All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 2, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:00
February 2, 2011, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, I tell you what, they're throwing Molotov cocktails over there now.
The camels are rolling into Cairo.
All of this after.
Obama told them they're going to get what they want, and then essentially can disperse out there.
Uh so not quite working on they asked Gibbs about that moments ago in the White House press briefing.
We have the soundbite coming up.
But before we get to that, the state of Florida is also using Judge Vinson's ruling to say that they are not going to enforce Obamacare.
Florida, the state insurance commissioner, is returning one million dollars in federal health care grants paid to states to help with reform implementation.
This is from the St. Petersburg Times insurance commissioner returns a million dollar health care grant.
In the wake of U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson's ruling that the federal health care legislation is unconstitutional.
Florida Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty returned a one million dollar federal grant awarded to the state to assist with reforms.
The money would have paid for a system to provide information to consumers on the rates of large group insurers.
Whoa!
They gave back a million bucks.
They are one of the 26 states, by the way, that doesn't want to delve into this because now it is unconstitutional.
This afternoon in Washington, Dan Lothian, CNN White House stenographer, asked the White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, when you guys, this about Obama's speech last night.
When you talk about the transitioning happening now, how do you define now?
Because now to me means today, not September.
No, now means yesterday.
Because when we said now, we meant yesterday.
Right.
So I mean now is uh it means now.
Uh yesterday or yesterday.
Again, I want to be clear.
This is we're though we are in the here and now now started yesterday.
Well, that is clear.
And here and now we want to be clear.
Uh the the all of this is, you know why the question was asked?
Sit there, it put yourself in the White House press room.
And you are listening to the press secretary, and you know that the president made his big speech last night, basically saying, Hey, you Egyptian rioters, uh, go home.
I am Obama.
And I'm gonna give you everything you want.
I've talked to Babarak and everything's done.
And yet, the rioting increases, and you're a you're a press guy, and you and you want to know why aren't the Egyptians hearing Pharaoh Obama's demands.
So what Lothian here was asking him, maybe you want to tell us that his demands didn't start yet.
That was the out.
Lothian was giving Gibbs an opportunity to say, well, our demands haven't started yet.
We can't really but Gibbs knew he couldn't get away with that.
So now meant yesterday, meant last night when Obama made the famous speech.
It just continued, and the parts of this are are laughable.
In the in the big scheme of things, it's not.
Uh, ladies and gentlemen, only one president in the last 30 years that proudly associated himself with the Heritage Foundation.
Not only one, but the the one that was open and proud about it was Ronaldus Magnus.
Ronald Reagan, the same man whose 100th birthday is being celebrated this month.
Now you can understand why Heritage Foundation's been giving all sorts of tributes to honor Reagan.
He openly and proudly spoke of their relationship.
He praised all that heritage has done for conservatives in America.
He welcomed them into policy discussions at the White House.
And today there's another example of this relationship.
Heritage produced and posted a great video honoring Reagan for some of his work, accomplishments that you might expect from a true leader, like expanding our economy by more than 30%.
Look at the contrast.
Ronaldus Magnus expanding our economy 30%.
We have a contracting economy.
And there are certain elements in this country who think that's what we need to protect the planet.
That's what we need to guard against greenhouse gas emissions.
That's what we need.
A contracting economy.
We have a president presiding over the decline of America in many ways.
Heritage documents Reagan's achievements.
Not just expanding the economy by 30%, cutting interest rates in half, cutting inflation by two-thirds during his presidency, reducing unemployment to the lowest levels in 15 years.
This happened during the Reagan administration, which is why the left hates him.
Oh, they invoke him when they need to get re-elected, as Obama is doing now.
A lot of reasons for paying tribute to Ronald Reagan, and who better than the Heritage Foundation.
It was his favorite think tank in Washington.
This month, in honor of Ronaldus Magnus, make yourself a member of Heritage just as the Gipper was for many years.
And you do that by going to Askheritage.org today.
Ask heritage.org.
The left knows that this this decision by Judge Vinson is serious.
Last night on television, Jonathan Turley, George Washington University professor of law, was asked the following questions.
