All Episodes
Previous Next
March 22, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:26
March 22, 2011, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I just can't believe how fast everything goes by here.
I I can't I can't believe we're already in a third hour.
And if it goes fast for me, I mean I'm actually the one doing it.
Can you imagine how fast it goes for everybody else?
Fastest three hours in media.
Happy to have you along for the ride.
I'm Rush Limbaugh.
This the EIB Network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Our telephone number 800 282882, the email address L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
Easter is coming up very late this year.
April the twenty-fourth, I believe.
Last Wednesday, the U.S. Labor Department announced that we are now seeing the biggest jump in food prices since 1974.
In February alone, food costs went up nearly 4%.
The food crisis is afoot.
Along with and spurred by other crises, it's becoming ever more obvious in supermarkets and restaurants, and now, because of political strife in the cocoa producing Ivory Coast.
This food crisis is about to kill Easter.
If you like chocolate macaroons, you're in trouble.
Chocolate Easter eggs will cost as much as 140% more this year than they did last year due to rising cocoa prices.
Somebody here has forgotten that Easter is not about the hunt.
Somebody has we got a whole story here.
Easter's dead because of how much chocolate's gonna cost.
But that's what you get.
This is from the Huffing and Puffington Post.
Porsche.
The German automaker Porsche says its dealers are ready to start taking orders for the new 918 spider hybrid supercar.
845,000 dollars.
USA Today says that may sound steep, but perhaps not after you factor in the money you'll save with its plan to get 78 miles to the gallon.
Production will begin in 2013.
Porsche will limit production to 918 cars over two years at the base price of 845 grand.
That does not include freight charges.
It's got a 500 horsepower V8, two electric motors with an additional 218 horsepower, and plug-in hybrid technology.
78 miles to the gallon.
Wow.
So the rich are gonna have to go out and buy this thing in significant quantities to bring the price down for everyone else.
Also from USA Today.
Black populations fall in major cities.
Black population declining in a growing number of major cities.
More evidence that the settlement pattern of African Americans is changing as they disperse into suburbia and warmer parts of the nation.
Twenty-tend census data released so far this year show that twenty of the twenty-five cities that have at least a quarter million people and a 20% black population either lost some blacks or gained fewer in the past decade than during the 1990s.
Now these declines happen in some traditional black strongholds.
Chicago, Oakland, Atlanta, Cleveland, and St. Louis.
Now let's see here.
The loss is fueled by three distinct trends.
Number one, blacks are leaving cities for the suburbs.
Blacks are leaving northern cities for thriving centers in the South.
And the aging of the African American population whose growth rate has dropped from more than 16% in the 90s to about 10% since 2000.
The major factor is not mentioned.
We had the news, we've talked about it two or three times.
It's abortion.
What's the number that we had out of New York?
59%, 60% of black pregnancies are aborted In New York City.
And that doesn't get mentioned here as one of the reasons for black populations falling in major cities.
I think it's 40% nationwide.
Forty percent of black pregnancies are terminated nationwide, 60%, 59, something like that, um, in New York.
It is big business.
It's huge business for planned parenthood.
The end of the story, the drop can also be partially attributed to a declining black fertility rate and the aging of the black population, said John Logan.
Well, okay, let's just skirt it.
Let's talk about the fertility issue.
Let's not use the abortion word.
No, no, no, no.
Mustn't do that.
All right, Canute.
Canute has uh has died, ladies and gentlemen.
The cute polar bear in the German zoo.
The beloved polar bear Canute, who rose to stardom when he was hand raised by zookeepers after being rejected by his mother at birth, died Saturday.
The world famous bear died alone in his compound.
He was by himself in his compound.
He was in the water and then he was dead, said the bear keeper, Heiner Klose.
He wasn't sick.
We don't know why he died.
They did a postmortem yesterday.
I haven't heard the results of the postmortem.
Between 600 and 700 people were at Canute's compound and saw the four-year-old polar bear die.
That's a traumatic thing.
