All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 14, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:08
December 14, 2010, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It's Obama.
He just can't help himself.
He has once again today I'm joining the rest of his party in this mantra.
He has claimed that unemployment benefits are the biggest boost for the economy.
Even bigger boost than keeping the tax rates the same.
Unemployment benefits are a biggest boost for the economy.
He said this tax package does a couple of things immediately for economic growth in Florida.
Number one, for those folks looking for work right now, it extends their unemployment benefits.
Two million people across the country would lose their benefits at the end of this month if we didn't move forward on this tax agreement.
And economists say that not only is that good for those families, it's good for the entire economy.
It's probably the biggest boost we can give an economy because those folks are most likely to spend the money with businesses, and that gives them customers.
This is Obama to Channel 8 TV, Eyeball News in Tampa Bay.
Pure sophistry.
If this was the case, why isn't our economy booming?
Wear people on unemployment benefit checks now for 99 months and counting.
Why isn't the economy booming?
Why does he even care about keeping tax rates the same then?
Why even mess with that?
Let those expire and let the tax rates go up and have a double whammy on revenue to Washington, the way these people think.
This is absolutely asinine.
By the way, there's something I yesterday said I was going to talk to you about, and I put it in the stack, and I put it in a stack I hadn't yet gotten to, so I'm going through the stacks and I found it.
This is from the American Spectator blog from a couple days ago.
For decades, Americans have been lectured that there is exactly one standard by which sexual activity can be judged.
Were the participants consenting adults?
Now comes the news that Columbia University political science professor David Epstein, 46, has been arrested and charged with having a three-year-long sexual affair with his own daughter.
The daughter is now 24.
She was an adult when this incestuous relationship allegedly began in 2006, four years ago.
And while incest remains illegal in New York State, some commenters at the Columbia University student newspaper website are mystified as to why it's illegal.
That's right.
Students are saying, wait, why is consensual incest a crime?
It might not be appealing to everybody, but if they're adults and they consent, who cares what they do?
This is a typical comment from a student on the site.
Readers might suppose that arguments involving phrases like, thou shalt not and words like abomination are sternly frowned on at Columbia, so that the faculty would have a hard time answering such a question from their students.
Likewise, readers will scarcely be surprised to learn that Professor Epstein is an ardent admirer of President Obama.
He is a vocal critic of Sarah Palin.
He has had an incestuous relationship with his own daughter.
The students say, well, it's no big deal.
They both agreed.
It's a consensual relationship.
This guy is an admirer of BAM and doesn't like Palin.
He behaves this way.
He used to have some success using incest as a counterpoint to liberals who insisted that limiting marriage to a man and a woman was an unconstitutional violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Now, the student newspaper is going to jump straight for defending incest, then we got a problem.
If that's in any way representative of that generation at large, or hopefully it'll be confined to the Columbia student body.
But bestiality, I guess, would be next because who can say the horse didn't consent?
Well, I know we can't tell people what to do with their own bodies, and we can't call Epstein, can't call it incest because that's a label.
And that is too limiting.
Labels are too limiting.
This is a major, major problem about freedom.
Public freedom.
Do what you want as long as both people are involved in it and consent to it.
Of course, does the daughter consent or does she feel pressured into it?
You know, I'm just asking.
Well, I'm not trying to delve into the sickness of either one of them.
I'm trying to ask legitimate questions that the American left would pose here.
It's just, have we not known things we're headed and tracking in this direction?
Morally?
Have we not known this for years?
All of the excuse, it's not for you to judge what two people want to do with their own bodies and lives is their business, except when it's smoking, except when it's eating, except when it's things liberals don't like.
I don't know if Woody Allen's weighed in on it or not, but he could be the poster child for this.
He certainly at one time was the poster child for the Democrat Party social polythe.
All right, and then there's this.
This is from the Washington Post headline, Obama may have to put Hawaii vacation on ice for a few days.