Democrats made a mistake not writing that the bill is severable.
Meaning if courts find bits of it unconstitutional, they can sever the bits from the law.
Democrats insist it is implicit in this kind of law.
Who's right?
It was a colossal mistake not to have a severality clause.
It's a standard clause.
It is not clear why it was kept out.
It opened the door to allow a judge like Judge Vinson to strike the entire act.
The Democrats really laid themselves open in how they drafted this act.
Judge Vincent is not totally out of line in saying that severability was put at issue when they did not include the clause.
Actually, I think it's kind of moot because the whole law was unworkable anyway without the mandate.
So you take the mandate away, the rest of the law falls by the wayside anyway.
Okay.
Uh in virtually every which way that they promised it and and promoted it.
But still they know it's serious.
Last night, uh, also on TV, Representative Jim Moran from Virginia discussion about the health care reform got a question.
What's your argument for why it is constitutional?
So here Judge has ruled the bill unconstitutional.
That's it.
So they go at MSNBC and they go find a guy and say, tell us why you think it's not.
What's your argument for why it is constant?
His argument doesn't matter.
Jim Moran has nothing to say.
He is in the legislative branch.
He has nothing to say about it doesn't matter what his opinion is.
Here it is anyway.
Clearly, we have determined that we are going to provide health care when needed, even to people who don't have insurance coverage.
That means that all of us have to pay it.
Those of us who have insurance coverage.
Proponents of repeal knew once they got Judge Vinson what the outcome of their ruling was going to be.
The problem, though, is the Supreme Court, because that's where it will be decided.
And we've known since they appointed George Bush over Al Gore, despite the trend of the Florida vote counting, that at least four members of this Supreme Court are activist, conservative, even partisan.
Yeah.
That's irrelevant.
It's all irrelevant.
Whatever he thinks doesn't matter.
Why is it constitutional?
He didn't even explain why it's constitutional.
He just said we've determined people need it.
Federal government can do whatever it wants.
Now, this next series of sound bites are kind of funny.
Uh this is Austin Goolsby, and it is last Wednesday in Washington, Capitol Hill House Ways and Means Committee hearing on the economic and regulatory Implications of the health care reform law.
Now, Goolsby is the White House Committee of Economic Advisors Chairman, and he was testifying.
And during the QA, Representative Patrick Taberi, a Republican from Ohio, said, I'd like you to tell me whether each of the following that were included in the health care law constitutes an increase in taxes for individuals or families, making less than 200 or 250,000 a year.
A new tax on individuals who do not purchase government approved health insurance.
I don't think that's an accurate way to describe it.
No.
Not a new tax.
I don't think that's an accurate way.
A new ban on the use of flexible savings accounts, HSAs, HRAs on using pre-tax income to purchase over-the-counter drugs.
I don't that that's not a tax increase of uh of a normal form, and that's part of a broader reform effort, obviously.
Okay, now this keeps on.
Well, Tiberi's trying to get see the regime's out there saying that nobody making less than 250 grand is going to face a tax increase, and Tiberia is saying, Oh, yeah, well, you tell me what these are.
All these new expenses everybody has to incur.
What are these?
So he said is an increase from seven and a half percent to ten percent of income, the threshold after which individuals can deduct out-of-pocket medical expenses, not a tax increase.
Uh as of saying, if you I I do not consider the Affordable Care Act as a whole to be a tax increase on people less than two hundred thousand dollars.
Impose a new $2,500 cap on families' ability to use pre-tax dollars to fund an FSA.
I don't consider that a tax increase.
A new 10% tax on indoor tanning services.
Uh not a tax increase.
Well, that seems like a uh strictly voluntary uh thing that one could choose.
Okay, so to Barry just asking him all these are all these tax increases or not, and Goolsby's dancing around it.
Well, the whole thing.
If you look at a whole thing, uh not a tax increase.
So Tiberi at this stage comes up with this.
I know you you chuckle about this, but the president was very, very firm in that nobody making less than two hundred thousand dollars or families less than two hundred thousand dollars would see income taxes go up, any taxes go up, and now we see a Department of Justice defense that this bill is constitutional because it's a tax.
