All Episodes
Previous Next
July 16, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:11
July 16, 2009, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Back we are, broadcast excellence uh performed by me, all for you, here on the EIB network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Open line Friday on Thursday today.
Well H.R., who's gonna be here tomorrow?
Mark Davis are gonna be here tomorrow.
A little emergency has come up.
This is it, folks, until the end of August.
Uh not another holiday between now.
This is it between the uh the end of August.
Telephone number 800 28282, email address L Rushball at EIBNet.com.
We chronicled earlier this morning, uh well, earlier today, depending on where you are, uh Justice Saltamayor's butchering of the English language, which is important because she's a judge and about to set a Supreme Court uh among the things that we highlighted, the first seven who are going to be hired only because of the vagrancies of the vacancies of that moment, she meant to say vagaries.
Under New York law, if you're being threatened with eminent death or very serious injury, imminent is what she meant with an I, not an Eis educate themselves, they build up a story of knowledge about legal things, store of knowledge, not story.
And she said, all questions of policy are within the providence of Congress, no province of Congress.
And the latest, in a conversation with Senator Chuck U. Schumer.
He says, I want to talk to you, uh, ask you about the 1995 player strike case, uh, which uh comes up.
It's an interesting case for everybody.
Could you tell us a little bit about the case, why you listed it in your questionnaire that you filled out as one of your ten most important cases, and that'll be my last question.
Uh and she says, Well, uh, people often forget how important some legal challenges seem before judges decide the case.
Before the case is decided, all the academics and all the newspapers and others talking about the case were talking about the novel theory the baseball owners had developed in challenging the collective bargaining rights players' noticers.
So that's the context.
She said, and it becomes clear to me after looking at that case that that process led to affirming the decision of the National Labor Relationships Board that it could and should issue an injunction on the grounds that it claimed it's the National Labor Relations Board, not the National Labor Relationships Board.
What did I say?
Providence Providence.
Prov no I said, what?
Providence, whatever.
Yeah, we I was right.
I got it right.
You're confusing me here with all these notes.
Here I am, here I am in a very detailed proper discussion on how so and your soda mayor can't speak, and I'm getting notes from my own staff saying you can't either, essentially.
*Sigh*
And I'm sitting here laughing about it.
Instead of having somebody's head.
What is it?
National Labor Relationships Board.
That is the Elpers show, but what is it?
A chick thing or something?
I mean, the National Labor.
This this is not uh insignificant stuff, if you ask me.
Any Republican nominee butchering a language like this would be disqualified.
And it'd be all over the headlines and it'd be investigating the educational history of the nominee.
I mentioned earlier today also that John Kyle really scored some points on the Ricci case.
Here are the audio on that.
Um we got three bites.
Kyle said there was no Supreme Court precedent that required your result in Ricci.
You know, she cited precedent.
There wasn't any precedent.
And finally, Kyle said so.
And I'm not sure what the second circuit precedent is.
The Supreme Court said few, if any, and I don't know what the precedent would be.
I mean, I'm not necessarily gonna ask you to cite the case, but was there a case?
And if so, what is it?
It was the ones that we discussed yesterday, the Bushy line of cases that talked about the Prima Fasia case and the obligations of the city in terms of defending lawsuits are um claiming disparate impact.
And so the question then became how do you view the city's action?
Was it a um and that's what the district court had done in its 78th page opinion to say you've got a city facing liability.
Well, I mean, that's Mumbo Jumbo Gobbledygook.
There There is no there there is no precedent.
And don't tell me I said president.
Dawn, there is no precedent in this case that she can he nailed her on it.
Now he uh is zeroes in on the N Bonc review.
So you contend that there was Second Circuit precedent.
Now on the on-bank review, of course, the question there is different because you're not bound by any three-judge panel decision in your circuit.
So what precedent would have bound, and and yet you took the same position in the in banc review.
And in that case, of course, they're not bound by a three-judge decision because it's the entire circuit sitting of ten or twelve or twenty judges.
So what precedent then would have bound to court in the in-bank review?