Six to seven hundred people.
You remember, and I'm surprised this has not shown up in any of the stories.
This one I've not forgotten.
When Canute's mother rejected him, the zoo said, All right, we'll step in there, we'll save the little guy.
Animal rights wackos just ripped into the zoo for daring to save this that bear has no business being raised by people.
That mother rejected the bear for a reason.
Let it die.
Now the dare the polar bear has died.
And you wait, it's not going to be long before the animal rights wackos say, see?
See, we told you this it was never meant to live in captivity.
It died of a broken heart or whatever, and you people killed it because it should have never lived in the first place.
That's what they'll say.
And the answer to that is if it hadn't been for the zoo, this bear would not have had four years of life.
If the animal rights wackos had gotten their way.
We'll keep a sharp eye.
Oh, we do have the uh autopsy report.
Let's see, brain problems.
Uh apparently caused the uh the early death of Canute.
Initial findings performed Monday by an institute in the German capital showed significant changes to the brain, which uh could be viewed as a reason for the polar bear's sudden death, the zoo said in a statement.
And PETA has sent out a press release.
I haven't seen it.
I'll check it out.
First, we must return to the audio sound bites amateur hour, the regime all over the map on Libya.
Various members of the regime explaining why we're there.
We expect it in a matter of days to be able to turn over the primary responsibility to others.
If you don't try to take him out, if you don't support the opposition, and he stays in power, we cannot predict what he will do.
The goals of this uh campaign right now uh again are limited, and it isn't about seeing him go.
Our mission is to protect civilians from attack by the regime ground forces.
Our mission is not to support any opposition forces.
Okay, so we're not forcing him out, but we are forcing him out.
We're in there to protect civilians uh from attack by regime ground for we're we're not to support any opposition forces.
Uh we're gonna need to be gone there along um.
They're all saying different stuff.
It's all gonna be over in days.
Gonna remove Qaddafi, we're not gonna remove Qaddafi.
We're supporting the rebels, we're not supporting the rebels.
It's amateur hour.
It even took Wolf Blitzer to cover for it's not gonna be over in days.
They started talking about the bad advice that poor Obama was getting.
David Gergen, David Rodumgergen from Harvard, shared with you in the first hour he has a piece of C, and then very, very upset.
He said, all the people at Harvard can't figure out what's going on here.
Harvard trains people to run the country.
Harvard trains people to be smart and to do the right thing.
And these Harvard people can't figure out why what are we doing in Libya?
What's the reason for it?
And then David Gergen said, you know, a lot of us at Harvard believed that if women ran the world, it'd be a lot more peaceful place.
But look at it was three women that ganged up on our president and suggested he do something in Libya.
They're really confused at Harvard.
David Gergen leading the pack.
The military mission is humanitarian to stop Qaddafi, but the overall long-term policy of the United States is to get him out, and they see that as coming through sanctions and other kinds of squeezes.
Do we want the rebels to win?
It's not clear whether we would be satisfied if they did things just ended in a stalemate.
Where is this going to go if we had a stalemate?
The country becomes divided.
I think that's an unacceptable solution for the United States and for most other countries on the outside.
And I don't know what our policy is under those circumstances.
I'm sure he doesn't.
Doesn't know what the policy is.
And it's it's clear there aren't a whole lot of people in the regime who actually cared.
Britt Hume, uh story in a stack, said, Look, we've got to factor in the possibility that failure is an option here.
That failure is an option.
You know, Bush went into Iraq.
Well, what's the mission?
How are we going to define victory?
What is the exit strategy?
What's the exit policy?
What how are we gonna?
None of that was demanded of Obama.
Some of it's being demanded now by people on the left, but there isn't a whole lot of concern.
It's just mass confusion.
Mass confusion from the smart people of the left, because they don't understand.
Here's Dennis Kucinich.
Yesterday morning on America's newsroom on Fox, Bill Hemer said to Dennis Kucinich, what's a problem going after Qaddafi?
