All Episodes
Previous Next
March 10, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:47
March 10, 2010, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Is Obama really serious?
He thinks he can distract people from my show by having a joint session with the president of Haiti right as this program starts.
Is he really that delusional that he thinks people are going to tune out this show for a joint session with the president of Haiti?
How did the president of Haiti get here?
Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
It's Rush Lindbaugh, the fastest week in media.
Here we are already at Wednesday.
Great to have you here.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882, the email address, LRushball at EIBNet.com.
Well, look at this.
Venezuelan officials, that means Hugo Chavez, have taken control of two sugar mills.
This is from an approving state-controlled Associated Press.
They're all happy down there.
Hugo Chavez has taken over two sugar mills.
He's a piker compared to Obama.
Obama has taken over two of the largest companies in the world, General Motors and Chrysler.
And I got a story in the stack today.
Chrysler is doing worse than even Toyota.
Next, he's taking over student loans and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and mortgages and so forth.
Folks, it is just, it is a delight to watch the implosion of the Democrat Party.
It is a delight to watch the fact that the Democrat Party is a gulag being exposed.
It is a delight to just watch all of the idiocy.
Nancy Pelosi, we've got the soundbite coming up.
We have to pass the Senate bill so people will know what's in it.
Somebody said who was, somebody said that's like, you got to buy the house to get a tour.
It was Ed Morrissey.
I'm not sure who said it.
But it's, I mean, these people just, and of course, Mass is a train wreck.
And Rob Emmanuel is a train wreck.
David Letterman spent 10 minutes making fun of Rom Emmanuel last night.
This kind of stuff just doesn't happen.
And then get that Dick Durbin, of all people, is out there undercutting Obama.
Dick, we got two soundbites.
This is Monday morning in Glensdale, Pennsylvania.
Here's Obama talking about his health care bill.
Our cost-cutting measures mirror most of the proposals in the current Senate bill, which reduces most people's premiums.
This morning on the Senate floor, here is Senator Dick Durbin speaking.
Anyone who would stand before you and say, well, if you pass health care reform, next year's health care premiums are going down, I don't think it's telling the truth.
And Dick Durbin has just called President Obama a liar.
They just called him a liar.
And the rest of Durbin's comment, nobody ever said we're going to bring the rates down.
What we're going to do is slow the rate of growth.
So his own party is undercutting President Obama.
We have now from a relentlessly, relentlessly silverlining Associated Press, Americans have come to detest Congress ever more deeply as it nears the end of a nasty fight over health care, but more than half still back President Obama, a bright spot for a Democrat Party counting on its leader to help stave off.
What a joke.
The headline of this story is, Obama more popular than Congress.
What the real headline ought to be when you read the story is Congress hated more than Obama is hated.
And he's down to 40, what is it, 43% approval in Rasmussen?
It's the lowest he's ever been, the highest the Rasmussen super approval disapproval index is.
The latest Associated Press poll found that the fewer people approve of Congress than at any point in Obama's presidency.
Support has dropped significantly since January to a dismal 22% as the health care debate has roiled Capitol Hill.
Now, don't misunderstand.
I'm not saying we're out of the woods with these people.
It's just a delight to see all of this kind of stuff happen.
Here, for example, Kathleen Sebelius, again from a very approving Associated Press, the head of the Health and Human Services Department, sketching out a stark choice for the nation's insurers, oppose reform and eventually lose customers, or work with the Obama administration to improve the legislation.
Kathleen Sebelius told health insurers today that if overhaul fails, premiums will continue to rise and employers will cancel coverage.
All that by design, by the way.
She said that the industry may make money in the short term, but it won't work for Americans and it eventually won't help insurers.
Never mind, never mind that as we have previously pointed out, the sole intention of the Obama administration is to destroy private health insurance.
Why else would they be trying to force insurance companies to take on preconditions?
That means that many, if not most, people will happily wait until they desperately need insurance coverage for an illness or accident before they resort to buying any.
And Obamacare demands that the insurance company sell it to them.
Well, that's not even insurance.
