All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 21, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:38
September 21, 2009, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And we are back.
It's great to be with you.
Rush Limbaugh here, kicking off a brand new week of broadcast excellence at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies right here behind the golden EIB microphone.
And we have coming up, before the program ends today, the official Obama criticizer, Mr. Bosturdley.
We'll get to that in due course.
Plus, I'm going to get to your phone calls quickly in this hour.
A lot of people want to weigh in on a lot of things.
Now, program note, we're going to be in Los Angeles on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Well, actually, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, but the program will not.
Who's the guest host on Thursday?
Mark Stein's going to be here on Thursday.
I got to go out and finish The Family Guy.
And then I'm doing Jay Leno's new show Thursday afternoon.
And there's two parts to that.
I'm going to be actually on the set.
They have one sit-down guest every show.
You have musical guests.
I think Smokey Robinson is the guest the night that I'm on, if he doesn't cancel when he finds out I'm there.
The first time I was on tonight show, James Taylor was the musical destiny and canceled.
And they said, oh, no, no, it's not because of you.
Not because of you, but Smokey's going to be there.
Now, they've got this new thing at the Leno show.
They got this promotion going with Ford and their electric car, an electric focus, and they've set up this 2,200-foot track outside Leno's new studio.
And you race against the clock in the electric car.
And they've been asking me, would you do this?
And I said, look, you guys know where I come from on all this.
That's great.
No problem at all.
Drew Marrimore, I think, was the first to do so last Friday night.
A Wednesday afternoon, Al Michaels and Bob Costas.
NBC's got some kind of giant Monday night for Sunday Night Football client get together.
So they Costas and Michaels are going out there Wednesday afternoon.
And I'm going to do it Thursday.
And there are all kinds of things.
They're pop-up balloons along the track of various environmentalists.
And you're supposed to avoid them.
It's one of the challenges.
If you run over the balloons, it's a five-second penalty.
I hope to end up with the record for the slowest pace around the Jay Leno Ford Focus electric car track.
So that's going to do on Thursday.
But we'll do the program Monday and Tuesday from Los Angeles, and Mark Stein will be here Thursday.
They'll be back here at our home base Friday.
And again, no Ditto Cam from our Los Angeles studio out there, a cavernous compound that nobody can find, even if we gave them directions.
And so we'll be there.
I just wanted to point this out to your DittoCam subscribers that there will not be a DittoCam Tuesday or Wednesday.
Well, and there won't be one Thursday with Stein as well.
Do you remember when Andrew Kumo got into some deep trouble in New York, was thinking of running for governor, and Bill Clinton went in there and said to Andrew Cuomo in whatever words Clinton used, don't do it.
You remember what happened to Torcelli over there?
Torcelli wouldn't go away.
We had to push him out.
Andrew, we love you.
And your time should come down the line, but we don't want you there now.
And so Andrew Cuomo backed out.
Well, President Obama, New York Times reporting Obama called for David Patterson, the governor of New York, to not run for re-election.
Seems that Patterson's poll numbers don't look good.
More than a year out, Obama sent a request to Mr. Patterson that he withdraw from the New York governor's race, fearing Patterson can't recover from his dismal political standing.
This, according to two senior administration officials and a New York Democrat operative with direct knowledge of the situation.
Really?
Really?
What happens if this applies to Obama when we get into 2012?
I mean, is somebody going to tell Obama not to run for reelection?
It appears that Obama is not much different than Governor Patterson.
The move against a sitting Democrat governor represents an extraordinary intervention into a state political race by the president.
It's a delicate one, says the New York Times, given that Mr. Patterson is one of only two African-American governors in the nation.
But Mr. Obama and his political team and other party leaders have grown increasingly worried that Patterson's unpopularity could drag down Democrat members of Congress in New York, as well as the Democrat-controlled legislature in next fall's election.
Now, if you are a fan of Barack Obama, this sounds like a serious and terrible precedent.
I wonder how receptive Obama would be to a call from former President Clinton asking Obama to step down for the good of the party in 2012 and let Hillary run.
