Sunday, January 31, 2021

Impeachment Follies: Why the Senate Cannot Try Trump

Look a bunch of Idiots

A majority of the Senate last week decided that it can lawfully begin a trial on the House-approved article of impeachment, even though former President Donald Trump no longer holds federal office.

The majority is wrong.

Princeton political science professor Keith Whittington argued in a Jan. 22 Wall Street Journal opinion essay that the Senate can try Trump on the House-passed article of impeachment even though Trump left office on Jan. 20. Whittington is not a lawyer, but 170 legal scholars published an argument reaching the same conclusion.

All argue that the impeachment power reaches current and former officials. Otherwise, an official could resign on the eve of conviction and prevent the Senate from including in its judgment a provision rendering the official ineligible to hold federal office again, as Article I permits.

The Left has declared war on our culture, but we should never back down, nor compromise our principles. Learn more now >>

Beyond that, English practice allowed Parliament to expose and censure wrongdoing by the crown’s former agents, as well as prevent them from later abusing power.

That is a reasonable argument, but it runs up against a problem.

England has never had a written constitution. Aside from Parliament’s legislation, history and tradition have long governed how Parliament, government ministers, and the bureaucracy perform their responsibilities.

Our Framers chose, however, to use a written charter to establish, allocate, and limit the powers of the federal government, including Congress. That decision has been critical ever since 1803, when the U.S. Supreme Court held in Marbury v. Madison that all government conduct must comply with our written Constitution.

The result is that, while Parliament might have a long history of impeaching former officials and barring them from future government service, Congress can do so only if the Constitution permits. That is where the roadblock lies.

For the Senate to brand Trump with a scarlet “I” as being “Ineligible” for future federal office, there are three requirements.

Article I of the Constitution defines the first two. The first one is satisfied: The House has already impeached Trump. The second requirement will become ripe only if the Senate convicts him and its “Judgment” includes a “disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”

Yet, there is a third requirement. Article II provides that “[1] The President, [2] Vice President and [3] all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Article II is as important as Article I, because it identifies who may be removed and barred from future office-holding. Unfortunately—or not—that last requirement cannot be satisfied as a matter of law in Trump’s case.

By defining those three categories, Article II limits removal and future ineligibility only to current officeholders. After all, the 20th Amendment defines the president’s term as four years (with a possible second term). Once a president leaves office, as a matter of law, he or she is no longer president and, therefore, cannot be “removed” from that office.

Put simply, the Senate cannot remove someone from a position that he no longer holds, and only people so removed can be barred from holding federal office again.

Remember, the impeachment process was designed to prevent someone from abusing the powers of his office. Ordinarily, as the Supreme Court held in Myers v. United States, it is the president’s Article II responsibility to decide whether to remove federal officials for misconduct. Article I just makes sure that the public can be protected if the president falls down on the job.

That goal is achieved once a person returns to private life. Just as someone who resigns from office (or dies) before abusing his or her authority cannot thereafter abuse the power once held, so, too, a person who resigns before being impeached and removed cannot abuse the public trust.

After all, a former president cannot exercise any of the powers that Article II vests in the president.

Neither Jimmy Carter nor Bill Clinton, neither George W. Bush nor Barack Obama—nor Trump—can act as “Commander in Chief,” “require the Opinion in writing” of Cabinet officials, “grant Reprieves and Pardons,” “make Treaties,” and “appoint” federal “Officers” (the latter two with the Senate’s consent).

That’s why Trump had to scramble on Jan. 19 to complete his last-minute efforts to grant clemency and pardons before Joe Biden became president on Jan. 20. A Trump pardon issued today isn’t worth the paper it would be printed on.

There’s only one precedent for congressional removal of a former executive official; namely, the 1876 impeachment of Secretary of War William Belknap. Its permissibility was highly disputed at the time, and it has not been repeated.

In fact, in the 2010 case of U.S. District Court Judge Samuel Kent, the House approved a post-impeachment resolution asking the Senate to drop further proceedings against Kent because he had resigned in the interim.

Then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., agreed, saying:

With the resignation of Judge Kent, the purposes of the House’s prosecution of the articles of impeachment against Judge Kent have been achieved. Judge Kent is no longer serving on the federal bench, and he has ceased drawing his judicial salary. It is agreed that no useful purpose would now be accomplished by proceeding further with the impeachment proceedings against Judge Kent.