That's private sector welfare, and they can't stay in business doing that, which is the purpose.
It is the design.
And now this delay or this deadline, don't you love this?
The argument over the deadline out there.
Ladies and gentlemen, a disconnect.
This is from the Hill newspaper.
House Majority Leader Stenny Hoyer and the White House on Tuesday engaged in a rare public dispute over when health care reform will be voted on.
Hoyer yesterday suggested the March 18th deadline recently set by Robert Gibbs.
Does anybody believe Gibbs is setting deadlines?
Does anybody really believe that?
That Gibbs is setting headlines.
Deadlines.
This is an Obama deadline.
At any rate, that deadline of March 18th, not endorsed by congressional leaders, Stenny Hoyer said.
None of us have mentioned the 18th other than Mr. Gibbs.
Hoyer told reporters when asked about the date being viable for the House to vote on the Senate bill.
Gibbs didn't back down Tuesday afternoon saying there seems to be a disconnect here between Congress and the White House before stopping himself to add this was information I was given based on conversations people had in this building with people from Capitol Hill.
So now they're arguing about the deadline.
The reason they don't have the votes to get this done by March the 18th, which is just 11 days, eight days from now, they do not have the votes for this.
Now they want to get this done by March 18th.
Why do you think they want to get it done by March 18th?
I'll tell you why they want to get it done by March 18th.
They want to get that, and by the way, I think this is all bogus, but this is the timeline theory.
This is the story.
They want the House to pass the Senate bill by a week from tomorrow.
Then the Senate will have a week or so for reconciliation and to be able to get it all done and sent to Obama before everybody leaves on the Passover Easter break.
Because they're all worried that when these clowns head out of town to go back home for the Passover Easter break, they're going to catch hell from constituents.
And it's going to be like the August recess was last year, town halls, all kinds of public protests.
And they're really saying if we don't get it done here, and this is about five times, five different dates that they have said.
If we don't get it done by X, it's gone.
We don't get it done.
Now, if we don't get it done by March 18th, it's dead.
And Hoyer said, wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
Now, Obama has told us that health care reform is important.
4,000 people die from lack of insurance every day.
Obama has told us this.
I don't forget these things, ladies and gentlemen.
Obama has, and some Democrats over the course of this debate, 4,000 people a day.
Of course, it's a bogus number, but that's what they're saying.
4,000 Americans die from lack of insurance every day.
But it's not more important than Congress going on another vacation on time.
They haven't had a vacation since last month.
They got to have another vacation.
The Passover Easter break.
And passing health care is not more important than their vacation, even though 4,000 Americans every week are dying from lack of insurance.
So the really, really important stuff here, like voting for a bill, no way that they're going to be held to a deadline.
Of course, Obama's never met a deadline either.
He has yet to meet any of his own deadlines.
Gitmo's still open.
We're still in Iraq.
We've ramped it up in Afghanistan.
What deadline has Obama met?
He's got that lackey Gibbs out there slapping down Hoyer and all these other guys.
In fact, I'm told that Pelosi, in a meeting with Rah Emmanuel, just said, look, but boy, back off.
There ain't going to be, well, it didn't say but boy.
He's a little look, little naked guy.
There's not going to be a deadline of March 18th.
You know, Rahm's up there trying to twist arms and whatever other body parts he can get hold of in these meetings with Democrats in Capitol Hill.
And they finally reacted.
March 18th is not possible because they don't have the votes.
They're nowhere near it, folks.
They haven't been anywhere near it all year.
It is a smokescreen that they are as close as they are.
Drudge has a great timeline on his page today about all of these deadlines, what was said at these deadlines.
I'll print that out and have it for you after the break.
Now, here from the weeklystandard.com by John McCormick, Stupak, there is no deal, and I won't agree to a promise to fix the bill in the future.
There is no deal, and I want now.
Stupak said that White House officials are trying to get FaceTime with members to convince them to vote for a bill that nobody has seen in writing.
So they are working on something other than the Senate bill because they know that's the non-starter in the House.
So they're working on something out there, but nobody's seen it.