If unemployment stays above 10%, if the deficit continues to explode, if inflation kicks in, if taxes are being pushed, if we have given up our number one superpower status, I mean, this president's going to be a huge anchor on his party, not just in 2012, but in 2010.
I mean, Democrats are being destroyed all over the country thanks to Obama's malfeasance in office.
Don't forget the polling data we had on Friday from public policy polling, where state Democrats are urging, please don't poll us here.
We know we're in bad shape.
We don't want people to know how bad.
Please don't poll Democrats in our state.
We don't know which states, but there are a number of them.
Now, if I were Patterson, and I'm not Patterson, don't forget Patterson when they press conference, he announced he's going to raise taxes.
Somebody said, well, Rush Limbaugh's leaving the state.
Patterson said, well, if I'd have known that, I'd have raised taxes even sooner.
But who was it that we had to step in there?
Carl McCall.
Carl McCall, a black Democrat running for governor, and the Democrat Party, Howard Dean, was not supporting him at all.
We, in the interest of political balance and fairness, raised a little money for Carl McCall, a black Democrat abandoned by his party.
Here's another black Democrat, David Patterson, being abandoned by his black president, Barack Obama.
All because Patterson's an albatross around Obama's neck.
So if I were Patterson, if I were Patterson, what I'd do, I'd call Obama and say, hey, look, buddy, you need to come up with a better stimulus plan and you need to fix unemployment.
That would help me.
That'd help a lot of Democrats out there.
I mean, the fact of the matter is, Patterson hadn't done himself any good.
He's a doofus, but Obama has probably done as much to wreck Patterson's career as Patterson has himself.
And that's saying something.
I guarantee you.
And by the way, Patterson, how about this?
Obama tells you to get out of there, the scram.
Obama arrives in New York today to begin this week-long festive week at the U.N., do his speech in Troy, New York, and who's the first guy to greet him off the plane steps when Obama lands?
It's Patterson.
Patterson's there sucking up.
Obama gives him a big, big, big embrace.
And I'm telling you, that's a kiss of death.
That's like an owner of a football team expressing confidence in a coach.
Oh, yeah, here's a voter come.
I'm perfectly happy with my coach.
And it's just a matter of weeks where the coach is pounding sand on the beach.
I mean, if you're Patterson and the president just told you to go get lost, what the hell are you doing being first in line?
Unless you're going to whisper in his ear, hey, pal, you give me a stimulus plan and you give something to work with, get my poll numbers up.
You're an albatross around my neck.
It's not the way you're describing it.
But Patterson in the New York Times says, screw it.
Patterson insisted yesterday he would continue his campaign for governor, despite urging us in the White House that he step aside for the good of the Democrat Party.
The plan to appeal to Patterson to step aside was proposed by the president's political team and approved by Mr. Obama.
Some Democrats expressed anger at what they saw as heavy-handed tactics by the president's political.
Is this what gets them mad?
Is this what gets them mad?
Others, including two members of New York's congressional delegation, praised Obama's move, saying that something had to be done because this governor's an idiot and he's a drag on the fall ticket.
Now, what's Corzine?
I mean, Corzine's not exactly lighting it up in New Jersey, and the Democrat in Virginia is not exactly helping out.
So will it require me once again to stand up for a black Democrat politician in New York among influential people?
It looks like it's going to come down to me again and us, folks.
We're the ones that stood up for Carl McCall.
Way back when, in those good old days.
All right, your phone calls are next.
Let's take a brief time out here.
An obscene prosperity break, and we'll be back and continue right after this.
Don't go away.
All right, to the phones at 800-282-2882.
Eric in Tucson, Arizona.
I'm glad you waited.
You're up first today, sir.
Great to have you here with us.
Thank you.
Two quick points.
One, you touched on, and that is Obama sold us during the campaign that he had the plan.
It was more troops, and now he's saying he doesn't know.
And I'll tell you, it's a little late for that.
Number two, he gave away on the stand down on our defense system.
He gave away all his leverage before he even got to the table, got nothing in return.
He does this all the time.