Uh, you listen and see if she has an answer.
The panel acted in accordance with its views by setting forth and incorporating the district court's analysis of the case.
Those who disagreed with the opinion made their arguments, those who uh agreed that NBA uh certification wasn't necessary, voted their way, and the majority of the court decided not to hear the case in bunk.
Question was about precedent.
And I uh, you know, my dad was a lawyer, I know this stuff, so she didn't answer it.
Now let's move on, uh, ladies and gentlemen, to liberals unhappy with the uh Sotomayor hiding who she really is.
Last night on PMS NBC, Dahlia Lithwick was a guest, uh, and and she was answering this question.
You've raised the issue of the Democrats' lost opportunity here.
You said at Slate.com today that you'll learn more about liberal theories on jurisprudence from Democrats' opposition to Roberts and Alito than you could glean from the way they're supporting Sotomayor.
What do you mean by that?
All they needed to do for three days was just wind up and explain what's wrong with the John Roberts court.
Why does the Roberts Court have this determination to keep Americans, average Americans, out of the courthouse doors?
Why are they so set on doing away with the racial progress we've made?
Nobody makes that point.
Instead, we have at least half the Democrats on the committee racing into the embrace of John Roberts, you know, promising us that Sotomayor is going to be tough on crime, loves guns, is a strict constructionist, is a minimalist.
It's just bizarre the extent to which John Roberts' shadow hovers over these hearings.
And Democrats, it's like Patty Hearst syndrome.
They've completely bought into the notion that, you know, justices call balls and strikes, anything over and above that is horrible.
Now you see, this this is fascinating stuff here.
Because the liberals are winning everything.
They're getting everything they want.
They're gonna get Sotomayor, all things considered.
The Republicans don't have the votes to stop anything Obama wants to do.
And here comes this Lithwick babe, just bent all out of shape, because they're not on the war path against the Roberts Court.
She's she's upset in order for this confirmation to go smoothly, Sotomayor has to lie about who she is.
She has to stay in the closet.
Exactly right.
Sotomayor cannot come out.
She not cannot come out of the closet.
She has to pretend that she's not a liberal.
And it's upsetting these liberals out there.
You know, they they still think they're losing.
They still it this is just it's fascinating to listen to these people.
Because normally they're all about doing whatever you have to do to win.
Why cheat, acorn, whatever you have to do to win.
This Lithwick babe is not happy with the way they're winning.
She wants Roberts impeached or something, or or or or the destroyed.
Here's another one.
This is last in on CNN, Campbell Brown talking to a contributing editor, Kathy Aru from the Washington Post.
The question if she weren't sitting before this committee right now with so much at stake, would she really be backing off that statement?
No, as a wise Latina, I can tell you no, she's not backing down, and she probably would want to say, not only did I mean a wise Latina, I meant any Latina could make a better decision than a uh a white man could.
Now, this is a Washington Post reporter at an infobabe.
So you've had put this now in order.
Sotomayor has told everybody that Sandra Day O'Connor didn't mean what she said, and now a Washington Post reporter can't be a ruse says so to my or doesn't mean what she's saying.
Sodomayor not only believes, here play this again.
This is a woman who knows what Sotomayor is hiding and is upset she's hiding it.
Listen again.
No, as a wise Latina, I can tell you no, she's not backing down, and she probably would want to say, not only do I mean a wise Latina, I meant any Latina could make a better decision than a uh a white man could.
As though that's okay, as though that's right, as though it's correct.
That's what Soda Myor wants to say.
Now it's actually what these people want her to say because they know what she meant.
That's what Sotomayor meant.
They're right, by the way.
These critics of Sotomayor are right.
She said she said this at least the wise Latina comment at least six times, my good friends, in speeches and comments over the course of uh of many years.
This is eye-opening in so many ways.
The Washington Post reporter, I'm gonna tell you what she really feels.
I'm gonna tell you what she really thinks.
I'm gonna tell you what she really wanted to say.
So these liberals out there revising each other at every opportunity.
As a wise Latina myself, let me tell you what I know she meant.