And Stupak's saying, I'm going to see it first.
I'm not going to accept your promises.
Now, Bart's still a Democrat.
And Democrats are Democrats first at the end of the day.
Now, the point I was trying to make by relaying the opera story, Stupak said, is that a White House pulling out all the stops, trying to get members to commit to voting for health care.
But I continue to say to them, put forth your proposal in writing so that members can see it.
No member is so weak on this issue that just because they got to go to the opera, they're going to vote for health care.
Stupak emphasized his coalition of pro-life Democrats is sticking together.
My numbers remain firm.
We're at 12.
And these are 12 who voted for it in November who will not vote for it unless we resolve the issue.
Now, there's a big trick.
There is a huge trick that is being planned in the Senate regarding abortion to try to satisfy Stupak and his guys.
And I have to say, I have to say the Republicans have discovered the trick and they're not going to fall for it.
The trick, and I'll explain this in greater detail when we come back, but the trick was to get Republicans to go along with stripping any federal funding for abortion in the Senate bill during reconciliation.
And the Republicans, it was fear, well, go for that, but oh, Republicans, oh, pro-lifers out there vote for Republicans.
And the Republicans say, hey, hey, hey, hey, we're not going to carry your water.
This is your bill.
If you want to strip abortion funding out, you're on your own.
We ain't doing it for you.
Now, that's gutsy because they're running the risk.
A lot of pro-life groups are going to see the Republicans refusing to strip federal funding from the Senate bill.
They're going to go, whoa, wait a minute here.
I thought you Republicans are pro-life.
This is going to be an interesting test because the genuine pro-life groups out there are going to understand what's going on.
The objective is to defeat health care, not come up with a health care bill that does not have federal funding for abortions.
The objective is to wipe this out.
The objective is to stop it, not to end up with a bill that Democrats will sign and give to Obama.
And the only way to do that is to not help them strip the abortion funding out of the Senate bill.
Republicans are not going to do that.
They're not going to carry.
Am I making myself clear on this?
Do you understand?
Okay.
I understand.
I'm going to say it two or three times.
I'm willing to say it two or three times because this is going to be one of those times where the Republicans in the Senate are going to go against their core belief because they're going to look like they are, but the real, because everybody knows, the real pro-life groups know that at the end of the day, there's going to be federal funding for abortion if this thing passes.
It's going to get added at some point down the line.
The objective is to make sure this thing doesn't go any further than where it is right now.
And the Republicans are not going to help the Democrats satisfy Stupak.
It's just that simple.
At least that's what they're saying now.
El Rushboe serving humanity while having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have right here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Let me try to explain this again here because it may, if you're hearing this for the first time, it may sound a little convoluted.
One of the great, great talents I have is making the complex understandable.
So let's start at the beginning.
Bart Stupak, Democrat Michigan, House of Representatives, is pro-life.
The only thing Stupak objects to in all of this Obamacare garbage is the fact that abortions are federally funded in the Senate bill.
Stupak says he has 12 votes to vote against Obamacare, the Senate bill, unless the federal funding for abortion is taken out of it.
Now, the Democrats in the Senate don't want abortion taken out of it.
They put it in there because they like it.
And most of the Democrats in the House want federal funding for abortions.
And if this passes in any way, shape, manner, or form, no matter what they do, there will be eventually and ultimately federal funding for abortions, taxpayer-funded abortions in Obamacare.
So if there is reconciliation, remember, Stupak is saying that he hasn't seen a bill, meaning they're making promises to him that the abortion funding will be stripped out of it, but he hasn't seen it in writing.
And the reason he hasn't is because reconciliation hasn't begun.
And there's still a genuine question as to whether or not there will ever be reconciliation.
The argument is they're trying to convince Stupak they're going to make him happy, but they're not showing him anything in writing.
And he's demanding it in writing.
There is nothing to show him.
So if, if, if we get to reconciliation, the Senate Republicans have announced a strategery to block any effort the Democrats make to take abortion funding out of it.
And this is going to incur the wrath of some pro-life groups who are knife.