The individual mandate is a tax.
So on one side we say it's not a tax, or you say it's not a tax, the administration.
On the other side, you say it is a tax.
So which is it?
So Gouldsby answers this way.
Well, Congressman first, let me apologize.
I was only chuckling about the the tanning salons.
I was I wasn't meaning to to make light of it.
Here's my point.
You repeatedly say it's not a tax increase, and Mrs. Smith, who sees her FSA go from five thousand to twenty five hundred, and now she can't buy baby aspirin at the store and deduct it from her FSA, she looks at that as a tax increase.
So there's a credibility issue, and again, we can chuckle about it, but this is a tax.
I didn't chuckle about it.
My only brief response is if it changes the FSA rule, but simultaneously gives her a significant reduction in the cost of her health care.
That should not be viewed as a tax increase on her.
It's not a tax increase.
And so he is avoiding the entire point because it all of these things are increased costs.
Every and and anybody with any experience dealing with the government has to know that costs of anything administered by them or through them is gonna go up.
Including this.
Got to put these guys on the spot.
Quick timeout, we'll be back and continue right after this.
Okay, back to the phones we go, as people have been patiently waiting to Melrose Park, Pennsylvania.
This is Mark.
I'm glad you called, sir.
Hello.
Megaddo's from Icebound Southeastern Pennsylvania.
Well, thank you, sir, very much.
Rush, I wanted to remind your audience that we just passed a very important anniversary.
Your website has an Al Gore doomsday clock that's been counting down a prediction of his that we had ten years left to save the planet from a scorching.
And last week we reached a halfway point on that countdown.
That is exactly right.
I was afraid you were gonna tell me we'd go on all ten years.
No, no, no, no.
And I admissed it.
So we're halfway through the Al Gore ten year doom prediction.
That's right.
Save the planet from a scorching ending.
Right.
You know, back in the 60s and 70s, your show wasn't around to monitor the claims of the likes of uh Paul Ehrlich and and Rachel Carson, but as you were saying earlier in the show today, the left has lost its ability to hide.
They really have.
They uh and but they continue to act as though there is no uh countermedia to them, which in one way is beneficial.
It demonstrates their arrogance uh and it and it allows all of their beliefs to be destroyed.
Certainly a lot of halls to be poked uh through them.
I just I talk about Rachel Carson.
My gosh, DDT.
I mean, how many people had died because of that woman?
Yeah, I know.
Over 50 million people have died because of Rachel Carlson Carson and DDT.
I mean, that it's just these people are absolutely totally irresp irresponsible, and it just it's always irritated me that they are the ones who somehow get all of this credit for compassion.
Yeah.
You know, uh Ronald Reagan used to have a five-minute radio show, and I bought a book called In His Own Words or something like that, that basically was a transcript of those five minute um little blurbs.
And Reagan, back in those days, before he was governor, was pointing out the increase in malaria caused by the elimination of DDT.
It was I mean, he was way out in front of that.
Yep.
Well, he was way out in front of uh of a lot of things.
Uh Paul Ehrlich, I'll tell you who did Paul Ehrlichin.
I uh I was in Pittsburgh in 1970 when this book came out.
Well, it came out when I was in Pittsburgh.
I was there from 71 through 75.
The book came out then.
And I remember worked for a bunch of people, you know, at the time it just didn't register, but it's pink.
I mean a bunch of pinkies.
It's and they're touting this book at me and a bunch of the stuff like it.
And I I uh looked at it and I read it and said, eh, oh hum.
I've I've never I've never bought into apocalyptic anything.
I could really get in trouble if I told you what I thought of the book of Revelation, which I won't.
Uh but nevertheless.
It was a guy named Julian Simon, who was a well-known scientist in Maryland who made a bet with Ehrlich.
He chose some minerals, like copper, some commodities, and he said, I'll bet you in ten years they're more plentiful and they're cheaper.
And Ehrlich took the bet and lost every one of them.
Everything that Julian Simon bet him on, Ehrlich lost.
He to this day remains a guru.
He has yet to be right about anything.
Ehrlich in the 70s wrote that by the year 2000, the world would not be able to sustain the population that it had.