It shows somebody who doesn't know how to negotiate because they've never been in a business setting where you have to cut a deal.
Our biggest chip is gone now, the defense.
The Russians gave nothing to us.
That's scary.
And I'll tell you what, it's also scary that the commander-in-chief can't get a top-secret memo from his commander in Afghanistan to the president without it getting leaked.
That's scary.
I think you're looking at this from the wrong perspective in the wrong context.
And I'm going to be blunt with you.
You are expressing the outrage of anybody who would look at the contents, the context, and the substance of what Obama's saying.
And you're doing so on the basis of the benefit of the doubt that he actually wants to win in Afghanistan.
He doesn't.
That he actually wants to do something about the Iranian nuclear program.
He doesn't.
He does want to make nice with the Russians.
He wants to make nice with Chavez.
Remember, the enemies of America are friends of Obama's.
Anybody who thinks this country has been wrong, immoral, unjust, imperialistic, a superpower, they're right.
So this business of owning Afghanistan, sending more troops, that's a campaign thing, B.S.
That's something to try to grab some people for his domestic agenda from the right.
And they, oh, wow, Obama's doing the right thing.
He's doing the right thing in Afghanistan.
Yeah, we heard him say all during the campaign, we're in the wrong place.
Iraq's the wrong place.
I've got to go to Afghanistan.
I got to get Osama.
I didn't care about any of that.
The leak?
Who do you think leaked it?
Who do you think leaked the request for troops?
And why do you think Obama is putting more stock in the desires of his fringe base than the commander he appointed?
Because he's more, he needs he needs all that matters to him is this domestic agenda.
I'm telling you, it's all that matters to him.
And then he's going to do whatever he has to do to get that.
This Afghanistan business is really sad, but it's not just Afghanistan.
You've got, as I pointed out, Madeline Holbright running around, I'm sure, echoing this administration's sentiments when she says that we don't want to be the superpower anymore.
It's not productive.
It doesn't provide balance in the world.
We don't want to be the big guy anymore.
He's seeing to it that we're not going to be.
In the meantime, what's at risk is our own security.
I mean, I think he's putting our troops at risk, too, by the morale issue of the enemy, giving the enemy the impression that we possibly are going to lose, and we need to do this, and that's the next step we need to take.
That's true.
This is one thing I can't get into Obama's head on.
I can't get my arms around the fact that we might have a president who wants us to become dominated by all these foreign powers that don't like us.
I can't, I may be naive, it may be just who he is, but I can't get my arms around that.
But I don't know how to conclude anything else.
We're going to slash the nuclear arsenal all the hill.
Nobody else is going to have to do that.
There's no agreement here where they get rid of some, we get rid of some.
We're just going to do it.
We pull down the missile shield protecting Poland and the Czech Republic.
And we do it on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland.
That's no coincidence.
And now we've got administration officials saying, look, if the Israelis want to run an attack on Iran in a nuclear arsenal over there, they've got to fly over Iraq.
And they've got to ask us for permission to fly over Iraqi airspace.
We run the show.
And they don't ask us, so they just fly over.
What do we do?
I mean, this is the question they're debating in the administration.
What do we do?
And Zbigniew Zhezinski, the national security advisor for Carter, is saying we need to shoot down the Israeli jets.
We cannot allow an attack on Iran from Israel.
That'd be the worst thing that could happen to us.
We can't allow that to happen.
We got to go up there.
We got to engage them.
We got to send our jets up, and we've got to try to convince the Israeli jets to turn around if this all happens.
And if they don't, we've got to be prepared to shoot them down.
There's an actual advisor to Jimmy Carter suggesting that this is what we do.
Now, you take all this.
The commander in Afghanistan says he needs more troops.
Obama says, well, I'm not going to send more troops till we come up with the right strategy.
Well, hell, the strategy is yours already.
It's the so-called surge.
We're going into the Iranian or the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
We're going to root out the Taliban.
I thought we had the strategy.
Oh, no, it's probably not working if a commander needs more troops.
Well, we're not going to send more troops.
The only reason we're not going to send more troops is because he doesn't want to make John Kerry mad.