Will Congress keep the president from starting his vacation on time?
I kid you not.
That's how a major daily newspaper opens the story.
President Obama had planned to head off this weekend with his family to Hawaii for their annual Christmas break at a rented vacation home near where the president grew up.
But with Congress still working on a tax cut agreement that has his critics in both parties, it's not a cut, and a number of other issues still to be resolved.
White House officials say the president may have to endure the Washington cold for a few more days.
Robert Gibbs said yesterday afternoon, I think the president's hopeful to spend a little time with family and friends in Hawaii, but if Congress is here, the president will be here.
Why, how heroic, how heroic of our man-child, Imam Obama.
It says just like Joseph Stalin resolving to stay in Moscow, even with the German army at the gates of the city, except it's different.
Speaking to reporters, he added, I think you got a few extra days to pull together those Christmas presents that you put off buying.
I think obviously there's a decent amount still left.
And getting out of here Friday or Saturday, probably not the day I would pick in the pool.
Congress was supposed to finish its lame duck session by this Friday, but it's unclear if it will meet the deadline.
Really?
Has there been a single deadline either Congress or Obama have met ever?
Will the press corps complain about being trapped in Hawaii with Obama like they used to complain about being trapped in Crawford with Bush?
But still, Obama may have to put Hawaii vacation on ice.
Will Congress keep the president from as though the whole country is nervous about it?
Will the president get his vacation?
His 23rd vacation of the year?
I really hope Obama gets to Hawaii.
I mean, it would be really a shame if Congress keeps him there.
I mean, this is just all for a tax cut.
Moody's may shift U.S. rating outlook on tax pledge.
Reuters very happy about this when Moody's warned yesterday it could move a step closer to cutting the U.S. AAA rating if Obama's tax and unemployment benefit package becomes law.
Note now Obama's tax and unemployment benefit package.
The plan agreed to by President Obama and Republican leaders last week could push up debt levels, increasing the likelihood of a negative outlook on the United States rating in the coming two years.
Now, folks, again, it is very hard for me to see how maintaining the status quo can push up debt levels.
What's going to push up debt levels is all of the spending in here, all of this, like the ethanol subsidy.
There's all kinds of like training for mine rescue workers.
The spending keeps being added to this.
There are no income tax cuts.
Gosh, how long have we been pointing this out?
The media still refuses to publish the truth.
The extension of unemployment benefits and all the sweeteners.
That's a new word for pork, by the way, the sweeteners.
And the minuscule payroll tax are the only things that'll cause any new debt, not the tax cut.
So anyway, here's another threat.
This is from Moody's.
And nobody, nobody will listen to it either.
You know, Snerdley, you sit there and you ask me if I, my sentimentality, if I'm going to start crying.
And I know what that's a reference to.
Well, you're talking about Boehner, because suddenly that's all anybody's talking about, is Boehner and crying.
All right, fine.
Now, what is it?
Did it embarrass you?
Does it make you uncomfortable?
Well, then, what's the big deal?
Did you not like it, Dawn?
Dawn didn't like it.
It was over the top to the point you didn't believe it was genuine.
Always genuine was over the top.
But, but, but I'm confused.
I thought we wanted all that kind of touchy-feely sentimentality in men.
I thought we wanted men that were able to cry and show their real emotion.
Here's my only point about this: we never got any kind of story about Bill Clinton and a fake tears and a bite in the lower lip.
We always got stories of admiration about that.
They tried making Boehner a figure of hate, and that didn't work, did it?
They tried making him a figure of hate, and now they're going for ridicule.
Because I didn't see it.
I don't watch.
I didn't see it.
I've seen some video, I guess, highlights of it, but every segment.
Boy, Dawn's really worked up about this.
I didn't see it.
I know they had to edit it, Don.
They didn't do it live to tape.
Anyway, you see how easy it is.
Even people on our side get sucked into this stuff.
Now Boehner's nothing but a crybaby.