And that was the name of the stupid book.
The uh population bomb.
Keith in Charleston, South Carolina.
Hello, sir, welcome.
Thanks, Russ.
I just uh two things real quick.
I'm I'm really aggravated that uh the Republicans are right now not going after even further after this health care by pointing out how much money by this not passing, by us going after it, canceling it out, how much money with all the earmarks that were on there that we will be saving.
Uh wait a minute.
Now one other question.
Why why are we not asking for probes into where all the TARP and the bailout money and how all that has been spent?
I mean, there's there's there's two things that are.
We're going to, for crying out loud, Darrell Issa has submitted his first request and they told him to go to hell.
They're doing it.
And we're all I don't understand this.
Earmarks.
Where are your earmarks come from?
What have I missed here?
Well the the well, the the earmarks in in the health care bill are are are uh we're trying We're we're we're we're trying to repeal it.
We are we're trying we're trying to uh repeal the the the health care.
Let me find this.
What did I do with it?
I know I had it here now.
I can't find it.
Daryl Issa has been rebuffed.
His first document request, the regime told him basically to go pound sand.
They're working on it out there, uh, Keith.
That's precisely the kind of stuff they are going to investigate.
Where did TARP money go?
Where did the porculus money go?
That's exactly the kind of stuff that they're going to uh to get into.
And and it, by the way, you should expect the regime not to just willingly participate in this.
There is a constant battle, separation of powers.
Whoever is president, when they got when the guys from Congress call, say, give us this, give us that, the natural reaction, you go to hell.
Who do you think you are?
It's a natural reaction a president has to the uh legislative branch.
But the legislative branch has oversight.
Presidents resent the hell out of that.
They make the legislative branch jump through hoops, go to court, judge after judge after judge to get this stuff.
And the whole point is to stall, and that's going to happen.
Now, while the Republicans are trying to do this, don't dump on them.
Uh it's all in the works, but the regime's got a lot to hide here, and they're not just gonna be forthcoming with it and uh and allow ISA or ISA and the Republicans to now this just like we're not gonna be able to probably override some vetoes for a while, but you keep asking.
You keep requesting the doc.
You keep pestering them for it.
You keep them on defense, you keep, you know, send that veto bill up to or send that repeal bill up every week if you have to.
Make them keep signing that thing.
I don't know if that's what the Republicans are gonna do.
It would be what I would do, but we'll find out together.
I mentioned the things Republicans are do that nobody is noticing because of other things in the news.
By the way, a quick question.
If you imagine yourself to be President Obama, and you're in the White House last night making your speech.
So I try to put myself inside people's uh hearts and minds.
Trying to understand them.
I really do.
So I can't imagine.
This is just me being me.
I can't imagine, even as president, making a speech in the White House about protests in Egypt and having the people on the street there give a rat's rear end what I'm saying.
If I were to make a speech about what's going on in Egypt as president, I'd be focused on informing the American people what's up here and uh what are the effects on American national security and what we're trying to do to solve whatever it is.
I I would I would not no more take to the cameras and microphones in the White House and attempt to talk to the people in the streets.
Now, does Obama he obviously did?
And my question, does Obama really, when he's sitting there looking into that camera lens, and and and admittedly speaking of the people rioting in Cairo, does he really believe that what he says is going to change their behavior?
Because if he does, we have a problem.
My question, uh ladies and gentlemen, is he did.
He went to the White House, whatever room might have been the Oval Office, makes this speech.
He gets in front of the mob.
He tells them essentially he's heard their their complaints that he's taking action.
He's gonna get rid of Mubarak.
Mubarg's going.
We're gonna get him out of there.
It's gonna happen in September, October, but Mubarak is going.
And he wants it somehow to be seen by the world that he can bring this to a screeching halt.
The problem is it's ratcheted up 600 injuries today.
Molotov cocktails are going off.
You've got camels being driven into downtown Cairo now.
Doesn't this look sort of as though the president of the United States is impotent and powerless.
And this is why we played sound bites early in the program.
David Rodham Gurgen and F. Chuck Todd, they're very worried Obama did this.