He doesn't want to be Pelosi mad.
And he doesn't want to make the fringe kooks on the blogs mad.
He needs them for his domestic agenda.
Pure and simple.
And dangling over there, unprotected now is U.S. national security.
And all these wacko-carter-ite Democrats running around saying, we can't let anybody attack Iran.
That'd be the worst thing could happen to us.
Folks, I don't know how I don't know how to interpret it.
Because I haven't gotten the point yet that we've elected a president who actually wants us to lose major conflicts, that wants our national security to be compromised and non-existent.
I can't.
I know Democrats, I know Democrats will not allow a loss on their watch.
That's Iraq.
I said, I did say Iraq.
I specified it to Iraq.
But I mean, when you look at what else they're destroying here, they're destroying the U.S. economy.
They're gobbling up the private sector as fast as they can.
It's tough to see it any other way.
You know, it's just like Eric here.
And by the way, it's not his fault.
I mean, everybody, you take Obama, you look at his specifics, you look at what he says about the issues, look at what he's done, and you analyze it that way.
And you miss the point when you do it that way.
You have to understand the starting point with Obama.
Don't look at, he's told us he's uncomfortable with victory in Afghanistan.
I'm not making this up.
He's uncomfortable with victory because it embarrassed him to see pictures of the Japanese surrendering in World War II.
It's humiliating.
So victory's not, well, if he's not talking about victory, what the hell are we doing?
Stalemate for the rest of time?
Do you remember, how many of you have heard of Marshall McLuhan?
The media is the message.
Do you realize how many people misunderstand what the medium is the message is?
A lot of people do.
A lot of people, and it's classic.
Let's look at Obama's five appearances on the Sunday show.
Now, I have here Washington Post, Howard Kurtz, Obama's TV blitz on the air, but off his game.
Sunday was an effort to have Obama's message break through, but Bob Schieffer felt like he was at Dunkin' Donuts.
Bob Schieffer said, you know, I don't like the fact he's on four other shows.
It's like you go into Dunkin' Donuts, you get a number, you stand in line, you get an order, they call your number when your order's ready or whatever.
He didn't like it.
Kurtzy didn't break out.
It wasn't trying to break out.
The definition of media of the medium is the message.
And Marshall McLuhan thought this up in the 60s.
Used to be taught in journalism, probably still is.
You know, principles, history and principles of journalism.
And a lot of people don't know what it means.
Medium is the message.
Oh, yeah, TV is the medium.
That's where you got to get your message.
No, that's not what it means.
He made TV the message, not what he said on TV.
He made the fact that he's on TV the message.
Marshall McLuhan's point was that the form of a medium embeds itself in the message, which creates a symbiotic relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived.
It's what does television do to Obama, not does what he said on TV matter to him.
So it's not what Obama said all weekend.
That doesn't matter.
It's the medium he was on, television.
That's why he didn't go on Fox.
And he's all over television all the time.
It's Big Brother.
It's Orwellian.
Obama wants for you to associate television with him.
We all love television.
We can't get enough of it.
What he says is secondary.
Somebody said about Afghanistan.
It's secondary.
It's not important.
Yeah, 12 and 13 coming up.
Look, let me try to be a little bit more clear or specific in my analysis here of the medium is the message.
And I think how people are making a mistake by judging Obama by virtue of policy and what he says, because he doesn't really have one.
It's a broken record.
There is no Obama plan for healthcare.
And that's the point.
This media blitz, not just all five Sunday shows, Letterman tonight and all the stuff that happened today and all last week and Ad Infinitum.
The message is that Obamacare is good.
He's not trying to convince anybody with his actual policy.
Isn't any Obama policy?
Marshall McLuhan's point was the media itself, not the content it carries, should be the focus people should study.
That the medium affects the society in which it plays a role, not only by the content delivered over the medium, but also by the characteristics of the medium itself.
So Obama, he just, whenever he's on TV, it's good.
Obama, good.
Big brother or William, good.
Obama, good.
Talking healthcare, good.
The specifics are not really all that big a deal.