As a wise Latina myself, not only uh wise Latina, any Latina, an unwise Latina, stupid Latina would make a better decision than your average white guy.
That's that's what the Washington Post babe said on Campbell Brown on CN.
And we played this because nobody, folks, is watching CNN in prime time.
I mean, it's you can put their audience in a symbol.
And so we're airing this for you so that you know about it.
Open line Friday on Thursday, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network.
Does the name John Holdren mean anything to you?
You know who John Holdren is.
John Holdren is President Obama's science czar.
You know who he is?
You know who John Holdren is?
Who?
You're gonna sit there and nod your head.
Who's John Holder?
Besides being Obama's health, uh science.
Science, besides that, who is he?
I know you didn't know.
And I frankly know that most of the rest of you don't know, which is why I introduced it this way to grab your attention.
It's a very well-known broadcast technique that most broadcast amateurs, which is most broadcasters, don't understand.
President Obama's science czar, John Holdren, co-wrote a book with Paul Ehrlich back in 1977 called Ecoscience.
In that book, remember Paul Ehrlich is the guy, we had a limited population.
His first book was the population bomb.
John Holdren, Obama's science czar, took a controversial and amoral approach to the science of population by recommending mass compulsory sterilization and even forced abortion and or forced marriages under certain circumstances in this book.
This is a posted commentary.
Washington Examiner by uh uh David Ferdoso, who used to post it National Review Only Still.
Here's what they wrote.
Hold the Holdren and Ehrlich, and it was actually Ehrlich and his wife, Paul and Ann Ehrlich.
Radical changes in family structure and relationships are inevitable.
This is back in 77.
These people have not renounced this, and and these people are still uh held as gods to the left.
Ehrlich has been totally discredited.
He's still a god.
Radical changes in family structure and relationships are inevitable, whether population control is instituted or not.
In action, inaction, attended by a steady deterioration in living conditions for the poor majority will bring changes everywhere that no one could consider beneficial.
Thus, it is beside the point to object.
It's beside The point to object to population control measures simply on the grounds they might change the social structure of family relationships because they're going to change anyway.
So abortion is a population control measure.
Exactly as Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg admitted last week and the Washington.
Well, maybe it was the New York Times, but it is what the left looks at it as a population control measure.
So what population exactly?
And who gets to decide that?
Who gets to decide which population we want less of?
Well, the liberals do.
So basically, you you you could say here that the Obama's science czar suggest the traditional family is obsolete.
Large families need to be punished.
And you might say, well, why did Obama pick this guy?
Ah, ladies and gentlemen, my ears itch.
This is who Obama is.
I don't know how to convey to people any more than I have the sheer radical nature of this man, his administration, his friends, his nominees, his appointees, his czars, who have no oversight whatsoever, no congressional oversight whatsoever.
They these czars are free to do whatever they want to do.
They work solely for Obama.
He decides we don't even know what they make.
He can pay them whatever he wants to pay them.
I struggle on the verge here of saying, well, this is un-American.
We don't, we Americans don't look at population control.
We don't look at abortion as a means of control of.
We don't look at things the way the left does.
You look at this health care bill.
I mean, it's it's an absolute, it's it's a disaster.
And now, you know, speaking of the health care bill, this is the Washington Post today, and they're not really happy about this.
Obama eyes the purse strings for Medicare.
At this now, that may not be a big surprise to you, but here's why it is.
At the same time that Obama is asking members of Congress to take one of the most politically difficult votes of their careers, i.e., for health care reform.
He's also pressing lawmakers to give up one of their most valued perks of office, boosting Medicare payments to benefit hometown providers.
Setting reimbursement rates for local hospitals, doctors, home health care centers, and other providers is legislative.
It is a legislative ritual that amounts to one of the most effective and lucrative forms of constituent service, i.e., pork.
Obama is telling members of Congress he wants it.
He wants total control of this.
He wants total control of everything the government does.
And this the guy is out there saying, I'm too busy, I don't want any more power.
I'm gonna rock on the table, I got Afghanistan on the table.