Here it is, and I'm gonna read this and then I'll tell you who said it.
The president does not have power under the Constitution and unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
Now that was Barack Obama who said that on December the 20th, 2007.
We've got to be very sure here that we follow the Constitution, and President Obama didn't do that.
And Ralph Nader last Friday on a syndicated TV program Democracy Now had a co-host there, Juan Gonzalez.
You're participating in a protest on the eighth anniversary of the Iraq invasion.
What's the what's the importance of this protest, Mr. Nader?
Why don't we say what's on the minds of many legal experts is that the Obama administration is committing war crimes, and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached.
Ralph Nader, ladies and gentlemen.
Ralph Nader, Ralph New.
If Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached.
We're going to skip number 12.
We're going to move on to audio sound by 13.
This is Ed Maki.
He was on MSNBC and Ryan Mitchell yesterday afternoon.
And she said, Do you have any reservations about the military operation in Libya?
We're in Libya because of oil.
And I think both Japan and the nuclear technology and uh Libya and this dependence that we have upon imported oil have uh both once again highlighted the need for the United States to have a renewable energy agenda going forward.
This is the time for a great debate.
Japan and Libya.
Oil and nuclear.
What is our future?
According to you guys, we don't have one.
Uh nuclear's dead.
We don't like oil, so we're back to windmills.
Windmills and solar.
Am I right?
They hate oil.
I wish we were going for oil.
Frankly, folks.
Where's our oil from Iraq?
If anybody should have dibs on that, we should.
At both.
At below market prices.
Contracts are going to everybody but us.
Well, we got some, but we're paying market prices for we we we had first dibs in that oil.
We gave it away to prove we're nice guys.
Um part of the guilt being a superpower.
So we're going into Libya for the oil.
Ed Markey.
I wish we were.
Calypso Loey, March 10th in Chicago on the Cliff Kelly Show.
On the radio there.
Kelly said, you told the president, you said, be prepared because it's going to be coming to your door.
And your advice to Obama was to remember the words that you're making to other nations.
I warn my brother, don't you let these wicked demons move you in a direction that will absolutely ruin your future with your people in Africa and throughout the world.
Why don't you organize a group of respected Americans and ask for a meeting with Gaddafi?
You can't order him to step down and get out.
Who the hell do you think you are?
And there you have it, Calypso Louis Farragon asking Obama, who the hell do you think you are?
You can't tell him to leave.
And uh Calypso Louie wasn't finished.
He continued.
That you can talk to a man that built a country over 42 years and ask him step down and get out.
Can anybody ask you?
Well, well, there's a lot now gonna ask you to step out of the White House because they don't want no black face in the White House.
Be careful, brother, how you handle this situation because it is coming to America.
It has already started.
Look in Wisconsin.
Oh, Wisconsin.
It's already started.
So there's uh Calypso Louis warning President Obama.
If you can tell Qaddafi to go, they're gonna have a lot of people telling you to go.
There's not uh not a lot of peace and love going on out there.
So uh well, um that'd be an interesting question to ask uh uh Farrakhan how he feels about Gaddafi warning the Europeans to keep the blacks out of there, which is what he did.
They'd lose their countries.
Let it be known.
It's you know I didn't say any of this.
I'm just playing the sound bites.
I'm just playing the sound bites.
Back to the phone, Zel Rushbow at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Oh, what else did the do?
Oh instant replay for every touchdown.
The owners have just passed this recommendation by the competition committee.
Instant replay for every touchdown.
No coaches challenge required.
Now, I'm not sure about that.
There's gotta be.
I mean, some touchdowns are obvious.
Are we gonna stop the game for every touchdown and review it?
I mean, it's a way we do it in the final two minutes of each half.
A replay official makes a decision to stop play and take a look at it, but you do this on every touchdown.
And if not, only on the controversial or doubtful ones, and who's gonna say the replay guy is well, that's true.
There are mrian, I gotta hand it to you.
Uh you know what?
Your contributions are so rare that they stop me.