Without a recorded dissent, the Senate ordered the Kent articles of impeachment to be dismissed. Precedent, therefore, goes both ways.

Whittington and the 170 scholars might think that Trump is a scoundrel. Regardless, the Senate can no more remove Trump for his lamentable speech and inaction on Jan. 6 than it could remove Clinton for his abusive exercise of the pardon power on Jan. 19, 2001.

In fact, if Congress can disregard the Article II current officeholder requirement, what bars Congress from targeting in advance people who have never held office to receive the same scarlet “I”?

If someone leaves the presidency under the shadow of impeachment and removal, future voters are highly unlikely to reelect him or her as president. What the 170 scholars want is to prevent the public from making that decision.

It is just a tad pretentious, however, to say that the public cannot be trusted with making that judgment, even if voters occasionally err in evaluating the character of the people they elect.

If Congress wants to publicly spank and humiliate Trump, it has options. Trump will receive a pension, but that’s only a statutory benefit that Congress can revoke because Article II guarantees a president a fixed “Compensation” only “during the Period for which he shall have been elected,” which is now over.

If Congress wants to punish him for what happened on Jan. 6, aside from censuring him, it can withdraw those benefits and let Trump, a billionaire, pay his own bills.

To be sure, that option will not satisfy anyone who wants Trump’s head on a pike, but it is legally permissible. Conducting an impeachment trial against now-private citizen Trump is not.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/01/29/impeachment-follies-why-the-senate-cannot-try-trump/

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2021/01/29/trumps-january-6th-speech-does-not-meet-the-threshold-for-incitement/

https://townhall.com/columnists/wayneallynroot/2021/01/31/the-trump-comeback-begins-the-plan-to-make-trump-and-america-great-again-n2583947?

Perfect. Kamala Harris Tells Unemployed Coal Miners That After Biden Kills Their Jobs They Should Work Reclaiming Abandoned “Land Mines” (VIDEO)

“Land Mines”

Joe Biden killed tens of thousands of jobs his first day in office when he canceled contracts with the Keystone XL pipeline.

Biden and his “Climate Envoy” John Kerry are waging war on the energy sector but fear not because Kamala Harris is here to save the day.

Kamala Harris talked about creating news jobs in her interview and shared her brilliant idea to “build back better”….by reclaiming abandoned land mines in West Virginia.

“All of those skilled workers who are in the coal industry and transferring those skills to what we need to do in terms of dealing with reclaiming abandoned land mines.”

WATCH:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/kamala-harris-says-will-job-creation-around-reclaiming-abandoned-land-mines-video/

A Miracle! Only 23 Americans Tested Positive for Flu Last Week Compared to 14,657 Cases Reported Last Year at Same Time

Do you ever get the feeling you’re being lied to?
450,390 people have now died WITH the coronavirus in the US this year.
That number includes poisonings, shootings, homicides and hospice deaths.

The Gateway Pundit reported news from the CDC in August that only 6% of all deaths in the US classified as Coronavirus deaths actually died from the China Coronavirus exclusively.

That means the number of those poor people who died from the coronavirus exclusively is much, much lower than the headlines.

Many local and state governments are shutting down their local businesses and institutions due to over-inflated statistics regarding the number of Americans who died from this China coronavirus.
Will this ever make the mainstream news?

But is the CDC also using other statistical tricks this year?

The number of flu cases in the US is at an all-time low this flu season.

The 2020 numbers are that line at the bottom with all the triangles.

Here is the current map for reported flu cases in the US this year.

Even the liberal website weather.com is reporting a surprisingly low number of flu cases this year.

Weather.com reported:

During the second week in January, 23 people tested positive for the flu in the United States.
More than 14,657 tested positive for the flu during the same time last year, before the coronavirus pandemic took hold.
“It’s crazy,” Lynnette Brammer, who leads the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Domestic Influenza Surveillance team, told The Washington Post. “This is my 30th flu season. I never would have expected to see flu activity this low.”
For the week ending January 16, the CDC reported low or minimal flu activity in almost every state and territory.
Last year, flu activity was high in 44 states that week, plus Puerto Rico and New York City. Only one state, New Hampshire, had minimal flu activity.
Doctors and health experts say the large number of people who got flu vaccines leading into this year’s flu season, combined with social distancing and other measures designed to help slow the spread of COVID-19, are likely contributors for the steep drop.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/miracle-23-americans-tested-positive-flu-last-week-compared-14657-cases-reported-last-year-time/

First notice.......Will biden close borders or stop air travel on a so called "Worse" virus??