He doesn't change him, does he?
He's not responding to any criticism per se.
And when he does respond to it, he says, lies.
Well, you are going to be able to keep your doctor.
You are going to be able to keep your health.
No, you're not.
No point in doing government-run health care if that's the plan.
Let people keep their doctors and so forth.
So, and look at this: 42%.
This is Rasmussen.
42% of the uninsured don't want Obama's plan.
But he doesn't have a plan.
And I'm not splitting hairs here.
Among the uninsured, 58% favor Obama's health care plan.
42% don't want it.
I mean, that's a striking number.
Even 42% of the uninsured don't want his plan.
And he doesn't have a plan.
So I mean, it's, you know, it's not all that complicated what he's doing.
Now, the question is, is it going to work?
Well, a public policy polling people out of North Carolina have another post today just now.
I saw it.
That Obama is continuing.
Democrats are continuing to lose independence across the board on policy after policy after policy.
So something's got to give at some point.
But they still seem to be locked onto this notion, all we got to do is put Obama out there and magic happens.
Doesn't matter what he says.
It just matters where he is and how often.
To Baker City, Oregon.
Sharon, welcome to the EIB Network.
Great to have you here.
Nice to talk to you, Rush.
Thank you.
I've been sitting here with my husband and listening about this Acorn for over a week now, and we're absolutely flabbergasted why nobody has played the clip of Obama straight out endorsing it when he passed the stimulus package.
But people have.
I haven't heard it anywhere.
When he passed the stimulus package, he jumped in and made fantastic statements about what a wonderful organization it was and how as the American people, we needed to get together, back the organization, and fund it.
Oh, well, no, that's a different one than I have.
I have him from the campaign saying Acorn's going to be deeply involved in his transition, shaping the agenda of his presidency.
And after he was elected, he passed the stimulus package, and in that speech, he absolutely endorsed them fully.
What a wonderful, fantastic organization, and we, the American people, need to get behind him.
And, I mean, just all over himself.
My husband and I stood there with our jaws hitting the ground and mentioned their name.
I'll check it.
It doesn't leap out at my memory or from my memory.
Do you remember it, Dawn?
Do you remember saying that?
Well, we'll find it if it's out there that it is there to be found.
I'll tell you what, let's, I'm sure you'll find, Sharon, this next is incredible.
George Stephanopoulos interviewing Obama, and he said Congress said they should cut off all funding for Acorn.
Acorn, are you for that?
You know, frankly, it's not really something I've followed closely.
I didn't even know that Acorn was getting a whole lot of federal money.
The Senate and the House have voted to cut it off.
You know, what I know is that what I saw on that video was certainly inappropriate and deserves to be.
So you're not committing to cut off the federal funding?
George, this is not the biggest issue facing the country.
It's not something I'm paying a lot of attention to.
B.S. I just don't believe that.
That's not something I'm paying a lot of attention to.
It's not the biggest issue facing the country.
That's what the media is saying.
Ah, Van Jones, Acorn, that doesn't rank.
It's not that big a deal.
So, of course, he knows that Acorn has been defunded.
Of course, he knows what Acorn's doing.
He is Acorn.
Barack Obama is ACORN.
Here, let's go back to the somebody I referenced.
December 1st, 2007, in Des Moines at the Heartland Democrat Forum, Obama took questions from the moderator of Radio 1 and TV1, Catherine Hughes, and she said, Look, if elected president, would you, in your first 100 days, meet with a delegation of representatives from the various community organizations, the Campaign for Community Values?
Could they count on you in your first 100 days, sit down with them?
Let me even say, before I even get inaugurated, during the transition, we're going to be calling all of you in to help us shape the agenda.
We're going to be having meetings all across the country with community organizations so that you have input into the agenda for the next presidency of the United States of America.
There you have it.
So there is Obama himself telling Acorn and the community people, hey, we're going to be used.
You're going to be shaping the agenda.
The idea he doesn't know what's going on with them or what they're doing and they were House voted to defund them, even though it's a trick, that's just.
I mean, that is a bold-faced out-and-out.