They call it whiting, walking a tightrope.
Because what's the wrong focus of a speech on what's going on?
But the American people want to know what is it?
How does it affect us?
What that's what they want to know.
And he didn't tell them that.
Us.
He goes in there and says, Oh, hear you.
You want change.
Can't happen overnight.
This is gonna happen.
Uh go home.
He didn't say that, but that's the message.
Go home and get off the streets.
So I just how must he feel today, if indeed that's his mindset.
Goes in there, makes speech, owns the mob.
So powerful, so pervasive, so persuasive, so messianic.
The one.
I have a gift, Harry.
He told Dinge Harry, makes this speech.
How's he feeling today?
He's ramping up.
He's got the White House press corps asking questions.
Well, what uh Gibbs, when is this supposed to start these changes?
Now means yesterday.
Oh, that's not the right answer.
It's not a good answer.
As it makes Obama look ineffective.
LA Times, Noam Levy and Lisa Mascaro.
Senate plans to vote today on legislation to repeal Obama's health care overhaul.
The repeal is largely symbolic.
Expected to fall short, the necessary 60 votes supermajority, but it will put pressure on centrist Democrats facing re-election in 2012.
Senate Democrats get a chance to go on record supporting an unconstitutional health care bill.
Page two.
Wait a minute now.
If the administration says nothing will stop implementing the law, why do they want to ask for a stay on Vincent's ruling?
Justice Department considering whether it'll move to stay Vincent's ruling to avert any interruption in carrying out the law.
Well, if they're going to admit then they got to deal with his ruling.
And Mitch McConnell says it's an opportunity to reevaluate vote to listen to your constituents who are deeply trying to get your attention.
You can say perhaps this was a mistake.
That's his appeal to the Democrats.
Vote with us on this.
Vote to repeal it.
You got a chance.
It's an unconstitutional law.
Do you really want to vote for something that's now been proclaimed unconstitutional?
Now you're not hearing any of this because of the weather.
And of course, Cairo.
Now, how can Vincent's ruling interrupt Obama's care uh rollout?
We were told by the state control media that that wasn't the case.
They're just going to ignore it.
It's like, remember when they said there were no death panels?
No, there aren't any death panels in here.
Then they went went and removed them.
Same thing here.
Mandate opposition tests GOP principles.
Get the folks.
This may be the PS de resistance of the day.
This from our old friends at the politico.
In a different context, the Republican Party might cheer one of the fundamental tenets of the health care law, that being a requirement that all Americans buy health insurance.
It's just the sort of thing that would fit squarely within the Republicans' bedrock principle of individual responsibility, ensuring that no one puts a strain on the system by showing up for costly emergency room visits and then expecting everybody else to pick up the tab.
So the theme of this political story and a clear bastardization of what is meant by individual responsibility and an attempt to club Republicans over the head with it.
Opposition to the mandate tests Republicans' principles because the mandate Is about personal responsibility.
Their premise, they're trying to position this mandate to buy insurance as Obama trying to make sure everybody's individual responsible for themselves.
And then that light why the Republicans, why they ought to be leading the way for this.
Because individual responsibility, rugged individualism.
Nice try, who wrote this?
David uh David.
Bad tech facts.
Nathan.
Can't read the last name.
David N. at political.
Nice try here, pal, to take a federal mandate that is in violation of the commerce clause of the Constitution and attempt to say that the Republicans are the ones hypocritical because they are the ones who believe in individual responsibility.
This is individual responsibility in this context would mean you either buy insurance or you pay the full price when you have the accident.
Personal responsibility does not mean bending over, grabbing the ankles, and allowing Barack Obama or anybody else to tell you what you must buy.
That is subserviency.
It is not individual responsibility.
What is I folks, they're on the run here.
If this is this is one of the biggest stretches I can remember them making.
To try to turn his mandate into an example of Republican hypocrisy.
Because they're eschewing the opportunity for individual responsibility.
Okay, here's a place I'm unfamiliar with.
I don't think I've heard about this.
It's in North Carolina, Cannaopolis.
Is that right?
Cannaopolis, North Carolina.
Is this Gary?