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/canada-joins-new-zealand-shutting-virtually-air-travel-indefinitely-countries/

Federal Judge Is Right to Enjoin Biden’s Plan to Halt Deportations

In his first few days in office, President Joe Biden has issued a flurry of executive orders and memorandums. And according to one federal judge, not all of them are lawful.

Judge Drew Tipton of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has enjoined the Biden administration’s Jan. 20 memorandum that would have suspended the deportation of illegal immigrants with final orders of removal for 100 days.

Tipton granted Texas’ request for a temporary restraining order and ruled that the Biden administration failed to follow proper administrative procedures in issuing its edict.

The judge’s principle was clear: The president cannot order law enforcement officers to defy the clear language of the law as written by Congress.

The Left has declared war on our culture, but we should never back down, nor compromise our principles. Learn more now >>

The case will now proceed to a trial where the judge, after taking evidence and hearing the arguments of counsel, will decide whether to issue a permanent injunction. The loser, no doubt, will appeal the case.

Suspending deportations subverts our nation’s immigration laws, knowingly makes Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s job much more difficult, and is a negligent waste of current and future resources.

It would create an enforcement backlog for ICE, just when large immigrant caravans have resumed the journey from Central America to our southern border. Our immigration enforcement capabilities would be overwhelmed by the strain of having to keep track of illegal aliens who would have already been deported while also securing the border against incoming illegal aliens.

In its suspension memo, the Department of Homeland Security acting Secretary David Pekoske stated deportations would be halted to prioritize limited resources. In reality, this order would cause a greater strain on DHS resources.

Being unable to deport illegal aliens with final orders of removal leaves DHS with two choices, neither of which is good. DHS could either detain the individuals who were supposed to be removed, tying up limited detention space and DHS resources that the department is allegedly trying to preserve, or, it could release the individuals awaiting deportation.

Individuals who know they will be deported are not going to turn themselves in when deportations resume, especially with President Joe Biden seeking to legalize millions of illegal aliens.

Instead, they will scatter across the country and flee to sanctuary cities or other places that refuse to enforce federal immigration law. ICE would have to find and detain them again, if that is even possible, wasting even more of DHS’ resources.

In the recently released “Enforcement Lifecycle Report,” DHS found that individuals who are released from detention are least likely to be repatriated.

From fiscal years 2013-18, illegal aliens who had been partially detained and had a final order of removal were more than 45 times greater to have no confirmed departure than those who had final orders but had been continuously detained.

Suspending deportations of individuals who have a final order of removal sends exactly the wrong message to illegal immigrants. It tells them that if they can make it to the United States, there will be no consequences for breaking the law. Remaining in the U.S. illegally is made easier because it takes years before immigration proceedings reach a final outcome.

The “Enforcement Lifecycle Report” found that of the immigrants from Central America who illegally entered the U.S. in fiscal year 2019, more than 68% still had not received a final outcome.

It is not much better for previous years. Of those who arrived in fiscal year 2018, more than half still await a final result, and for fiscal year 2017 arrivals, 46% still do not have a final outcome.

Suspending deportations tells future arrivals they too will remain in the U.S. with overt government approval—which is amnesty by itself—before eventually becoming eligible for a green card under the Biden administration’s legalization aspirations.

The Immigration and Nationality Act, as written by Congress, states that “when an alien is ordered removed, the [secretary of homeland security] shall remove the alien from the United States.”

As Tipton noted in his injunction order, “shall means must.” By enjoining the Biden administration’s suspension of deportation, Tipton is doing what the Biden administration is not—he is ensuring that the law is enforced.

In addition to its duty to uphold the law, the Biden administration has the obligation to set policies that are consistent with the law and to responsibly administer resources. Allowing illegal aliens who have final removal orders to remain in the U.S. indefinitely is wholly inconsistent with U.S. immigration law, handcuffs immigration enforcement officers, and encourages more law-breaking by future immigrants.

Furthermore, it shows a weakness of resolve to secure the borders of the country the president swore to protect.

During his presidential transition, Biden decelerated how quickly he would roll back the Trump administration’s “Remain in Mexico” program and related asylum programs from his first day in office to six months, stating he did not want 2 million people on our border. Regrettably, his deportation suspension order and other immigration actions he has taken his first week in office have the U.S. on that very trajectory.