Why, can you imagine if Bush had gone on a series of Sunday shows and answered that question and said that over and over again?
Oh, okay, you didn't know.
Oh, fine.
Not big on you.
Okay, fine, Mr. President.
You know, asking Obama about Acorn and what they're doing and him saying, I really don't know, is like asking Bush about Iraq and Bush saying, I'm not really following what's happening in Iraq.
It's pretty much like that.
Obama is Acorn.
I don't know.
George, not that important to me.
I haven't been following it.
I don't know.
I don't really care about Acorn.
Martin in Staten Island, great to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hello, Russ.
Thanks for taking my call.
I'd like to give my perspective on the whole health care issue as someone that has just recently gone through it all.
I got sick with pneumonia earlier in February of this year and was hospitalized for three months.
At the time, I had no medical coverage.
I have two jobs, but the medical coverage for one job was too expensive, and the other one doesn't offer it.
So I had to go to the emergency room.
I was admitted.
The Medicaid kicked in, paid for my hospital stay, covered my family.
And for the president to say that there are people dying in the streets and that there are people that are being turned away is simply not true.
I'm someone who has worked his whole life, came into a situation where I was basically between life and death for a week on the cardiac care unit.
I lost half of my lung due to the illness.
I'm looking, matter of fact, to go back to work next week from the beginning of this year.
So the situation is that there are people that have situations like myself that fall into the gaps in the system, but the system does have a response to that now.
And for him to say that everything needs to be overhauled is ridiculous.
What really needs to be overhauled in what I've dealt with so far in New York is the Human Services Commissions.
I am now facing eviction because I haven't been able to make my rent payments during the time I was out sick and because my wife, who was working part-time, actually penalized us.
And I don't know what to do.
And it's so frustrating to hear the president say that, you know, what he needs to do is change everything because it doesn't work, and I'm living proof that it does work.
Well, we know this Michelle Obama, by the way, on Friday had this most incredible story in which she said that her daughter was diagnosed with possible meningitis.
And she said her first thought was, oh, thank God we have insurance.
Thank God we got hold of a pediatrician who got us into the emergency room and we recovered.
I'm thinking, you go to the emergency room, you're covered, you don't need insurance.
By law, the emergency rooms treat people that show up.
I also don't believe that the first thought she had when she was told that her daughter might have meningitis was, oh, thank God we've got insurance.
I doubt that insurance entered her mind in any way, shape, manner, or form.
The health of her daughter was the overriding concern to deal with whatever it all costs later on.
So, and I've got a story somewhere.
I can't find it.
I thought I printed it out, but I must not have.
45,000.
This story that 45,000 people die because no health insurance.
Washington Times did a story on this.
I think it was late last week, and it's just BS.
It's like there were 3 million homeless.
There never were.
It's all BS.
They just make up these numbers.
45,000 people die because they don't have health insurance.
People tell stories like yours all the time.
We never hear the Obamas talking about what a great health care system we have.
We never hear them credit anything about this country.
We never hear them credit anything in the private sector.
They just rip it to shreds.
They never say one good thing about our health care system.
Not one.
It's annoying as hell, frankly, to have a president in that mindset.
Every time something happens out there, every time anything happens out there that opposes Obama, he always says, ah, that's not the, I'm not paying any attention to it.
That doesn't represent America.
No, there's nothing to see there.
I didn't hear Reverend Wright for 20 years.
I never heard any of that.
I never heard what he said.
I'm going to throw him under the bus.
Nevertheless, like my typical white grandmother, but I never heard what.
I didn't hear what he said.
The 9-12 rally there on the 12th of September 21, I didn't even know there was a rally.
I don't even know what it was about.
It's not a big deal.
None of my radar, George.
Acorn have defunded Acorn.
I don't even know about Acorn.
I'm not paying attention to that.
I got really important things to do here.
And when he does, it tips off the state-controlled media.
That's how they deal with it.
Oh, it's no big deal.
I just said that jump change.
We don't want to have time to report on the insignificant news items out there.
We've got to cover the big stuff.