Yeah, he just, he was, I heard him say on one of these sound bites that he was crying.
He's all worried about the future and the American dream for people.
He wanted to make sure that they had access to it, and he's worried that it's not going to be accessible for a lot of people because of Obama.
Okay, as long as he repeals health care and everything, he can cry all he wants.
Fine and dandy.
All right, here's Obama.
By the way, I want you to hear this.
What I just read, but I want you to hear Obama saying it.
This WFLA TV Eyeball 8 in Tampa.
Reporter Keith Cate, this is yesterday, said unemployment in the state of Florida higher than the national average, 11.9%.
What does this new tax deal do for those 1.1 million Floridians out of work?
And what does it do for the businesses that have been reluctant to hire, maybe in some circumstances because of the economy, can't afford to hire?
This tax package does a couple of things immediately for economic growth in Florida.
Number one, for those folks who are looking for work right now, it extends their unemployment benefits.
Two million people across the country would lose their unemployment benefits at the end of this month if we did not move forward on this tax agreement.
And economists say that not only is that good for those families, it's good for the entire economy.
It's probably the biggest boost that we can give an economy because those folks are most likely to spend the money with businesses, and that gives them customers.
See through.
I just wanted you to hear it.
And I read it.
It's always more impactful if you hear him say it.
Notice, by the way, the House would see jobless people lose their unemployment checks and a middle-class person lose their income tax breaks even right here at Christmastime rather than see the rich get one thing done.
That's what's being held hostage here.
In order to make sure the rich get pummeled, jobless people will lose their unemployment benefits.
Middle-class people will lose their income tax breaks.
Also, the rich get pummeled.
And you jobless people and middle-class people, you're supposed to go, yeah, yeah, yeah, you soak them.
That's right.
And you're supposed to feel good when the rich get soaked, even when you are harmed in the process.
That's the thinking.
All right, Heritage Foundation morning bell, another victory on the road to repeal.
Morning Bell, they say Obamacare will be repealed now.
It is only a question of when.
Here's President Obama.
Yesterday afternoon, again, in Tampa, WFLA-TV eyeball news.
Question.
When it comes to the health care decision, that parts of it are unconstitutional.
What does that do?
Your opinion on health care?
What's your reaction to the judge's ruling?
That's the nature of these things.
When Social Security was passed, there were all kinds of lawsuits.
When the Civil Rights Act was passed and the Voting Rights Act was passed, there were all kinds of lawsuits.
Yeah.
And he's saying that they didn't win anything and these lawsuits are not going to win.
But this that happened yesterday with Judge Hudson is big.
The White House and their allies were quick to try and minimize the judge's ruling, arguing that 14 previous court challenges have been dismissed by those courts.
But that spin doesn't even pass the laugh test.
The 42-page decision, Judge Hudson, is the first by a federal court this far along the litigation process.
The first brought by a state.
This was filed by Ken Cuccinella, the AG of Virginia.
And soon, Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida is expected to rule on an even larger challenge to Obamacare brought by 16 state attorneys general, four governors, two private citizens, and the National Federation of Independent Business.
Now, in an early stage of that litigation, Judge Vinson wrote, the individual mandate applies across the board.
People have no choice, and there's no way to avoid it.
Those who fall under the individual mandate either comply with it or they are penalized.
It is not based on an activity that they make the choice to undertake.
Rather, it's based solely on citizenship and on being alive.
And clearly, the judge is saying that's not kosher.
That's not constitutional.
Judge Hudson used very similar reasoning in rejecting the regime's claim that since every individual in the country will require health care at some point in their lifetime, the federal government has the power to force Americans to buy health insurance now.
Hudson wrote, of course, the same reasoning could apply to transportation, housing, nutritional decisions.
This broad definition of the economic activity subject to congressional regulation lacks logical limitation and is unsupported by Commerce Clause jurisprudence.
So there will be other courts with the same opinion as this coming up shortly.
