All Episodes
Previous Next
March 23, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:30
March 23, 2011, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings and welcome back.
It's Rushlin.
Bought this The Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Great to have you here.
You know, I had a thought here during the top of the air.
What is what's so wrong about the nags advising Obama or making the decisions on Libya?
I mean, the the author of the story in the Atlantic is all bummed out about it as a woman.
Why?
Shouldn't shouldn't the now gang and the and the nags be celebrating this latest accomplishment?
I mean, what is their advice?
What did Mrs. Clinton do?
You know, people have forgotten this.
We've been doing this 22 years.
I sometimes read transcripts of past shows, and I marvel.
I mar I wish we could go back and find a way to compress some of these uh previous shows, past content, and bring them back because my gosh was it rich content-wise.
So much wisdom, so many accurate predictions, so many things that have happened exactly as I as I called them.
But in this case, what's the point of feminism?
What's a you take over?
What did Mrs. Clinton do?
She ends up at an Ivy League school.
She finds a guy about whom it is said he's going places.
I mean, if you talk to Robert Rubin, some of these other guys that hung around with Clinton at Yale, this guy's going to be president.
He was going to be there.
So Mrs. Clinton, I'm sure heard this.
And so what did she do?
She latched on to the guy.
She followed him everywhere.
And I remember I was reading some of these old stories about how the real respect that people had for Hillary was that she even went to Arkansas.
She deigned to go to Arkansas.
Folks, that's that's like going to Gulf Port.
That's that for some of these libs to go south of the Mason Dixon line.
That's like volunteering to go to Vietnam.
But she did it.
But she follows this guy, and then when he got where he was going, she took over.
Well, that's what's happened here.
Why this is this is something that I would think the nags and the now gang would be proud of.
The new frontier, the final frontier, the last glass ceiling being blown sky high.
Someone in the White House must wear the pantsuit.
And yet there's all this anger about it.
There's all this anger, and I'm I'm guessing that the anger is the result of a huge conflict, and that is the presentation of Obama as a messiah.
Because in order for the broad debate to result in the women finally asserting power, it means that Obama's not who he was presented as.
And that's got to be a terrible conflict for these people on the left.
What's more important to us?
In fact, the nags, the nags had to come out and defend Sarah Palin over some typically juvenile comments that Bill Marr made Friday night on his program.
He used a crude term about female genitalia to describe her.
And finally, the nags had no choice.
The now gang had to come out with a statement decrying what Marr said, but at the same time they told her right-wingers, don't think we're on your side on this.
They made it very clear that they were dragged kicking and screaming into defending Sarah Palin on this.
But well, Obama is being the perfect metrosexual.
But this is as president, see, there I maintain there's a terrific conflict on the left over all this.
And that's why half of them, you know, are are probably celebrating the fact that three women are actually responsible for the Libyan policy.
On the other hand, they realize how it makes Obama look.
Because he's the guy at the top of the ticket who gets the votes.
I mean, he's the guy that determines whether the women are in power or not.
Uh, and have any power to uh to exercise.
Anyway, businessinsider.com, former SEIU official, reveals plan to destroy JP Morgan Chase, crash the stock market, and redistribute wealth in America.
A former official, SEIU, has this secret plan to destabilize the country.
The uh the plan is designed to destroy JP Morgan first, to nuke the stock market and weaken Wall Street's grip on power, thus creating the conditions necessary for a redistribution of wealth and a change in government.
Stephen Lerner is the guy, the former SEIU official, and he spoke at a closed session at a Pace University Forum last weekend.
A website, The Blaze, procured what appeared to be a tape of his remarks.
Many Americans will undoubtedly sympathize with and support them, says the British uh business, Henry Blodgett's blog here.
But the destabilization plan is startling in its specificity, especially coming so close on the heels of the financial crisis.
Stephen Lerner said that unions and community organizations are for all intents and purposes dead.
The only way to achieve their goals, therefore, the redistribution of wealth, the destruction of capitalism, and the return of $17 trillion stolen from the middle class by Wall Street is to destabilize the country.
So this is this is uh a derivative, if you will, of Cloud Pivon.
Lerner's plan is to organize a mass coordinated strike on mortgage student loan and local government debt payments, thus bringing the banks to the edge of insolvency and forcing them to renegotiate the terms of the loans.
This destabilization and turmoil, learner hopes, will also crash the stock market, isolating the banking class and allowing for a transfer of power.