They're not up to speed on this.
And I hope the Senate Republican leadership takes some steps behind the scenes to explain what's going on here.
But they are not, see, the objective here is not, and for those of you who have been pro-lifers, understand something.
The overall objective here is to kill the bill, not get a bill passed, but that strips funding for abortion.
This bill is a disaster, even if they strip federal funding for abortion out of it.
So the objective here is to kill it.
The objective is to send this bill back and yet again, never ever be heard from again.
Now, the only way that Stupak, as far as what he's saying, can be mollified is if he sees something in writing in the reconciliation package that says, yep, federal funding for abortion is coming out of there.
So if we go to reconciliation, there will be an effort by the Democrats to strip abortion from abortion funding from the bill.
And the Republicans' strategy is to oppose and stop any such effort.
And the reason for this, what the Republicans are going to do is to facilitate this in reconciliation, this is budget reconciliation.
And so they'll raise a point of order.
And this is a procedural effort that is objecting essentially to the reconciliation process.
And they're trying to get back to 60 votes to defeat this thing when the Democrats don't have 60 votes unless some Republicans join them in stripping federal fundings.
The Republicans say we're not going to join the Democrats' efforts because we are not going to do the Democrats' dirty work for them.
We're not going to be the guys just because we're thought to be pro-lifers.
We're not going to be the guys to make it happy, make Stupak happy.
We're not going to be the guys that take language he doesn't like out of this bill.
If the Democrats want to take it out, they've got to find a way to do it on their own without us.
And we're going to invoke a point of order, which is going to require them to get 60 votes to do it.
Now, holy hell is going to be raised if we get to this point.
Again, I'm still not convinced we're going to get to reconciliation.
I think, look at, folks, if Obama, it's very simple that you Democrats in the Congress got to ask yourself something.
If a president of the United States would ambush a Supreme Court sitting in front of him at a State of the Union speech, if a president of the United States would ambush Supreme Court justices, do you think he would have the slightest compunction in ambushing you, either in front of you or behind your back?
If this guy is willing to diss the U.S. Supreme Court and the justices who showed up at the State of the Union, don't think you're sacred.
So the whole point here is to defeat the bill and to make sure, if it goes to reconciliation, I still, if it gets this far, I'll be stunned.
But if it does, this is a strategery.
The Democrats are going to have to find a way to take abortion funding.
Let them make their base mad and let them make Stupak happy.
The Republicans are not going to carry the water for the Democrats and make Stupak happy.
That's a big test if we do get to this reconciliation biz.
I got an email here from a very angry and troubled subscriber at rushlimbaugh.com named Aaron Rodriguez.
That's R-O-D-R-I-G-U-E-Z.
For those of you spelling these names at home, Aaron Rodriguez, in all caps in the subject line, still not fixed with four exclamation points.
Rush, your so-called webmaster still hasn't fixed a media player to open on a separate window.
How can we increase our knowledge and listen to you at the same time if we can only have one window used?
You said they'd have it fixed by Wednesday.
Heads need to roll.
Signed, Aaron, Olive Branch, Mississippi.
Look, folks, I can't do everything myself.
I got rid of the blinking red dot today, and not one note of thanks, not one note of appreciation, not one note.
Thank you, Rush.
Thank you so much.
Thank you for getting rid of the blinking red dot.
It's gone.
Nobody has said where's the red dot.
Well, I haven't checked enough to see if anybody's asked where the red dot is, but we're working on the pop.
I've told you people, this is beta.
We do our testing live, which is what a beta is.
It's going to get fixed.
They're working on it even as we speak.
By the way, I did a factual error correction.
I said 4,000 people a year die.
4,000 people a day die for lack of health insurance, quoting Obama.
It's 4,500 a year die.
It's a Harvard number used by Obama, which adds up to 124 people every day dying, ostensibly because they don't have health insurance.
So here's the timeline on Drudge.
Oh, speaking of Drudge, I meant to mention this yesterday, and we were loaded, and I didn't get to it.
Did you see this?