I don't I don't want any more.
And Rom Emanuel.
Ram Emanuel says that the Medicare payment debates, the most important thing in the whole health care reform.
And this is the first we're hearing of it in the Washington Post story today.
The most important thing is who is in charge of Medicare payments at the local level.
Obama wants to take it away from Congress.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Now, look, we can debate here the whole point of these reimbursements and how they're rotten and bad.
Uh and and they're political no matter who is in charge of them.
But there's the reason for mentioning this is this is something Congress doesn't give up, doesn't want to give up, and Emmanuel says this is the most important aspect of health care reform.
Medicare payment debates, the most important thing in the proposed health care reforms.
Why is that?
Power.
Power.
It's not about health care, folks.
And in some cases, not even about transfer.
Well, I saw Obama today, was it today, yesterday said that there's no free lunch on health care?
What there will be a free lunch for a lot of people are not going to pay a dime for it.
Because it's going to be redistribute redistributed to it.
They'll pay for it in other ways.
There is no free, but the interesting to see how Congress reacts to this.
And I guarantee you, uh Emmanuel's already engaging in thug behavior threatening up there.
So the traditional family is obsolete.
We've got to punish large families.
And Obama wants to be in charge of Medicare rules and the reimbursement payment for all the local providers, doctors, hospitals, all of the local Medicare involvement, Obama wants total control of.
Or somebody, and the White House does, we will be back with an explosive item too.
Investors Business Daily, a great editorial today on the Obama Health Care Plan passed by the House of Representatives.
How many of you have heard President Obama say, hey, if you like your plan, if you like your doctor, you'll get to keep them.
Well, it didn't take long to run into an uh oh moment when reading the House's Health Care for All Americans bill.
Right there, on page 16, is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.
Page 16.
Individual private medical insurance made illegal.
When we first saw the paragraph on Tuesday, just after the 1018 page document was released, we thought we got to be misreading this.
So we we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.
Turns out we were right.
The provision would indeed outlaw individual private insurance healthcare coverage.
Under the Orwellian header of protecting the choice to keep current coverage.
The limitation on new enrollment section of the bill clearly states this.
Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage.
If the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of the year this legislation becomes law.
So after this bill becomes law, nobody in the insurance business can offer anybody, and you can't buy private medical insurance.
So we can all keep our coverage just as promised, with exceptions.
Those who currently have private individual coverage will not be able to change it.
Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.
You will have to go to the public option.
From the beginning, opponents of the public option plan have warned that if the government gets into the business of offering subsidized health insurance coverage, the private insurance market will wither.
And you don't need to be an expert to understand this.
The government can print money, it doesn't have to make a profit.
Private sector people do, or they go out of business.
So you can't compete with somebody who's not worried about profit.
Drawn by a public option that is said to be 30 to 40% cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it, employers will gladly scrap their private plans and go with Washington's coverage.
We also know this.
We know that many companies are looking very forward to offloading their health care expenses to the government.
The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in the public program.
That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers.
This could cause the market to fizzle out altogether.
What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.
The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts.
Do you know HSAs are dead?
And the reason health savings accounts are dead is because you have control.
This is something that Obama and his cronies want to get rid of, and it's in the legislation.
Democrats have wanted to get rid of health savings accounts for years.
They want to get rid of that because nothing gives individuals more control over their Medicare and the government less than health savings accounts.
It took investors' business daily, just 16 pages of reading, the health care bill, over a thousand pages, to find this naked attempt by the political powers to increase their reach.
So that's page 16, and they wonder what other horrors await us as we read the additional eight, the 1,002 pages here.
So the day this private option becomes law, nobody can buy and nobody can sell.
Individual private coverage.
Well, uh the if that's a good point.
Obama has said, no, we're gonna go we we need to offer this competition.
We we need to compete, the government competing, and there are already over a thousand insurance companies in competition out there.
The government, well, well, we need to really put pressure on them.
So the way they're gonna put pressure on them is put out of business.
I just it is a horror story.
It really is.