What you have to know about the entire Obamacare debate, folks, and even about the ruling of Judge Hudson yesterday, is that this is essentially about liberty.
Do politicians in Washington get to tell us how to live, including what we have to buy, what services we have to purchase, or do we get to tell them what to do and what we do or do or not want?
This is about liberty.
This is about free will.
And this ruling highlights this.
Health care here is almost beside the point.
Health care is being used as a Trojan horse to take down the nation.
Do not think otherwise.
It is not about health care.
Just like the Obama economic policy is not about jobs.
It's all about taking down this nation for whatever reason.
Obama's got a chip on his shoulder.
He's always been hateful of the country.
He's been taught to be hateful.
It doesn't matter.
Look at what's being debated here.
Look at what everybody's celebrating.
The regime was going to tell everybody they had to buy health insurance simply because they're going to get health treatment over the course of their lives.
They're going to have to buy it.
The Constitution says no, the government doesn't have that power.
This regime is arguing in court that it does.
And frightfully, there are a lot of Democrat-appointed judges who agree with the notion this is perfectly within the government's purview to order citizens what to buy, what they must have.
And yesterday, with Michelle Obama coming out saying it's us, we're going to determine what your kids eat before school, during school, and after school, and at dinner, because you can't trust the parents to do that.
So essentially, this is about liberty and freedom and a Trojan horse that's designed to take the country down.
And we can get caught up in the argument, the Commerce Clause.
What we're really arguing about here is does some politician, some president in a faraway capital get to tell us what we must spend our money on.
Much less money than we would otherwise have if this guy weren't the president.
Now, Judge Hudson here, he wrote, after talking about the commerce clause, he moved on to the regime's claim that the individual mandate was actually a tax that would make it constitutional under the general welfare clause.
Here's what he wrote.
This court's analysis begins with the unequivocal denials by the executive and legislative branches that the individual mandate was a tax.
It was only when the administration found itself before a judge, not in front of voters, that the White House conveniently shifted its rationale.
Judge Hudson saw through this deception.
He identified the individual mandate as the penalty that it is.
You know, when the regime first got wind that people were going to call it a penalty.
No, no, no, it's not a penalty.
It's a tax.
And we have the power to tax under the general welfare clause.
The judge says it's not.
You can't change in the middle of the game.
The court's analysis begins with the unequivocal denials by the executive and legislative branches that the individual mandate was a tax.
Then they ultimately said that it was a tax, giving themselves power under the general welfare clause to go ahead and force everybody to buy this.
He rejected the regime's mandate as tax claim.
It was not a total victory for Cuccinelli, however.
And again, this is the morning bell in the Heritage Foundation.
Judge Hudson rejected Virginia's request to strike down the entire law.
In my own legal nativity, I was wondering why he couldn't issue an injunction at that point.
But I'll get an answer to that at some point down the road.
But despite claims by the president himself and the authors of the legislation like Max Baucus, Judge Hudson found that Section 1501 was severable from the rest of the law and voided only that section and directly dependent provisions, which make specific reference to Section 1501.
Judge Vinson in Florida will be all but free to revisit the whole issue.
Now, the heritage people say whether or not courts will invalidate just Obamacare's individual mandate is rapidly becoming irrelevant.
They say that Obamacare simply may not survive that long, that it is already collapsing under its own financial and bureaucratic weight.
Just last week, Congress voted to stop reductions in Medicare payments to doctors by rating future revenues from Obamacare's insurance subsidy program.
The number of waivers the regime has had to grant from Obamacare's unworkable regulations grows every day.
It's up now to 250 companies and unions who have been granted waivers.
In other words, exceptions.
They don't have to have the law applied to them.
So in that sense, it is falling apart.
The powers that be are admitting that following the law, following the tenets of Obamacare will be destructive.
We won't be able to stay in business if we follow this.
And Obama doesn't want that to happen this soon.