They stop me dead in my in my in my tracks, but you have just stumbled across something.
It's an opportunity for more commercials.
The owners have said they wanted to grow the game.
The networks want to grow the game.
Here you review every touchdown you gotta stop and go to commercial break.
Brian, I take back everything, almost everything I've ever said about you sitting in there.
Uh back to the back to the phone.
Sherry in Cordova, Illinois.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Every day into her water bowlers.
Um, Sherry, hello?
I'm sorry, thank you.
You okay.
Um I have a question about guess what I've always felt protected by the Constitution.
And how is it that we can stop Barack Obama from doing things that are unconstitutional?
Where's the stop for um for the president just taking over when he thinks he can?
Can I ask you a question first?
Yes.
You have a litter box problem there.
I'm getting my hair done.
I'm sorry.
I've been on old for an hour and a half.
You're getting your hair done at a litter box.
No, no, no, no.
I'm just talking to my lady nephewitian about house.
Oh.
Oh.
That's okay.
I just uh just uh just curious.
You actually have raised a very interesting question.
Oh you really have.
How do we stop Obama breaking the Constitution?
And it raises an interesting point.
Uh Michael Walsh had a piece in the New York Post, which I thought it was over the weekend, and it was really it it hit the nail on the head in in in many ways, and it's it's something that all of us have thought.
We've taken stabs at it.
And I could have taken total credit for this myself.
Um, but seriously, we play by two different sets of rules with the Republicans and Democrats.
Wisconsin's a great example.
We did everything by the book.
We had a clean campaign.
We went out, we elected a governor.
He campaigned on some issues.
One of them was redoing the way arrangements are made with public sector unions.
We did it by the book.
The guys on the left do not play by those rules.
They got they've got a flawed judge, and there's a there's a great piece.
Some conservative blog has posted some I got ten seconds to wrap this up, and I'm not gonna be able to obviously finish it now in five seconds.
But don't miss this summation because this really does tell us what we're up against and why we still may be losing this.
Well, I spent this is very frustrating.
It happens more often than it should.
I spent I spent the entire commercial break here looking for something I know is here, and I can't find it.
And I wish I could remember the name of the blog.
It's about Wisconsin.
It's about it's about the judge.
Let me first get this on the table.
This judge that shut down the Wisconsin law last week.
And the blog is about the fact that she has a son or a son-in-law, some family member, who is an SEIU activist.
This county judge shut down the law, temporary restraining order, uh, the TRO, under false premise.
She's a pure activist liberal.
And this blog uh tries to make the case of why this judge is in trouble and and why the uh the Democrats are in trouble because of what she's done in Wisconsin.
And they're not.
And I've it's it's it's not just this blog.
I I can remember I can remember countless times over the last, I don't know how many years, uh reading that Clinton was in trouble legally because he was doing this or that, and he wasn't.
Now, in a proper and just and moral world, yeah, the judge would be in problem.
The judge would be in trouble.
We got two different sets of rules by which we play the game.
And we're the old-fashioned traditionalists.
We do it the old-fashioned way.
We try to first change the hearts and minds of voters.
We then engage in campaigns.
There's that woman with the green makeup again on Fox, and I have got to turn this off, or I'm gonna forget where I am and do nothing but stare.
I'm turning off the TV.
I can't, I cannot believe.
Jeez.
Okay.
We go out and we we convince the American people.
You know, it's really stupid thing.
Now everybody's turning on Fox to see what I'm talking about rather than listening to me.
All right, I'll give you five seconds to find it, and you come back.
Looks like one of the daughters the women were writing about in a Wall Street Journal, I guess.
I don't know.
Okay, you seen it now?
Fine, okay.
Everybody back.
We do it the old-fashioned way.
We go to the minds and hearts of the American people, we campaign, we try to persuade them that our ideas and our people are preferred, are better, are what's needed.
We engage in a campaign in the arena of ideas, and on election day we win.
By contrast, on election day, when we lose, we say, okay, uh, we've lost, you guys won, and that means something.