The case now proceeds to the merits, where the parties will introduce evidence, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas will decide whether to issue a permanent injunction. Regardless of what happens at the district court level, the loser will no doubt appeal the case, so this issue is far from being settled.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/01/29/federal-judge-is-right-to-enjoin-bidens-plan-to-halt-deportations/

The Arbitrary Minimum Wage Is an Assault on Small Business

RUSH: A question, ladies and gentlemen. How many millions of jobs will be lost if the Democrats raise the national minimum wage to $15 an hour? The national, a federal minimum wage. Not state. Not neighborhood. Not city. Not local. Federal minimum wage. Because back on Tuesday, the Democrats introduced a bill that would raise the minimum wage nationally to $15 an hour over five years.

It would more than double the current minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. It’s called the Raise the Wage Act. Oh, it’s so simple. “Rage the Ways Act.” Sorry. I said, “Rage the Ways.” Raise the Wage Act. It would increase pay from $9.50 an hour in 2021 to $11 in 2022, and in 2023 it would rise to $12.50 an hour. It would hit 14 bucks an hour in ’24.

It wouldn’t be until 2025 that it hit 15 bucks an hour. Do you know how many jobs would be lost? This is guaranteed to be true, by the way. This is not speculation. It’s not conservative theory. We have enough data with the imposition of the minimum wage in various states and cities, various local levels. We know what happens with the implementation of a minimum wage.

The number of jobs that will be lost would be at least 1.3 million, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Which means that members of Congress are okay with it! They’re gonna move ahead with the legislation anyway, even though their own budget office says you’re gonna cost the country 1.3 million jobs. The truth is it’s gonna be higher than that.

Most economists who are not socialists think the number will be much higher. Now, I have attempted over the 30 years of this program to explain the minimum wage and why it’s a bogus proposition countless times, and I’m going to do it again. I have found over the course of my hosting the program that the minimum wage is something that a lot of people are just sympathetic to, the way it’s presented to them.

“Well, you can’t feed a family of four on $15 an hour! (sputtering)” Well, why isn’t it higher than that? This is the question I always ask. What is the minimum wage? The minimum wage is an arbitrary amount of money that business owners, the majority of whom are small business owners, will be required by federal law that they have to pay, whether the people they hire are worth it or not.

The reason the minimum wage costs jobs is because if the business — small business — currently is paying people entry-level at eight bucks an hour, and all of a sudden they’re told they have to pay ’em 10, well, they don’t have the money laying around in a vault that they’re not using. But a lot of people think that if you are a business, that you’re a millionaire.

(sniveling) “If you’re a business, you’ve got all kinds of money that you’re not spending. You’re hoarding it, and you’re keeping it for yourself rather than giving it to other people and your employees because you’re a cheat, because you’re selfish.” Such is the damage to the image and reputation of businesspeople that the left has succeeded in creating.

So what has to happen in the real world? Business owners have to let employees go, they have to fire them, because they don’t have an endless pile of money that they could be paying people with but aren’t. Most small businesses have very small margins. They’re not just barely getting by, but it’s not… They’re not a bunch of hedge funders. Let’s put it this way.

But the real problem is it’s an arbitrary number that is mandated on them. It has no relationship to the business that they’re in. It has no relationship to their profit and loss. It has no relationship whatsoever to the business they’re in, what the costs of doing business are, what the current profit margins are. They just slap on an arbitrary figure that has nothing to do with market conditions.

And the arbitrary figure is one that is created by politicians that they can get behind as compassionate and understanding and say they care about people. People end up losing their jobs because of the minimum wage. It’s much easier to trim your workforce than it is to go out and somehow make people more productive — and making people more productive is how you end up being able to pay them more.

It’s your business growing!

But the arbitrary minimum wage is a direct assault on small business growth, which is the primary bottom line to why it’s just a guaranteed failure. It’s been tried. It’s been proven over and over again. It doesn’t matter. This is the Democrats using their power when they have it, and the purpose of this is to create failures in small businesses, to run them out of business, to make sure that they have all kinds of trouble making their ends meet.

You might ask, “Well, why would anybody want to do that?” Because it will turn them into dependents on the government, folks. It always circles back to that. In addition, the nationalization of a $15 an hour minimum wage — which, again, will not hit until 2025. If $15 an hour is what’s needed, why not do it this year? Why have to wait ’til 2025? And if $15 an hour is good, why not $20?