He'll be more than happy after the 2012 elections for the bill to be implemented in time in ways that will destroy businesses, particularly the private sector insurance industry.
That's the, well, one of many objectives here.
Doctors are telling pollsters that they will leave the medical profession in droves if Obamacare is implemented as planned by 2014.
And according to an ABC News Washington Post poll, Obamacare is now more unpopular than ever.
Only 43% approve the law.
52% oppose it.
They say Obamacare will be repealed.
It's only a question of when.
Randy Barnett, this is the American Spectator blog by Philip Klein, Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett, says to the court decision is a game changer.
It's a huge day.
The government needed to run the table on all of these cases to survive, and it failed.
It basically needed all the judges to say that it was constitutional.
And as soon as they had one that said it wasn't, then we have a different game.
First, he said it changes the posture because now this will go to the Court of Appeals and the Court of Appeals is going to have to reverse this judge.
But in the more immediate term, it'll impact a similar suit against Obamacare brought by the 20 states led by Florida.
He predicted that Judge Vinson will have a surprise in this, scheduled to hear arguments on Thursday.
Had yesterday's decision gone the other way, the Obama regime would have been able to argue that three judges had upheld the law, but now the state of Florida can point to a case in which the law was ruled unconstitutional.
Barnett says that basically every court has rejected the tax power argument.
He said, I never thought that that argument was going to go anywhere, and it hasn't gone anywhere.
It's another sign that this thing is going to have to rise or fall on the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the tax power thing is going to be gone.
Christian Science Monitor, healthcare law, why federal judge struck key provision down.
A couple quotes.
The regime has defended the law by saying that Americans who refuse to buy health insurance are making an economic decision to not participate in the national health care insurance market.
That's true, as freedom allows.
My point earlier.
That decision, government lawyers say, has economic consequences that are within Congress's power to address, which, again, to my lay ears is a very slim argument.
Another quote, Hudson also rejected the regime's argument.
The law had also been passed under Congress's broad taxing authority.
The fine required for not buying health coverage is a penalty, not a tax, he said.
If allowed to stand as a tax, listen to Judge Footnote, it would be the only tax in U.S. history to be levied directly on individuals for their failure to affirmatively engage in activity mandated by the government, not specifically delineated in the Constitution.
So as you hear more and more lawyers and legal people weigh in on this, it becomes obvious that health care is not what's being discussed here.
This is personal freedom.
This is liberty.
Healthcare is the Trojan horse to take the nation down, and it always has been.
And this has been one of our premier takes on this program on healthcare since it all began, that it wasn't about health care.
2,000-plus pages.
This is not about health care.
This is 2,000-plus pages spelling out the power government has.
2,000-plus pages defining what power and freedom individuals lose in all this.
The idealists want to say, no, no, no, Russia, we're the only civilized, industrialized country that doesn't have national health care.
May be true, there's a reason for that.
We're not a socialist country yet.
And here's the ABC News story on new low in support for health care.
The law has never been popular with support peaking at just 48%.
Now it's slipped to 43%.
Numerically, it's lowest in ABC Washington Post polling.
So when the ABC and the Washington Post poll is trending this way, you really have to believe that Americans get this issue now and they understand how it'll impact them.
Nothing the Democrats have said in one year since they ran this through has convinced anybody there's a different reality than a bad result.
If the Democrats had persuaded people, remember Pelosi said we have to pass it to find out what's in it.
Well, more and more people are finding out what's in it and more and more people saying they don't want it.
And no effort, not one attempt by any Obama administration official or Democrat in Congress has been able to persuade people that this is a good thing.
We are in for years of wrangling over this.
And it's, again, crucial, folks, that the Republican Congress begin immediately to repeal this.
Send up a repeal bill every week and make the president defend this, make him veto it.
And at some point, we are going to be able to override the veto.
As we get closer to the 2012 election and the Democrats and the Senate realize where their reelection lies, I don't accept this notion we can't override the veto.