They never say that.
So they are not bound by the same rules that we are playing.
This all starts because this woman with the litter box problem wanted to know how it is Obama can get away with breaking the Constitution.
We can get away with it because we're not going to say anything about it.
Kucinich might, and Ed Markey might and these guys, but nobody, nothing's gonna happen.
He's gonna get away with it.
This judge in Wisconsin, who knows where this is gonna be?
I don't know what the judiciary is in Wisconsin.
But here you have a judge who clearly has a conflict of interest, who clearly is acting above and beyond her role as a judge.
She's a liberal activist wearing a robe.
She's slapped a temporary restraining order on the law that was passed in the legislature, and it was legal.
The open nature uh aspect of the law was not required.
They didn't break the law in doing this.
But the judge claims because of the complaint of one liberal activist she has.
So we sit here and we're kind of stymied.
And this is what this is what's bugged me all along when I hear people on our side say the Reagan era is over, or start ripping into Sarah Palin or ripping it.
Sarah Palin's not the problem.
None of the Republican presidential contenders is the problem.
Democrats, Obama, they are the problem.
The judge in Wisconsin, the Democrats, the unions, they are the problem.
There is something terribly wrong.
The state is out of money.
Our nation is out of money.
There's an imbalance about how it's being spent.
There was a campaign, the people voted.
Two or three liberals have decided to say to hell with the outcome of an election.
And are now doing what they can to change that result.
We live and die by the outcome of elections.
And then after the election is over, when we win and then see ourselves undermined, what do we do?
We don't know because we don't play by their rules.
We're not subversives.
They are.
So we don't know what to do.
All we can do is complain.
The media seems to be on their side.
And how do they get away with it?
A lot of us have known from the get-go that Obama looks at the Constitution as an obstacle, and we've said so over and over again.
He's an it's an obstacle to what he wants to do.
So when he operates on the edges of it or ignores it, we got people who say, oh, he's gonna get caught on this.
He's in Obama's in trouble, he's not in any trouble.
The judge in Wisconsin's not any trouble.
If there were a proper tribunal, if there were a court with decent people on it, who had a uh a proper view of the respect of the rule of law, then yeah, the judge would be in trouble.
But the judge herself doesn't care about the law.
We got a judge who's looking to subvert the law.
Who's to say the next judge is gonna slap her down?
What are the odds of that?
Well, I don't know.
I'm just saying playing nice guy isn't gonna work here.
You know, and sometimes relying on the system, and they don't rely.
The system gets in their way.
They have to subvert the system.
Election fraud, voter registration fraud, whatever they do.
They are willing.
We don't, we won't go anywhere near that.
Oh, we might have some bad apples here and there that do, but overall, the Tea Party, the conservative movement, whatever.
I mean, we're we're clean and pure as the wind-driven snow.
These guys are just the exact opposite.
So I've always believed and said, because I know it's true, the aggressor in any conflict sets the rules.
And it's just it's gonna be a mistake to sit around and wait for justice in Wisconsin.
How much more justice can there be?
We had a legitimate campaign.
We Had a legal and legitimate election.
We won.
Despite the best efforts of the Democrats to stop the implementation of a legally signed law, it was passed, it was signed, everything the Democrats ran away.
Despite all that, it ended up happening legally, and yet it's been illegally stopped.
And if not illegally, questionably.
Because the judge is an activist and the person who's got a she's got a bias.
She's got she's she's tied to the SEIU.
She's tied to the unions who are negatively impacted by the legislation.
The Michael Walsh piece in the post said, you know, you can sit around and plan on winning elections and doing all this and doing, but if you're not prepared to deal with these guys on their turf, if we aren't, winning elections isn't going to matter.
And when it boils right down to it, isn't that one of the things that just really eats us raw is that elect winning elections doesn't seem to matter.
Even when we win them.
We win a huge election.
A shellacking of the Democrats in November.
And we cut five, six billion dollars for the budget in three days.