You know, try an experiment with somebody. This always works. Talk to somebody who’s in favor of the minimum wage. You won’t have any trouble finding people. They’ve been brainwashed on this for a number of years. And keep asking them, “Okay, well, if 15 bucks an hour is good, why not 20?” And they’ll agree with you. “Oh, yeah, I could go for that,” and just keep bumping it up.

“Okay, you like $20. What about $25 an hour?” and they’ll agree with you. At some point when you keep bumping up the number, you’ll reach a number where they will say, “No, no, no, no, no. We can’t do that.” It may be 35 an hour, it may be 25, it may be whatever. But you’ll reach a point where the person you’re talking to who loves the minimum wage will tell you, “No, no, no, that’s too much.”

At that point, you pounce, and you say, “Why? Why is 35 too much when 30 isn’t? Why is $35 too much when $25 isn’t?” and they will not have an answer for you. Some will, actually, and the answer they have will make your point. “Well, I mean that’s just too much to mandate that somebody be paid for that before you know whether they’re worth.”

A-ha!

“Well, why did it take $35 to get you to realize that? Why didn’t you realize that at $25? Why didn’t you realize that at $15 or $20?” The point is, you’re not really arguing with them that a specific number. The reason you’re doing this exercise is to get them to finally react at whatever number, that it’s not right to put that kind of a burden on business.

At that point, you’ve won the argument. Here’s what else it does, though. It destroys youth and minority employment, because the minimum wage is not designed to support a family of four. (chuckling) There is no way. It never has been. It’s entry-level. It’s designed to pay people that don’t have any experience doing the job. What it does, is it wipes out entry-level jobs, and that’s what people that have never done work before need.

They need entry-level jobs to learn how to survive in the work culture. They need to learn how to show up and to show up on time. They need to learn how to follow directions. They need to learn how to engage in productive behavior. They need to learn the satisfaction of doing a job well.

That’s what the whole point of entry-level work is. Entry-level work is not designed to support a family. You weren’t ready to support a family when you were 16 or 17. You left home; you wanted to go get a job. You weren’t capable of it. You had to learn the work culture. That’s what entry-level work is all about.

But of course, wiping out entry-level positions, destroying minority employment? That’s kind of the plan, isn’t it? It just forces businesses to move to automation. That’s what’s gonna happen. Businesses are eventually gonna say: You know what? I can’t deal with this hassle.

I can’t deal with you people telling me how much I have to pay people when you don’t even know what the work is. You don’t even understand what I do in my business, and I’m not gonna put up with that. I’m gonna try automate as much of this work as I can. Andrew Yang, of all people, has laid this all out. They want to destroy jobs. Why would they want to do that? That’s a tough thing to say, Rush. No, it’s not. They want to destroy jobs by replacing as many as they can with automation. Why?

Well, that’s how Andrew Yang believes that he can get his universal basic income of a thousand dollars a month passed into the law, when people do not have any job, when they don’t have work to do, when they don’t have a job to go to, they still need money. They still need food. They still need to pay the bills. Hey, I got an idea. How about a guaranteed universal income, $1,000 a month, universal, basic income. Not to mention this will wipe out a lot of restaurants who managed to make it through 2020 still alive. And they’re gonna raise taxes in the midst of this? They’re a gonna raise taxes while they are raising the minimum wage? I don’t know, folks.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Fort Worth, Texas. This is Laurie. Great to have you. Hello.

CALLER: How are you?

RUSH: Good. Thank you.

CALLER: I had to call in. I dialed a thousand times because as a small business owner it isn’t just the effect of the employee, the bottom line employee or the entry-level employee losing their jobs. What people have to understand if they’re way past entry-level and they think, well, this doesn’t apply to me, is that the cost of absolutely every single thing they put in their grocery cart, every single thing they buy will skyrocket. And then you also have employees that have worked for years for you that are loyal employees that may be being paid 10, 12, $15 an hour, and you also have to raise them a commensurate amount. And so it just absolutely skyrockets the cost of everything that you buy.

RUSH: Well, if you take on new employees, that’s true, you do have to raise the compensation for existing employees. But isn’t it true that what you normally do, the easiest thing to do is just, for lack of a better word, you fire people in order to maintain what your cost of doing labor, your labor costs are, that’s what your primary outgo flow is, and you’ve gotta maintain that, you know what that is, you want to be able to calculate that for as long as you can. Labor costs are the number one expense you’ve got and so it’s easier just to let people go.