This is Gary.
It's Kannapolis.
Connapolis.
Yeah.
Canapolis.
See, there's two ends of the sea.
I learned about Charlotte.
Okay.
What's up?
Uh in 1816, there was no summer.
Uh a uh volcano in Mount in Indonesia called Mount Tamburo erupted after two others had.
Yeah.
And their ash went up and obscured the world.
And uh it uh uh cooled the whole temperature.
And uh the there in New England, there was snow in early June, during the months of July, August, and September, night nighttime temperatures dipped and frost occurred on several occasions.
If there were environmentalist wackos back then, what would they have said about that, Gary?
Uh, it's hard telling.
Back then it would probably have been demons.
Uh no, what they would have said was this is just temporary.
This gives us no respite.
It is a godsend and an illustration of what we must do.
And we talk about how the uh the eruption of the volcano and all of the stuff up there, uh is incremental compared to what man will do in the future.
They'd find a way to be as hypocritical and inconsistent as uh as they could, because obviously what there is no way, Mount Pinatubo alone, that eruption in the Philippines, somebody calculated the total gunk that came out of that volcano is by a factor of many,
far more than the total amount of gunk that Americans have put in the atmosphere in every combined way we can.
And the point was we don't have the power.
We don't have anywhere near the power the environmentalists assign to us to have any impact on this climate whatsoever.
Zilch zero not a all it takes is one average volcanic eruption to illustrate this.
But people are vain.
It's a the human being is an amazing creature.
On the one hand, we'll tell ourselves we're no different than a rat and a tree than or whatever.
That's uh the animal rights people tell us that on the other hand, we look at ourselves and claim that we have the ability to destroy All of this.
We're just a confused bunch of people.
Led occasionally by a bunch of really sickos.
But because everybody wants to matter, this is really what it boils down to.
Everybody wants their life to have meaning.
They want to matter.
That's why.
That's why a certain segment of our population will do it in to be on Jerry Springer.
That's why they'll vomit every bit of information about themselves on my butt.
The website, whatever it is.
This clamoring for fame.
Everybody knows who they are.
They want meaning.
So when somebody comes along and says you can save the planet, how much more meaning could your life have?
Not only do you do what you're told you have to do, you become an evangel for it.
You start getting everybody else to do the same thing.
Then you get a job as an actor.
Or vice versa.
Nick Jacksonville, Florida.
Hi, and welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey there, Rush.
How are you?
Very well, sir.
Thank you.
Good.
I'm calling your show to pass a message to President Obama because you know they're listening and it's the fastest way to get it.
There's no question about it.
That's right.
I've been a student a long time, so I've observed that.
Um what I want to say to President Obama is since he decided that it's within his purview to suggest that the president of Egypt resign.
I would like to invite him.
As a member of the Tea Party, I would like him to resign and step down from the presidency of the United States.
He has committed presidential malpractice, and he's now in contempt of the judge's ruling yesterday.
Which, by the way, I will point out that when the history books are written about who saved America, there's going to be two people.
One, Ronald Reagan.
Yesterday shows that, and number two is Rush Limbaugh.
No, that's awfully nice.
Well, I knew you'd mention my name as one of them.
Of course.
I'm kidding.
I appreciate that.
Um it is, I love these analogies.
Here's here's 200,000 people out of uh whatever, three point three percent of the population raised in hell.
And the regime here says, uh Baric, you better listen at a bunch.
You, if you know what's good for you, you'll go into exile somewhere, just get out of there.
3% of the population.
If the same thing happens here, there's no way.
There's no way they would be listened to or even given any credit whatsoever for being relevant.
Anyway, somewhat understandable, but it's still a great illustration.
I'm glad you called Tom, yeah.
Sh sh Nick, sorry, Nick, and we got to take a brief time out.
We'll do that, be back right after this.
Don't go away.
Lawmakers in South Dakota have proposed a bill that would require all adults to own guns.
Uh, this is uh intended to protest against the individual mandate for health insurance.
Everybody must own a gun in South Dakota.
What's that's not funny?
You can do it for health care, why not guns?
I love it.
▲
Export Selection