Every time junk science expert sounds alarm on insurance study, this is from last week in the Washington Times.
Steve Malloy's junk science detector started running high when he got hold of a new study in the American Journal of Public Health claiming nearly 45,000 Americans die from a lack of health insurance.
According to the study titled Health Insurance and Mortality in U.S. Adults, Working Age Americans Without Insurance have a 40% higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts.
It also includes a chart showing how many people have died state by state, supposedly because of a lack of insurance.
For example, researchers say that 4,675 Texans have died because they didn't have insurance during their study period.
Mr. Malloy, who's the founder and publisher of JunkScience.com, a co-founder and portfolio manager for the pre-enterprise fund, said the study was created to boost Obama's health care agenda.
Molloy reminded that Mr. Obama recently told Congress people would die if they didn't have insurance.
September 9th address, the joint, everybody in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing.
Our debts will grow.
More families will go bankrupt.
The more businesses will close.
More Americans will lose their coverage when they're sick and need it most, and more people will die.
As a result, we know these things to be true.
You know, it chokes you up, but when you hear it, right, we hold these truths to be self-evident.
Now, Malloy says the study is going to give Obama more specific numbers to use in order to ramp up support.
They're trying to create these factoids that they can beat opponents over the head with.
So how did they come up with a number?
Well, they interviewed 9,000 people between 1988 and 1994.
They said, do you have health insurance?
And if you die at some point in the future, they assume your death was caused by the fact that you didn't have insurance during that.
It's like me saying everybody who died in automobile accidents in 2007 had eaten carrots within six months prior to the accident.
It's the same thing.
So they go out and they talk to these people.
Do you have health insurance?
And then if those people die, they take the ones that don't.
And if they die, it's because they didn't have insurance.
They just automatically assign it to them.
John Goodman, the president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, agreed the study was flawed.
The subjects were interviewed only once.
The study tries to link their insurance status at that time to mortality a decade later.
Yet over the period, the authors have no idea whether subjects were insured or uninsured after the first question.
They have no idea what kind of medical care they received or even what the cause of death was.
It literally is the old carrot joke.
Everybody that was born able to see and went blind at some point in their lives had eaten carrots prior to losing their sight.
You could use any vegetable in there.
The National Center for Policy Analysis noted that a more careful study completed by the CBO found that low-income people without insurance had a 3% higher chance of death, but they found no difference among higher-income earners.
One of the study's co-authors, David Himmelstein, is a strong proponent of single-payer system.
In addition to working as associate professor of medicine at Harvard, Dr. Himmelstein is also founder and spokesman for Physicians for a National Health Program.
And this is no different than Obama using Valerie Jarrett's office with the Buffy Wiki, whatever name is, the vampire slayer there from Walmart, to go out and gender up propaganda from the White House through NEA grantees.
So that's a bogus study.
45,000 people die because they have no health insurance, and it cannot be established, but they just throw the number out.
They just throw it out.
It's the medium is the message, not the fact.
If it's said on television, people believe it.
Pure and simple.
And if Obama says it on TV, even better from their standpoint.
45,000 people health insurance because they had no health insurance.
And we know what happens.
If you don't have health, you're going to die.
More people are going to die.
Oh, no, we can't do that.
Got to get them insured.
So you can run into otherwise smart people.
There's so many stupid, intelligent people out there, Obama voters, who really believe all this is about is simply giving coverage to the whatever millions that don't have it.
That's all they think it is.
It's just an act of compassion.
They're just clueless about what's really going on.
You know, this whole medium is the message thing.
You can say the same thing about Newsweek.
I mean, they had a cover out there on Is Your Child Racist?
And there's no way to substantiate that a four-month-old baby is a racist.
Yet it's there.
Because Newsweek said it, it's there.
And now, killing Granny, you know, they come along, and the next cover is the case for killing granny.
The case for killing Granny Newsweek.
We're all socialists now.
It's because it's in Newsweek.
The specifics of the article, the cover is all they care about.
Whether you read the articles, see the ads is irrelevant to them, as is proven by the circulation.
▲
Export Selection