And the day that we crow, the day our leadership goes, wow, looky here, look at what we did.
We just cut six billion dollars from the 1.4 trillion dollar budget.
72 billion dollars was spent or borrowed to keep the government going.
And we're crowing about cutting six billion.
I've been doing this for 22 years, and the lament I hear most often is why don't the Republicans X. Especially after we win.
Because the left, this all this stuff, the government and public money is literally their blood.
And they're not going to sit here and bleed to death.
Government is life and death in terms of their survival.
And I'm talking pure backpocket pay the bills money.
Government enables that for them.
That's where they live.
It would be no different if somebody came along, you're just going to try to take away your salary.
You'd fight for it, unless it was your boss firing you.
But that doesn't even stop them.
So coming up with tactics to I I find that tactic tactics to deal with this are plentiful.
There's all kinds of great strategy.
The problem is it doesn't exist in anybody that's elected.
The strategy is all found on talk radio or in the blogs, or punditry.
And not even all of them.
So Obama's on the edge of the Constitution.
How does he get away with it?
We alone are offended by it.
And you expect magic to happen.
Well, that that's that's that'll be taken care of.
That that won't stand.
Yeah, right, won't stand.
It is, isn't it?
Well, for crying out loud, folks, a federal judge has ruled his health care beer uh bill unconstitutional, and it is still being implemented.
I can I really think of no greater illustration than that.
They don't care.
Judge says it's unconstitutional.
Let's attack the judge.
Got to take a break.
Be right back.
Don't go away.
Here's that blog, and it's I don't, it's it's it's it's a newsbuster story about Cindy at Fairly Conservative and Mary at Freedom Eden, who broke a story yesterday.
Uh and Red State, gateway pundit, uh, among others have helped get the story along.
Nothing against any of these people.
Do not misunderstand.
But it's all about this.
Jake Cinderbrand, the son of Judge Mary Ann Sumi, Poses a bit of a problem for his mother.
Sumi is the county judge who on Friday temporarily blocked implementation of the collective bargaining related law, signed in the law by Governor Walker.
Jake Sinderbrand's a former field manager with the AFL CIO, a data manager for the SEIU State Council.
Both organizations have members who are employed in Wisconsin's public sector.
That's already a clear conflict of interest.
It is.
There's more.
Mary Ann Sumi's husband partner, as evidenced here and elsewhere's Carl Sinderbrand, who is chairman of the environmental advocacy group, Clean Wisconsin.
She is, in other words, she is conflicted all over the place.
But it it says here, this poses a bit of a problem for his mother or for her.
I wish it did.
Don't misunderstand me.
Somebody told me she fled the coupe after after the ruling and went on vacation, quote unquote.
Not that it would matter.
Uh it it it may, in a fair world, sane world situation, might cause her a problem, but it obviously isn't a problem.
She didn't care.
She knew full well the conflict would be discovered.
She didn't care.
She still rules.
Here's the thing.
This Jake Cinderbrand, who is her son, very nasty, has posted borderline obscene comments about Governor Walker and what he did in Wisconsin.
He's a he's a bad, bad activist.
But the thing about it is S E I U A F L C I O activist.
But public sector union dues are a matter of life and death for the Democrat Party.
Public sector union dues are a matter of life and death for union members.
They will die on this hill.
And it's all about money.
It's about nothing else.
Not even about ideas.
It's about money.
And they know they got a sweet deal.
They've got their hands in the public till, and they get to take whatever they want out of it, and that's about to stop.
And you think any rule is gonna stop them?
And I guarantee this judge, whether she feels conflicted or not, it didn't stop her.
And it won't stop her.
And who's gonna do anything about it anyway?
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
Now this judge Sumi got the gig because the previous judge recused herself because she did have some ties with unions.
That's how she got the gig.
There's a piece at Forbes.
I want to explore this tomorrow.
The GOP, not the Gippers team any longer.
Yep, that's probably true.
Anyway, we'll do that.
And whatever else happens between now and then.
▲
Export Selection