Learner's plan starts by attacking J.P. Morgan Chase in early May with demonstrations on Wall Street, protests at the annual shareholder meeting, and then calls for a coordinated mortgage strike.
As I have delved into this, what I think is bugging this guy in a short condensed version, is the belief that debt, forced debt upon middle class people,
students, i.e., student loans and so forth, has made Wall Street bankers and financial people excessively unfairly out of proportionate rich in the process by causing things that are a normal person would want college education,
whatever to be priced so high that you can only acquire them with a loan taken out by people who are raping you and stealing you blind with interest and so forth that you basically have had these people in Wall Street basically stealing money from the middle class by dangling carrot, oh, you want a college education, or you want a house, or you want a car, or you want well, fine.
Here's the money, but you're going to pay you're going to go into so much debt, and we're going to be the beneficiaries of the debt, and we're going to get rich, and we're going to take everything you've got, and your debt's going to be so high you never have a chance to get rich.
And this guy is pure 100% anti-capitalist.
And what he wants is what Cloud Piven has basically said.
Just overwhelm the system.
It's sort of a derivative of Cloud Ploward Priven.
Uh, you just overwhelm the system with so many dependents, so much so much uh middle class benefits having to be paid that they the money isn't there, causes a system-wide collapse, capitalism implodes upon itself, and somebody comes into the breach and restructures the government as a socialist utopian paradise.
And the guy's dead serious about it.
And he thinks, now when he says that unions and so forth are uh are dead, he's talking about clout.
He's talking about power, but community organizations, the acorn types, these are the groups that can successfully organize a strike.
A strike meaning people just stop paying back on their loans.
Just stop.
Even even if they take away your education, if they stop you from going to college and don't let you go to class, just stop paying them and they'll go, broke, stop paying them and they'll shut down.
Stop paying them, and there will be a crash.
Stop paying them and they'll and and their their worth plummets.
Their value goes to zero.
Just stop paying these people who have basically imprisoned you by virtue of debt.
And of course he won't stop with Wall Street.
I mean, a plan doesn't stop with Wall Street.
It's it's just anybody or any particular business or area of business with concentrated wealth.
Now they have tried this before.
Learners learner's strategy is how do we bring down the stock market?
How do we bring down their bonuses?
How do we interfere with their ability to be rich?
This is what his objective is.
And he believes that Wall Street's wealth has been stolen.
This is a guy who believes, for example, that Reaganomics or triple trickle down economics means the rich got rich by stealing from the poor.
Or stealing from the middle class and making them poor via debt.
He has worked with unions in Europe.
Look at the riots they're having there.
This guy is a pure anti-capitalist.
He despises America.
He is on a personal crusade.
I have no idea what kind of success he's going to have in May with these efforts that he's undertaking.
But you can look at Europe, and he has been involved with unions there.
Now he was thrown out of the SEIU last November, reportedly for spending millions of the union's dollars trying to pursue a plan like this one.
Henry Blodgett says it's not clear what, if any power and influence he currently wields, but his main message at Wall Street won the financial crisis, that inequality in this country is hitting record levels, and that there are appears to be no other way to stop the trend.
I mean, Blodgett thinks this is going to resonate with a lot of people.
And he includes a transcript here of Lerner's full reported remarks.
Among the remarks that Werner gave at Pace University, unions are almost dead.
We can't survive doing what we do.
But the simple fact of the matter is community organizations are almost dead too.
And if you don't think about what we need to do, it may give us some direction.
Or if you think about what we need to do, it may give you some direction, which is essentially what the folks that are in charge, the big banks and everything, what they want is stability.
So we have to destabilize these people that are in power, and we have to start to rebuild a movement.
For example, 10% of homeowners are underwater right now.
Their home they are paying for, they're paying more than it's worth.
10% of those people are in strategic default, meaning they're refusing to pay, but they're staying in their house.
Totally spontaneous.
They figured out it takes a year to kick them out of their house because of foreclosure rate.
It's backed up.
Now, if you could double that number, you could put banks at the edge of insolvency again.
He says students have a trillion dollar debt.
We have an entire economy built on debt and banks.
So the question would be what would happen if we organized homeowners in mass to do a mortgage strike.
If we get half a million people to agree, it would literally cause a new financial crisis for the banks, not for us.
We'd be doing quite well.