This is why they're trying to push this through, folks.
This is why they're trying to get all this done before because they know their buds in the in the in the state-run media are not gonna report this to you.
This is not gonna be told.
Now, this is interesting from the Dow Jones Newswire just now.
U.S. Representative Mike Ross, Democrat Arkansas leader of fiscally conservative House Democrats, said yesterday that a House plan to overhaul the U.S. health care system is losing support, and it'll be stuck in committee without any changes.
He said, last time I checked, it takes seven Democrats to stop a bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Well, we've got we had seven against it last Friday.
We have ten today.
Three House committees slated to begin considering the bill this week.
The energy and commerce looms is the biggest challenge.
It's because it counts among its 36 Democrat members, seven members of the Blue Dog coalition, conservative Democrats, that is opposing House Democrats' efforts in general on health care.
Mark Ross or Mike Ross said that the bill doesn't include provisions adequate to curb rising health care costs, including including what the government spends on health care.
So he says that his committee has the votes to block it.
Yeah, well, he might think so.
But he hadn't gotten a phone call from Rahm Emanuel yet.
Or who else uh might it be that might.
Well, I this this really is gonna be, I have to think the overreach, the tipping point.
I uh at some point.
If um because the Republicans can't stop this.
Not with their votes.
They might be able to do it in other ways.
Yeah.
It's called television ads.
And you know, what in I I mentioned this chart in the New York Post earlier on the tax rates and what's going to cost various income levels in New York City, where the top rate will go to 58%, and somebody at $80,000 a year in New York City will pay an effective uh 36% of their income tax income in taxes.
Uh that New York Post chart, that graphic.
I said, if every newspaper in the country would put one of these together, screw waiting on the newspapers.
This is what the RNC ought to do.
Michael Steele ought to get busy getting some people going to every major city and put this chart out and get it out.
In every city, what Obama health care is going to cost you.
Family of four, this income group, this income level.
You know, you can the Republicans have put together a pretty good flow chart to show the bureaucracy.
But it's complicated.
The numbers are what people will understand.
How much it's going to cost them, above and beyond what everything costs them now.
77% of the American people are happy with their health care.
When they find out how much this reform is going to cost them, it could be killed.
This is, let's see, this is it's time to choose.
Yesterday we said it.
The Republican Party needs to put aside these little petty arguments over how they're going to go out and get that group to vote them and vote for them and that group and so forth.
This is standing up for America and doing so, standing up for our traditions and our founding, standing up, standing up for the institutions and traditions that made and define our greatness.
That's where their electability resides.
That's where their re-electability is.
Not in cherry-picking votes from various groups with mindless little policy twitters that.
Oh, speaking of that, speaking of Twitter.
I was told yesterday that there are a bunch of people pretending to be me, and that there are enough 40,000 people out there thinking they are tweeting back and forth with me.
I don't tweet, folks.
I do not have a Twitter.
Is it what Tweeter?
I don't have a Twitter account.
Don't have it.
So whoever's out there is a phony baloney, plastic banana, good time rock and roller, a fraud.
I wanted to mention that.
So now we're going to get some phone calls when we come back, but this healthcare thing is an outrage all by itself.
But have you heard the story about seven, what is it?
How many executives?
This is 700 executives from the Social Security Administration on a party junket, the Phoenix.
While Obama is telling everybody else in the world, don't travel, you can't fly your plane to Vegas.
Those days are over.
Federal bureaucrats are filling the vacuum.
Members of Congress are giving the Social Security Administration just two days to turn over all the records about a $700,000 management conference at the Arizona Biltmore Resort and SPA.
ABC did an investigation on this, and we've got some audio on it, claiming they need to learn how to reduce stress because of a growing number of death threats being made against them.
Nearly 700 executives from the Social Security Administration.
We now call government officials executives.
They gathered for a lavish three-day conference in Phoenix.
It cost $700,000.
That's a hundred thousand dollars per attendee.
We receive threats against our employees.
Oh, I said the people on the junket have not gotten death threats.
The executives have gotten death threats against employees.