That the Senate has sent out emails to all of its staff, aides, senators, everybody working there not to use the Drudge Report.
Don't go there because all kinds of viruses are coming on their computers from the Drudge Report.
Which, of course, is BS.
There are no viruses whatsoever.
These people are so stupid.
That's like saying don't think pink.
What are you thinking right now?
Don't go to Drudge.
Oh, my God, what's on Drudge?
Let's go there and see.
They don't want what's on Drudge to be seen because it's why F. Chuck Todd is all mad at Drudge.
What a whimpering, snibbling little whiner.
Chuck Todd of NBC News standing in front of the White House the other day, bemoaning what's happened to journalism.
Just because it's on Drudge doesn't mean it's a story.
These guys are so ticked off.
They used to have a monopoly.
And one of the biggest sources of their power was determining what you did not see, what news you did not know, what things that were happening you were not told.
And so there's an alternative media out there.
And I take a look at what's happening to these guys.
The network that F. Chuck Todd works for, well, the cable channel, nobody watches it.
CBS, NBC, ABC, New York Times, take a look at what's happening.
Downsizing layoffs, ad revenue, down pages printed down, all of this stuff.
And it's all content related.
It's content, content, content.
And so they're trying to put a genie back in the bottle and whining and snibbling about it.
How unbecoming a member of the state-controlled media to complain about a guy with a web page on the internet.
Just because it's on Drudge doesn't mean it's a story.
See, that's the crux of it.
They don't have the power to shape.
If these guys, you know, you guys, you people continue to, some of you whine and moan about the media.
If the media landscape were as it was in 1988 and prior, do you realize healthcare would have passed last August?
And most of you would have loved it?
Because all that you would have heard about it was what the people like F. Chuck Todd and all these others in the mainstream media are saying.
And it would have passed because they love Obama.
It was great for the country.
Had there not been an alternative media, had there not been the opportunity for the alternative media to survive, thrive, and save democracy and our representative republic, this thing would have passed last August.
And that's what they're ticked off about.
They don't have the power to get these kind of things done.
They can't get the Obama agenda done with 60 seats in the Senate and a vast majority in the House.
They can't get it done.
And a state-controlled media.
I'd be mad if I were them too.
Michael Barone.
Well, let's stick with Drudge here, this timeline.
His question is, end of the endgame or the end?
Today, AP headline, Obama pushing on healthcare endgame.
Last year, July 28th, healthcare endgame on Capitol Hill, Reuters.
August 21st, analysis.
Healthcare endgame near but uncertain, AP.
October 14th, Senate administration begin healthcare endgame as Dem leaders express unity, thehill.com.
October 25th, senators say healthcare bill endgame is in sight, politico.
October 27th, endgame.
So when will healthcare really happen?
TPM talking points memo.
October 30th, last year, health reform inches closer to endgame, Washington Post.
November 23rd, the healthcare endgame, NPR.
So since last July 28th, we have been talking about the healthcare endgame, and here Obama is today, pushing the healthcare endgame.
So once we get, once again, we have a template, we have a storyline that they're simply trying to move forward with no reporting, no analysis, no nothing, just the horse race or political aspects of this.
Michael Barone, however, writing of this failure today in the Washington Examiner, senior political analysts, Democrats are stuck with a mess of their own making.
Basically, there's a fork in the road out there for the Democrats.
Both sides lead to failure.
Both roads lead to failure.
And here's the pull quote from Barone's piece.
It's beginning to look like the goal of healthcare legislation was a bridge too far.
There's a reason it's hard to pass unpopular legislation on party line votes.
It's not the Senate rules.
It's called democracy.
A lively debate going on in the blogosphere and in the media about whether Democrats would be better off passing or not passing a health care bill.
Some liberals claim that Democrats would be better off passing a bill, any bill, even if it's unpopular.
The idea is to energize a Democrat base currently demoralized by the prospects of failure.
Current polls, a year-long failure, I might add.
Current polls show that Democrats far less enthusiastic and far less likely to vote.
Passing a law might change that.