We wouldn't be paying anything.
We have to think much more creatively.
The key thing, what does the other side fear the most?
They fear disruption.
They fear uncertainty.
Every article about Europe says they rioted in Greece.
The markets went down.
The folks that control this country care about one thing how the stock market goes.
Well, what if the bond market goes down or how the bonuses go?
Well, we have a very simple strategy.
How do we bring down the stock market?
How do we bring down their bonuses?
How do we interfere with their ability to be rich?
I don't want to give any details because I don't know if there are any police agents in the room here where I'm speaking, he said.
But the goal would be to we'll roll out of New York the first week of May.
We'll connect three ideas.
That we are not broke, that there is plenty of money.
They have it.
And we need to get it back.
And they are using Bloomberg and other people in government as the vehicle to try and destroy us, the middle class.
So we need to take on those folks at the same time.
And we'll start here.
We're going to look at a week of civil disobedience, direct action all over New York.
There's going to be a 10-state mobilization to try and shut down the uh the meeting of the JP Morgan shareholders.
And then we're going to look at bank shareholder meetings around the country and try and create some moments like Madison, Wisconsin, except where we are on offense instead of defense.
We hope to inspire much bigger movement about redistributing wealth and power in this country, and that labor can't do itself.
The community groups can't do themselves.
Maybe we can work something new and different that can be brave enough and daring and nimble enough to do that kind of thing.
Now, is this not a form of terrorism that the guy is preaching?
Where's Eric Holder?
Where is Big Sis?
Where is Janet and Pomotano on all this?
Now the point about this, as far as I'm concerned, is not whether or not this guy is going to succeed.
But if you if you believe he's being honest about what he believes, and I do, it's a fascinating look into the mindset of the kook extremist left in this country, who are treated sympathetically by the media.
Their causes are all just.
And the notion that capitalism is unfair and that their money has been stolen from them and that the country is unjust and they need to economically hobble it.
And these are people.
This guy's former SEIU.
These are these are these are union people.
And we've discussed the public sector union people.
We are messing with their bread and butter.
They have their hands in the treasuries of all states in which they operate and the U.S. Treasury.
They have their hands.
That's how they live.
Now we're broke, and the states are broke for a multitude of reasons.
What they're being paid is among them.
I got a couple sound bites.
Let me take a break here.
I got a couple sound bites from Chris Christie that relate to this that we'll get to if we have time.
We come back.
If not, certainly the next segment.
Sit tight and don't go away.
They have evacuated the Eiffel Tower in Paris.
A suspicious package was spotted.
We'll keep you posted.
Last night in Trenton, New Jersey.
Chris Christie appeared on the radio and asked the governor's show.
And he spoke with a caller Penny in Blackwood.
She said, I don't even know why you want to take at least 13% out of state employees pay for health care.
Between what my husband and I make, you're talking about $600 a month out of our money, which is going to cut into our food and our other bills.
How do you expect us to live, Governor?
How I expect you to live penny is you're going to have to pick a different health plan that's not nearly as rich as the one you're getting now.
That's how.
No, I'm not going to force you not to have any health care.
I don't think that means forcing you to go without health care.
But what it means is we can no longer afford to pay 90 plus percent of the cost of your health care.
Public workers are getting their health insurance paid for out of your property taxes.
And state workers are getting Their health insurance paid for out of your income taxes.
If I'm 67 billion dollars in debt and you don't want me to take any more money out of your paycheck, how am I supposed to pay for it?
Am I supposed to just raise taxes?
Because if I raise taxes, you're gonna pay more taxes.
And if your property taxes go up, you're gonna pay more taxes.
I mean, the money's got to come from somewhere.
We can't print it.
You're gonna you're gonna make me pay for my health care.
How dare you?
How am I husband and I gonna live?
They've got their hands in there.
They've got their hands on the state treasury.
They feel entitled to it.
So Penny said, Well, I realize that, but it seems like it's always coming from the poor and not the rich to make up for these shortfalls.
Penny, the top one percent of taxpayers in this state pay forty-one percent of the total income tax.
The top one percent pay forty-one percent of the income tax.
So to say that the rich don't pay is just not true.
How much do you want them to pay?
There comes a point where you cannot have everything that you want.
And as much as I would like to be able to say to you, you know what, Penny, you're right.
I don't want you to have to pay another nickel for your health insurance.
I can't pay for it.