Yeah, we receive threats against our employees by people who are in the American public, said Social Security Administration Regional Commissioner for San Francisco, Peter Spencer in defense of the conference.
He said there's a tremendous amount of stress involved, the job that we do.
What stress?
You don't have any competition from anybody.
All you've got a bunch of bunch of complaining people, which is never going to change as long as the government runs anything.
The thing is, you know, this look at look at Congress being outraged.
Now it's it's proper to be outraged by this.
This, folks, is very simple.
This is as understandable as the House Bank scandal.
This, when this kind of news gets out, uh, ladies and gentlemen, we're looking and with the unemployment news, what it is, unemployment continuing to rise, government executives going on retreats for a hundred grand a person for three days to relieve stress over death threats.
That's under the American people can't do that right now.
The American people are paying for it.
But this is nothing.
This 700 grand, this is nothing to the pillage that the government as a whole is doing in the trillions on this economy every day.
But these little Social Security guys Are gonna go take the heat for 700 grand.
I'm not saying they shouldn't.
But don't let it divert from the real issue.
There's no money in Social Security.
It's bankrupt.
We're all a big we're gonna get royally screwed.
The Social Security West Coast Head said the conference was essential.
Teleconferencing was not an option.
Somebody needs to tell them it's called go to meeting.com.
It's called go to meeting.
You don't.
But here's the fo the this the the interesting thing here.
Uh about all of this.
This this is this is more and more like the Politburo each and every day.
The Politburo had its hierarchy of leaders from the Premier President on down to these clowns in the Kremlin.
They all had their Dutchas, their houses out there, their girls, their liquor, and so forth.
People a country couldn't find food in the stores.
Now we've got these people in Washington who are treating the U.S. Treasury as a personal piggy bank to go party.
They're better than everybody else, and they're so stressed out because they're getting death threats.
$100,000 for three days for one for 700 people.
Social Security.
Executives.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
Back to the phones we go.
People have been uh patiently waiting.
Oh, by well, I'll get to the there's there's one more thing that's been found by Investors Business Daily and the Healthcare Bill declares it a right.
Now, right is something that we'll get it in a minute because I've got limited time here.
Uh Ronnie in Orlando, great to have you on the uh EIB network.
Hello.
Greetings, Ross, from a transplant in Ohio State Bucka to Orlando, Florida.
God bless you for all the uh for your love of the country.
My comment is on the New York Post graph that you referred to.
It would be good, as you suggested to go through the and put them in all the newspapers, but sadly, with the decline in the uh uh uh circulation, you might want to shift uh primaries and try and get it on entertainment tonight, which is I believe the most widely uh viewed news broadcast in the country.
Uh the problem is as you well, you have a point in the United States of Entertainment Entertainment Tonight might be the most widely viewed uh it is the United States of Entertainment anymore.
Well, I know your comment that you always make about that uh elections have uh ramifications to consequences is very out here, and unfortunately, the last comment briefly, until people really, really feel the pain like the four dollar a gallon gasoline is gonna just kind of slide right on by, and everybody's gonna wake up with the laws of economics like the law.
They can't be changed.
You keep betting on all of this false promises, and there's gonna come a day, and that's when you'll get changed.
Unfortunately, 30% have no skin in the game.
Ronnie, Ronnie, we cannot afford to wait until it happens.
That's why we are here, Ronnie.
We are here alerting people what awaits them.
If we wait until it happens for falling poll numbers, there's nothing can happen anyway.
Falling poll numbers aren't gonna accomplish anything.
This this is not about Obama getting personal approval for what he's doing.
He loves the poll numbers.
This is about getting it done.
The reason they're trying to hurry it through is before people find out what we have been telling people for weeks about this in mass.
The objective here is to stop this.
If we don't stop this, be it health care, tax and trade, whatever it is, it's not gonna be in the United States of America you and I were born to.
All right, my test worked.
I conducted a test.
I said 700 people, 700,000 bucks in Phoenix, Social Security, 100,000 a person.
It worked.
▲
Export Selection