
All it takes is guts to come to that conclusion, not brains.
I appreciate the call, Donna.
Thanks very much.
We'll be right back.
We have news from the White House press secretary, the estimable Jay Carney at the White House briefing this afternoon.
The ABC senior White House correspondent Jacob Jake Tapper said, Colonel Qaddafi Gaddafi Gaddafi today in a rambling phone interview with Libyan state television talked about how the protesters had been fed hallucinogens by Osama bin Laden in their Nescafe.
Was wondering if the administration had any response to anything Mr. Gaddafi has said in the last couple of days.
The way the president has approached this is that our position on the unrest in these countries is not about an individual leader.
It's not about personalities.
And I would simply note that one consistent theme I think you've seen in the way that we have responded to these developments, these events in the Middle East, in the region, has been to make it clear that it's also not about the United States.
It's not about the United States dictating outcomes, picking leaders, telling countries who can run, who can be their leader, and who can't be.
It isn't.
I mean, Jay, were you bowling with Biden when Obama's out there telling Mubarak he had to leave and leave now?
And it now started yesterday.
We don't dictate.
It's not about personalities.
It's not about an individual leader.
It's not about the United States.
What the hell is it about?
So then Chip Reed from CBS says, you said that it's not about an individual leader.
You've been saying it all along.
And it was said during the Egyptian situation also.
But at the same time, the president was not reluctant or hesitant to use the name Mubarak when he spoke, but he seems reluctant to even mention the name of Gaddafi.
Why not?
I would point you again to the fact that the leader in this country, Colonel Gaddafi, has tried to suggest that the United States was behind the uprisings of its own people, or the demonstrations, the peaceful demonstrations in its own country, by Libya's own people.
And that's clearly not the case.
I don't know what he said.
Yeah, which means what?
I didn't think it's possible to make Gibbs look good.
I realize I did not think that was possible.
Has anybody ever thought maybe if Kaddaki would just get a promotion, if somebody called him General Qaddafi, maybe he'd settle down.
The guy's been a colonel all of his life.
He runs the country.
Bill in Clemson, South Carolina, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Rush, Army Veteran Dittos from Clemson, South Carolina.
Thank you very much, sir.
Appreciate that.
I was a Teamster for 12 years in Seattle, and I wanted to call in and put this myth to bed that these union protesters are actually trying to protect jobs.
Senior seniority union members are interested in J-O-B singular.
They do not care about jobs that are below them in the seniority list.
I've sat in votes many times.
Wait just a second.
Wait, wait, well, hold it now.
You're introducing something new, and I want to make sure I understand.
You said you're a teamster for 12 years Seattle, and you want to put to myth to bed that the union protesters are trying to protect jobs.
Right.
The only job they're interested in is their own.
I've been in many votes where it meant pennies to senior union members, say a cut in pay, or a little bit more they had to pay for their retirement, or a little bit more they had to pay for health care, or we would lose jobs, and without fail, they would pay to keep the money in their pocket rather than save jobs.
This governor's told them, look, you're going to lose 12,000 jobs.
They don't care.
If you're below them on the seniority list, the top 50% plus one vote will vote in lockstep every single time and throw the younger seniority members under the bus.
Wait a minute now.
Somebody has to care because of the dues.
The dues add up.
Well, the dues result from having as many members of the union as you can get.
Well, I was, look, I drove for 12 years for the newspaper in Seattle.
I went through a couple of strikes, and each time it meant losing jobs, the vote went, I'm not giving up my money.
And that meant younger guys who had young families lost their jobs and women every single time.
Now, wait a minute.
Now, what was the alternative?
What would it have cost you if they kept their jobs?
It would have meant a slight cut in pay.
If I recall correctly, once it was a 5% cut in pay, no chance.
It meant paying a little more for health care?
No way.
Not a chance.
If it meant cutting jobs, but I get to keep my money, I'm keeping my money every single time.
Now, you talk about dues.
I want to know why nobody in the media has asked these union members from Wisconsin, wait a minute, this president of your union is making $480,000 a year.
Does that not tell you you're paying too much in union fees?
I'd be outraged if I was in a union and I had a union president.
Well, I've had that question ever since I was a kid, ever since I first saw a Teamsters convention in Las Vegas with Jimmy Hoffa and the boys.
Exactly.
Reveling in it.
I'm thinking, who's paying for this?
The union members are.
Well, there's another question there.
All these protesters, these Teamsters that bust in from New York and Indiana and Illinois, these are senior guys with seniority.
They're ostensibly dedicated to their jobs, correct?
Well, they're not working.
And guess who's filling in for them?
These lower seniority workers who are going to get thrown under the bus.
And these guys don't care.
They're burning out.
I wondered about that, too.
All these union guys coming, if not a state, who's doing their jobs?
Now we know.
Well, I'm glad you called.
Thanks very much, Bill.
I appreciate it.
We got to go, folks.
I'm sorry.
Time's just zipping by here.
Found a couple stories documenting what our last caller just said.
The General Motors plant, stamping plant, Indianapolis, shut down a couple months ago because the UAW would not allow a new starting wage of merely $15 an hour, which is the going rate of everybody else.
So he says, not about the jobs of the underlings.
Not about new jobs.
Not about more jobs.
Not about jobs for the underclass in the union.
And I found a couple of others to substantiate what he was saying.