Others, mostly conservatives, but some liberals speaking privately, figure that Democrats would be better off letting the issue drop.
Back in January, Barack Obama said he would emphasize jobs, jobs, jobs, currently a higher priority for voters than healthcare.
By November, these people hope that voters will have forgotten about health care and may be impressed by Democrat economic policies.
Democrat economic policies are destructive, Mr. Barone.
There's no way anybody's going to be, what, impressed with Democrat.
We're watching Democrat economic policies.
It's called destruction of the private sector.
It's called massive debt that nobody's ever going to be able to pay back.
It's called deficits.
It's called the redistribution of wealth.
It's called destroying the U.S. middle class.
That's Democrat economic policies.
Barone says, I'm inclined to think both sides are wrong.
They both assume that there exists some optimum course that'll produce happy results, but sometimes in politics, sometimes there's no course that leads to success.
Disaster lies ahead, whatever you do.
And that gets to the fork in the road analogy where failure awaits at the end of whatever road that you take.
It's beginning to look like the goal of healthcare legislation was a bridge too far.
There's a reason.
It's hard to pass unpopular legislation on partyline votes.
It's not the Senate rules.
It's called democracy in the Wall Street Journal today.
Scott Rasmuelson and Doug Schoen, Doug Schoen, a former Clinton pollster, he's on TV all the time.
In fact, he's on Fox all the time.
I'm surprised they haven't drummed him out of the Democrat Party.
But Doug Schoen's over there all the time.
He's Democrat pollster writing with Rasmussen here, why Obama can't move the health care numbers.
And basically what their story says is that for every idiot that is for the Obama plan, there are two informed people against it.
One of the more amazing aspects of the healthcare debate is how steady public opinion has remained.
Despite repeated and intense satles efforts by the president and his allies, dwindling in number, I might add, most Americans consistently oppose the plan that has become the centerpiece.
In 15 consecutive Ras Mussen report polls conducted over the past four months, the percentage of Americans that oppose the plan has stayed between 52 and 58 percent.
The number in favor steady between 38 and 44 percent.
For every person who strongly favors it, which is the idiot, two are strongly opposed.
They are the informed.
So all kinds of reasons to be happy with the news today, folks.
All kinds of reasons.
The informed outnumber the idiots.
The new media is now, and you preventing F. Chuck Todd and his cronies in the mainstream media from being able to monopolize this and get past for Obama whatever they want.
Then the question, well, why can't the president move the numbers?
One reason may be that he keeps talking about details while voters are looking at the issue in a broader context.
But the bigger problem is that people simply don't trust official government projections.
Hallelujah.
My gosh, folks, is this actually true?
Big progress.
People in Washington today may live and die by the pronouncements of the Congressional Budget Office, but 81% of voters say it's likely the plan will end up costing more than projected.
Only 10% say the official numbers are likely to be on target.
Do you realize how breathtakingly profound this is?
It means that there is an informed public here being polled that understands that no government program ever costs less than what it says.
It always costs more, and it never delivers what it promises.
Now, I don't think, not going to say this is a permanent realization.
Well, on this instance, it is.
The reason Obama can't move the numbers and build public support is because the fundamentals are stacked against him.
Most voters believe the current plan will harm the economy, cost more than projected.
Remember, a Democrat pollster helped write this piece.
Most voters believe a current plan will harm the economy, cost more than projected, raise the cost of care, and lead to higher middle-class taxes.
That's a tough sell when the economy is hurting and people want to reform to lower the cost of care.
It's also a tough sell for a president who won an election by promising tax cuts for 95% of all Americans.
So, we're left to what we always have known exist.
Obama is running against the will of the American people.
He and Axelrod and idiot Gibbs and who else up there, Rahm, Fluff, Pluff, whatever.
They're isolated now.
They're like those polar bears, you know, on a melting glacier that's broken off, and they're just floating further and further away from safety.
The problem is they can't swim 60 miles like polar bears can.
As you know, ladies and gentlemen, our new young man child president is in St. Charles, Missouri today, outside St. Louis at a closed rally for healthcare.