And I guarantee you there are a lot of other people in Washington who don't want to admit it, but they think it's highly likely or possible.
If the right way is taken, the right strategy is employed here.
Yeah, we can't repeal it with one piece of legislation.
You can make them defend it.
You can make them defend it often in the face of public approval falling like a rock for this thing.
You make them come out and tell us why we're wrong.
You make every administration official go out and publicly tell us why we're wrong, why this is great for us, why losing our liberty is a good thing.
I want to hear them be able to sell that.
Brief time out here, folks.
We'll be back.
Try to squeeze some more of your phone calls in when we return.
I just quoted extensively from Heritage Foundation Morning Bell, which was their blog in the morning.
But there's much, much more that they have written, put together on the entire health care bill.
And you can find it at askheritage.org.
That's the same website you used to become a member at Heritage.
Well worth your time to look at this.
There's now a concerted media attack on Ken Kuzzinelli, the Attorney General, Attorney General of Virginia.
It's totally predictable.
The media ganging up on the guy, and he's hanging in firm.
He's hanging tight.
Now, one little observation here.
If the requirement that everybody has to buy insurance is struck down, but the rest of the law stands, then insurance companies are going to go out of business even faster.
Remember now that remember when the insurance companies went along with this at the outset, we're all scratching our heads?
Turns out they were promised a brand new pool of customers, the healthy.
Everybody was going to be forced to buy a policy.
And of course, looking out for themselves, they said, cool, all right, this is finally worth supporting.
With no pre-existing condition, hey, we're going to go to town for a couple years.
You know, they said, okay, we know we're targeted, but we're going to get in while it gets good, and we'll take out of it what we can get.
But if this thing stands and people are no longer forced to buy a policy, then there's no reason for the private sector insurance industry to stay all that hept up for it.
People won't buy insurance till they get sick because they're going to be covered that way too under this bill.
But the more people start discussing the various details of minutiae of health care, the more they're missing the point.
This is an assault on freedom, pure and simple.
Mark in Jupiter, Florida have about a minute and a half, but I wanted to get to you, sir.
Hi.
Hey, Rush Megadittos from South Florida.
Yes.
Sitting in West Palm Beach, about three miles west of you, right?
Thank you, sir.
Just wanted to point out that, you know, after every time the Democrats take a shellacking and the liberals get their head handed to them, we hear all this talk about no labels.
I started hearing about it in the early 90s.
And if you remember, there was a lot of fanfare surrounding the Concord Coalition with Warren Rudman and Paul Tsongus.
And it was all supposed to be nonpartisan and doing away with labels.
And they were going to bring America together on sensible policies.
Yeah, that was about the national debt.
That was about deficit spending.
Correct.
But it was the same kind of an impulse, and the Democrats seized on it, you know, to try to conceal, a lot of them to try to conceal who they were.
But if you look at the people behind all these so-called movements to get rid of labels, it's always the liberals.
It's always the left trying to conceal who they are and what they want.
Yeah, that's a good point.
There are a lot of forerunners to this.
They've just never been as brazenly honest about what they're trying this time.
The Concord Coalition, that was Warren Rudman.
There's another one out there that Pete Peterson has, I think.
He's the Blackstone Group, one of their big guys.
I can't remember what it is, but you're right.
Every time they lose, they come up with something, new technique to hide who they are and to try to give themselves the high ground morally, politically.
Thanks for the call out there, Mark.
I appreciate it.
We got to go.
Back after this.
Snurdley, are you afraid to call yourself a conservative?
Nor am I.
I don't know any conservative.
Well, yes, I don't know any conservative.
I don't know any genuine, real conservative who is afraid to tell you what they really are.
Of course, people on the left are afraid to tell you at all, truthfully, what they are.
But we don't have that problem.
We don't have this label problem.
We're proud of our label.
We like our label.
We like ourselves.
We love you.
▲
Export Selection