And we already have the highest taxes in America.
I gotta tell you the truth.
Your neighbor who works in the private sector pays a heck of a lot more for his or her health insurance than you do.
And on top of it, they're paying the taxes to pay for your health insurance.
And so I've got a problem to fix here.
We're broke, and I've got to fix this problem.
So this is what angers these people.
Here's Governor Christie, just he hit this woman right between the eyes.
Your neighbors are paying for it.
They can't afford it anymore.
You are paying less for your health care than they are paying for theirs, and they're paying you more than they earn.
And we're broke.
And I can't raise their taxes anymore because they're paying most of the taxes.
Nobody has probably talked to this woman like this way before.
But this is where we are with this.
No, no, no, no, no.
What what?
What ends up getting this Stephen Lerner guy in the mindset that he's in is his sense of entitlement.
So he wants a college education.
He wants it, he should have it.
It shouldn't cost him anything.
And the people who provide it certainly shouldn't be getting rich because a college education, he thinks is an entitlement.
Living in America the whole the whole notion, if if you want to have a you want to try to destroy JP Margan, and by the way, one of the reasons for that, I'm guessing uh JP Morgan, John Pierpoint Morgan, so wealthy, he had to bail out the federal government way back in the late 1800s, and he got rich on debt.
He was a financier.
But no, you didn't force anybody.
You don't want to go to college.
If you can't afford it, too bad.
But that's not the way these people look at it.
There's no such thing as not being able to afford it.
There is nothing but oppression denying you.
If you are 18 and you want to go to Harvard, that's all there is.
And whatever's in your way is the fault of capitalism.
You should be able to go.
And it shouldn't cost you any more than what you can afford.
I've been paying a little bit of attention to the owners and players' problems in the NFL.
And the players want to see the owner's books to determine how much the owners could be paying them.
That's none of their business.
The owners are going to pay them what they want to pay them, not what they're able to pay them.
It's the same argument in Wisconsin.
It's not what the taxpayers are able to pay, it's what they are willing to pay.
And if you don't want that job, go do something else.
If you're in the NFL and they are unwilling to pay you what you think you're earth based on what they what you think they can't afford, well, go do something else.
That's the way it works.
Nobody in this country gets paid on the basis of somebody's ability to pay them.
They get paid on the basis of their value and their worth.
And what somebody wants to pay them.
And if that's not good enough, you go do something else.
Guys like Lerner and these uh these other union people, that that it doesn't, that doesn't compute.
Their desire is holy.
And somebody better make it possible.
So and if they don't, then it's the fault of capitalism or what have you, inferiority.
But it's real.
These people feel an entitlement to something simply because they want it.
However, they've been raised, uh indoctrinated or what have you.
Let me go to the phones.
People have been extremely patient today waiting.
Let me start in uh Northern Virginia.
This is Victoria.
Thank you so much for waiting.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi, Rush.
I am just honored to speak to you.
My family and I are EIB students for the last 17 years or so, including watching your show all those years ago on television.
Um I was uh urged to call because when Snerdley suggested to you that there are a contingency plans um uh for every area of the globe, he is absolutely correct.
And I worked in that area when I was uh in the Marine Corps 17 years ago.
You worked in the Pentagon?
I worked in Marine Headquarters, and I was the administrative officer to the generals who did plans, policies, and operations.
And every every area of the globe is divided up, and there is uh an O4, either a major or lieutenant commander in the Navy in each of the services, who is the expert for that area, and he briefs with his Colonel 0506,
um, or um Navy commander or captain daily, what is happening in his area, and all of the military training for the five-year plan, the ten year plan, the twenty-year plan comes out of the planning contingency.
All right, so when you hear when you hear the defense secretary basically saying, Look, we're doing this on the fly, we've never been here before.
What's your reaction?
Well, the only thing that that really that could mean is that all of the planning that has been done, because not only is the planning done in great detail, but it's divided up amongst the commanders and the uh commanders in chief for each of the commands, like Central Commander.
Well, but he's saying there's no plan here.
He what he's saying is we have no contingency.
This is on the fly.
Well that that must mean that because he's in a weekly briefing to hear what the what the um what the four star generals in charge of each of the services have put together and planned.
It's a it's a structure that is a huge structure that gets every detail done down to what every sailor and marine and airman is going to be doing and and soldier is going to be doing everywhere in the world.