The public not invited.
And I'm sure that was the case in Glenside, Pennsylvania on Monday.
The public got invited.
That's why it looked like a campaign appearance.
Only Obama's supporters, primarily paid union people, got in there.
So there's an anti-Obamacare rally in St. Charles today at the St. Charles Convention Center.
I had some pictures of it here.
It is huge.
They were expecting a crowd of 600 people.
And earlier, 1,800 had showed up.
Now, 2,225 people have showed up at the anti-Obamacare rally in St. Charles.
It's now standing room only.
And, you know, it's, I don't know how close this venue is to where Obama's venue is, but the Tea Party people in St. Charles, St. Louis are planning another one for tonight somewhere.
I mean, it's overwhelming.
And Lieutenant Governor of Missouri, Peter Kinder, a family amigo from Cape Girardo, is there with a lot of bloggers and so forth.
So it's clear that the groundswell against this is building.
It is growing.
The more Obama speaks about this, the more he drives and energizes opposition to it.
It's just a beautiful thing.
John Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States.
And that is, by the way, the correct way to refer to the Chief Justice.
It's not Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
It's Chief Justice of the United States.
And Justice Roberts was at the University of Alabama School of Law, spoke.
And during the Q ⁇ A, the following question was asked.
Is the State of the Union a proper forum to criticize the Supreme Court?
The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering, while the court, according to the requirements of protocol, has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.
It is very troubling, and it shows a profound disrespect for the separation of powers.
It shows the thugocracy style of Obama and what the Chief Justice is referring to here, one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the court, cheering and hollering.
This is when Obama ripped the court for a decision.
And Alito, if you are watching, mouthed, no, you're wrong, or no, that's not right, that's not true, whatever.
All these Democrats are standing up and shouting like peasants with pitchforks, ready to storm the gates and maul these guys.
And I would not be surprised if next year, not one member of the Supreme Court shows up for the next state of the union.
And you House Democrats, you bart stew packs out there, you blue dogs, you yellow dogs, you lap dogs, you chihuahuas, if President Obama would ambush Supreme Court justices at the State of the Union in their faces, what do you think he would do to you?
You know, I'm really glad that this speech is back in the news.
I'm glad the Chief Justice said this.
The reason that I will never bet against America and make Obama the odds-on favorite to destroy this country with health care is I would like to believe Obama isn't a clever enough thug.
Now, I could be wrong about that, but it's ham-handed stuff like what he did to the Supreme Court during the State of the Union speech that gives me hope that Obama will ultimately blow his monument grab and what's next to fall.
He still has pretty high likability.
But I have a prediction.
I have a prediction.
I don't know when.
I will not predict when, but at some point, ladies and gentlemen, there is going to be a frustration that overwhelms our young president.
And he's going to make a mistake during an occasion when there is no prompter.
And he is going to let fly his anger and his intent.
I don't care what you do.
I don't care what you think.
We're going to change this country.
This country is immoral.
This country isn't unjust.
This country has been unfair to people.
We're going to change it.
At some point, the level of frustration at not being able to get this through by lying, cheating, conniving, and so forth is going to lead to a moment.
This incident of really ripping into the Supreme Court, State of the Union, is a small indicator of what's possible on this score.
So you mark my words.
Barack Obama is going to be the final nail in his own political coffin.
He is going to hammer it one of these days.
This is March 10th, 2010, at about 12.55 p.m.
That's when I make the prediction.
Obama at one point is going to lose composure and somehow, some way, is going to admit himself what he's really doing and why.
And at that point, the likability numbers will start joining the popularity numbers, approval numbers of his policies.
Back after this.
Okay, so Obama's closed crowd at St. Charles Haskerl is 400 people.
Invited guests only, public not allowed.
At the St. Charles Convention Center, 2,200 people are at...
Obama goes in about, well, close to 5 o'clock Eastern Time, 3.50 in St. Louis.
The anti-Obama rally, 2,200 people at the St. Charles Convention, they're already there.
They're already there.
Quite a stark contrast.
▲
Export Selection