CALLER: Well, except that it harms your productivity because then you’re stretching all these other employees to cover what was being done by entry-level positions. You’re having them having to either pay them much more because they’re making more hours or they’re doing other jobs, and so it affects everything all the way around. It is not just an entry-level position. And as somebody that has employed entry-level position people, it takes a long time to get them trained to do, as you said, the culture of business.

RUSH: Right. And by the way, with the Biden administration, we’re gonna do all this while importing the Third World in via the southern border?

CALLER: Yes.

RUSH: I mean, how much sense does this make?

CALLER: None.

RUSH: Exactly right. Zip, zero, nada.

CALLER: Thank you, Rush, for all you do.

RUSH: I’m glad you called. Really, it’s a great addition to the point. It’s not very often a caller is able to add additional, salient points to any issue discussed by me, The Big Voice on the Right. But Laurie here did it.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Don in Detroit, you’re next, Open Line Friday. Hi.

CALLER: Hello, Rush. What a pleasure this is. I’ve been listening to you since 1988. I recently even got my mom to finally see the light. She’s from South America and finally was wondering who this entertaining guy was on the radio one day. One day I tricked her, and I said, “Oh, it’s the guy you hate. Rush Limbaugh.”

RUSH: Oh, way to go.

CALLER: (laughing)

RUSH: Only took 31 years.

CALLER: You’ve got it. It did. It was a long whatever. But I tricked her on the radio, and she says, “That man is so entertaining!”

RUSH: Isn’t that great?

CALLER: She was laughing.

RUSH: That’s a beautiful thing. Thank you very much.

CALLER: Anyways, I’ll get to the point here. I got so many. But I heard you taking about the $15 an hour minimum wage, and I wanted to talk about construction — I’m a contractor here — and how tough it is all these burdens that are placed on the employer. At $15 an hour, my experience is whether… You know, I’m talking even entry-level.

Like, you were saying, like, maybe, laborers and so forth. I don’t care if it’s $10 an hour or if you give them 15, ’cause they got you by the whatever. It’s the middle of the summer and you just need warm bodies to keep the projects going. If you pay ’em $20 an hour or $15, I still get the same output.

I still got the same employee that comes in with the $1000 iPhone. They got… They call ’em “sleeves.” They got tattoos on both arms, and that costs a fortune. They’re 20-some years old, grown adults, still living in the mom’s basement. That’s true. All of them make fun about that, but it’s true. It’s true.

RUSH: I know it’s true, and you got a great point. You’re basically saying no matter what you pay ’em, you still get the same productivity out of them which is not much.

CALLER: The same thing — or you’ll get the older guys; they’re crying about their no-name diapers and the friend of the court. But they’re smoking brand name cigarettes and they got the same ones too with a $1000 iPhones and everything. None of them have a work ethic, and the burden’s on me.

Just basic, basic math computation, teaching a guy how to read a tape measure or hold a grading stick. You know, we did a lot of excavating, grading work and so on. And, you know, the new guys will fly like an eagle for a week, 10 days, and then it’s the same thing. I become the loan shark, the camp counselor, the bail bondsman.

I’m a psychologist. I can’t tell you how many times I take… You know, I get pirates, and I got to try and turn ’em into choirboys here. It’s young, old. (sigh) The young ones, they can’t handle the heat anymore. (whispering) “You gotta watch how you talk to ’em. I gotta talk so soft,” or whatever. I’ll have a mom call me up and tell me I need to learn how to talk to her adult “child,” because, you know, he was late for work.

RUSH: Wait a minute!

CALLER: (laughing)

RUSH: You had a mother call you and tell you you need to learn how to talk to her adult child?

CALLER: He was 24 years old, Rush, living in the basement, and he’s 3-1/2 hours late to work for doing a swimming pool. We need just warm bodies, guys to kick around gravel.

RUSH: And what are you paying this guy?

CALLER: Let’s see. At that time, it was $14 an hour to start. That was two years ago, and his mom called.

RUSH: Out of all the things you said, you would have to sit there and your phone rings and it’s the mother of one of these guys living in her basement, and she is complaining to you — she b-i-itching at you — about the way you’re talking to her son?

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2021/01/29/the-arbitrary-minimum-wage-is-an-assault-on-small-business/

Central-Illinoisand_beyond

header