So that must mean that at the administrative level, they've been told they're not using any of the plans that are in place or have been rehearsed or have been practiced.
Just like when the Democratic Bush.
That would make sense.
So you've got a list of contingencies.
This one nobody thought of.
So that means, let me ask you this, and I'm dead serious with this now.
I'm de I'm not people are going to think I'm trying to stir the pot here to be funny.
I'm not.
Are you aware of any contingency plans at any level of the military?
I know you said Marines, but anywhere.
Are you aware of any contingency plans for a president who might not be your prototypical pro-America president?
Are there contingency plans to deal with a president who may not believe that the U.S. is the solution to the world's problems.
Um I left the military back when uh Mr. Reagan was in the White House, and back then the military had the total support of Mr. Reagan, and he came monthly for a briefing in the tank at the Pentagon to hear what the services felt should be done, and the and the uh chiefs of each of the services and the Secretary of Defense.
It was uh it was a finely tuned machine back then.
I can't answer for what is being done currently, other than it must mean that a lot of action officers are called in in the middle of the room.
No, no, no.
No, my question, it wouldn't it wouldn't matter who the president was at the time.
I'm saying is I mean, if this is just my passionately curious mind.
Passionately curious mind.
Okay, we've we've been told, and we know it, that in the Pentagon, the various branches of the military, everywhere.
There are contingency plans.
If something blows up in the Philippines, something blows up in Australia.
There are we've got contingency plans.
We got people at plan uh reactions, there are war planners During Iraq, all those things got leaked, if you'll recall to the New York Times and the Washington Post.
I'm just wondering if.
It's a tough question, but it's a legitimate one.
The president, the commander-in-chief.
Commander-in-chief gives everybody these their orders.
Ultimately.
But is there a contingency plan for?
I don't want to say an anti-American president, because that's that's gonna uh cloud my real intent here.
Is there?
I'm just wondering.
Obviously, she doesn't know of one.
But is there a contingency plan for dealing with somebody who ends up in the White House who is not of the belief that the United States is the solution to problems?
Is there a contingency plan to deal with a president who is of the belief that the United States is the problem?
Is there a contingency plan to deal with a president who doesn't care about anything and doesn't do anything?
Is there a contingency plan to deal with things that happen domestically from the administration as opposed to contingency, or in addition to contingency plans for what our enemies might do popping up around the world?
It's just a question.
I'm just asking from my passionately curious, fertile mind.
Brief time out, thank you, Victoria.
We'll return after this.
You gotta be kidding me.
Moonshine Creek, North Carolina.
Moonshine Creek, North Carolina.
Hello, Jim, welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey, mega dittoes, Rush.
Thank you, sir.
You bet.
Hey, uh, and I can uh partially answer that uh question you had, but to the point, Obama is and um this is from experience, Obama is following a plan, and it's Bush's 43 plan.
And following on what the lady previous the previous caller stated, there are contingencies, war games, and they are brief from the bottom up, and then these strategies fit a plan.
And it's based on national security and national interest and threats to America.
And what irritates me the most and disgusts me the most about the Obama administration is 43's plan probably had Libya at a very low level.
Now, when Reagan was there as that lady, I knew the different areas and the levels of uh national security threat each uh country, each economic decision was to America.
In this case, Bush probably had it very low because Qaddafi had been neutralized by Reagan and then came to the table after Iraq.
And so now Obama has put his popularity and wanting to become popular to the United Nations, doing their bidding against our national interest, which said, in the case of Libya, as much as people dislike it, exactly what you said.
He is not a threat to America today.
And what may come later, if he is deposed, could be a tremendous pardon me, a tremendous threat.
So what that means is Obama decided to take out Qaddafi against the better interests, in my opinion, and the opinion of generals in war planning under Bush.
Well, that's what I was saying yesterday.
I mean, it's being a little flippant about it, but I mean if you their their reason was to go in Gaddafi is mistreating his people.
Well, they're mistreating our people in Darfur, we're not there.
They're mistreating their people in in Zimbabwe.
Uh Mugabwe.
No, we're not there.
Sandy in North Carolina, uh North Korea, we're not there.
Arizona.
People in Arizona uh have their own problems being mistreated by illegals.
We're not there.
In fact, we're suing Arizona.
So I I'm I understand fully what you mean that Obama has a plan.
But it's not a plan that any of us would understand.
You have to look at this plan through the prism of re-election 2012.
You have to look at this plan as who and I I I think old Jim here is exactly right.
Who's Obama want to impress?
A, he wants to earn that Nobel, B, he wants to impress the United Nations people.
C, the fact that that that that Qaddafi does not present a threat to the United States makes it easy.
It's expensive, but it makes it easy.
Whether Qaddafi survives or not makes it easy.
If Qaddafi survives, it might be a little embarrassing.
That's why the regime is all over the place.
He's got to go, well, not really.
They're flip-flopping all over the place.
They're hedging their bets that whatever happens, Obama can say, we knew what we were doing.
And we we spoke to that.
We fully understood.
But this isn't serious.
This is not, you know, and you have the added, as far as Obama's concerned, the added benefit that there are people on the right who are going to look at this as they did Egypt as a democracy project, uh the uprising or the blooming of democracy in the region, which this is what they claim they've always wanted, so they get to support it on that base.
So Obama gets to coalesce some support while in the real world.
You can find the Iran and Syria, if you're going to start talking about cleaning up that region of the world, those are the two places you have to focus on.
This Jim's exactly right.
They really are.
Unless, unless you can convince people that our purpose, and this is where Samantha Power comes into play, unless you can convince people that our purpose is simply to make sure that mistreated people are defended, human rights, meals on wheels, or what have you.
Well, what other reason for this is there?
What other reason?
What why what threat does uh of uh Qaddafi pose us?
What threat does he doesn't pose us any threat whatsoever?
But he does present Obama a problem.
Because Obama has defined U.S. foreign policy as making sure people like Qaddafi don't get away with it.
So he diters around and finally gets in after the UN makes a big claim.
But look at the news stories.
There is no single leader of this operation.
Defense Secretary, we've never been here before.
We're kind of flying blind here.
Liberals are always eager to go to war when America's interests are not involved.
U.S. national interests not involved, you'll find liberals right there.
Their taste for war is in inverse proportion to the American interest, U.S. national interests involved.
Pure and simple.
They're mistreating our people in Syria.
They're mistreating their people in Iran.
And Iran is nuclear nuking up weapon-wise.
Meanwhile, we are flying by the seat of Hillary's pantsuit.
And making it look like we got some giant international crisis over there.
Jim's exactly right about what he said.
Here's uh Margaret in Naperville, Illinois.
Great to have you on the EIB network alone.
Thank you.
Nice to talk to you too.
Thank you.
Okay.
What I really wanted to comment on was that Steve Lerner thing you were playing before, and how how similar it is almost word for word to an interview that Michael Moore gave in some sections not too long ago.
Couple weeks ago, Michael Moore told you.
Yeah, there's a lot of money out there.
We're not broke.
There's all kinds of money out there.
Yeah, it's our money.
We gotta get it back.
Right, exactly.
It's very scary.
Very scary.
Well, they look at you could you could argue that this same thing uh you can say was tried in 2008.
Yeah.
What was that?
Well, you have a financial crisis run on banks trying to dissolve debt, all this kind of stuff.
They've they've they've they have tried this.
There's um uh there really is an insane extreme left.
Now you have to wonder about this, though.
Margaret, here's the thing.
I know a lot of people want to take learners seriously and and so forth.
We we generally don't chase kooks on this show.
Um there are what what do you think, Snurley?
Yeah, this is a we don't we don't normally chase cooks.
We we leave that we leave that to others.
Uh however, I think what these guys, these learners, uh the the these people that believe in this, you have to wonder how the rank and file of any union, I don't get uh California uh uh the teacher's retirement system, the public employees retirement, stirs and purrs, uh SEIU, any union, public or private.
Where are their pensions invested?
They're invested in Wall Street, which is what this guy claims he wants to destroy.
So you have this disgruntled SEIU guy on the war path here, anti-capitalism, anti-everything else, trying essentially, if he succeeds, he devalues every pension plan and every other investment vehicle for retirement, health care, pension, what have you, of every union in this country.
Is he aware of that?
Is he aware of it and doesn't care?
Their Cadillac pensions are going to be destroyed right along with JP Morgan and anybody else they happen to destroy if they can pull it off.
Here's one for you on Libya.
Where's Colin Powell?
You break it, you own it.
Where's Powell on the Powell doctrine?
Why is Curlin Connell whatever Powell not on CNN today?
Talking about Libya.
▲
Export Selection