All Episodes
Previous Next
April 6, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:23
April 6, 2011, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Sorry, I can't help it.
Greetings, all across.
I just see these people out there just getting so irritated over our high-definition sound.
Hit a peanut and hang on just a second.
It's, and I know, sounds wonderful in FM and in streaming audio, of course, at rushlimbaugh.com.
Great to have you back here, folks.
El Rushbaugh and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Our telephone number, if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882, the email address lrushbaugh at eibnet.com.
Grab audio submit number 22.
You know, we've been, oh, and old people.
We've been going back to the archives.
If you're just joining us, we have been going back to the archives of previous programs as far back as 16 years ago to demonstrate the Democrat reaction to the new Republican budget that Paul Ryan presented yesterday.
It's nothing new.
They always claim that people are going to die, old people, kids, whatever.
Republican budgets kill people.
When in fact, if anybody's going to die because of government action in this country, it's going to be because of Obamacare and death panels.
Now, I want to take you back to June 24th, 2009.
ABC had a primetime special, Questions for the President, Prescription for America.
A member of the audience, Jane Sturm, had a question.
She said, my mother is now over 105.
But when she was 100, the doctor said to her, I can't do anything more unless you have a pacemaker.
And I said, go for it.
She said, go for it.
The doctor said, no, she's too old.
But when the other specialist saw her, saw her joy of life, so forth, he said, I'm going to go for it.
I'm going to put the pacemaker in.
That was over five years ago, outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody who's elderly.
Is there any?
Now, keep in mind here what we've got here.
We have an American citizen asking the President of the United States, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, a quality of life?
Or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?
She is asking Obama, essentially, whether or not under his plan, her mother would be allowed to live, would be allowed to get a pacemaker, because the government is going to have the power to decide whether or not her mother got one.
Here's what Obama said.
I don't think that we can make judgments based on people's spirit.
That'd be a pretty subjective decision to be making.
I think we have to have rules that say that we are going to provide good quality care for all people.
End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're going to have to make.
But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another.
If they're not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they're being made by private insurers.
At least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what, maybe this isn't going to help.
Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.
There's Obama telling the woman, basically your mother, no, her spirit, willing to live.
No, we can't factor that in.
Give her a pain pill.
Her mother dies because of Obama and his health care plan.
If anybody dies because of government action in this country, it will not be because of Republican budgets.
It will be because of Barack Obamacare, the health care law that is now the unconstitutional health law of the land.
Let's turn to Wisconsin where there is a Supreme Court election.
Well, it took place yesterday.
They're counting the votes now.
We've got a third.
We're going to have Florida all over the Florida recount.
It's shaping up.
This is going to be Beirut for the lawyers.
I mean, it's just get ready for this.
The Chief Justice of the Wisconsin State Supreme Court is Shirley Abrahamson or Abramson.
She is a sworn enemy of the incumbent Republican Prosser.
The opponent, the Democrat opponent of Prosser is Ms. Kloppenberg.
Ms. Kloppenberg was an intern for the Chief Justice, Shirley Abramson.
She would get to decide, the Chief Justice would get to decide who would hear the case on the recount.
Now, this is a classic conflict of interest.
This should result in a recusal by the Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, but it probably won't because that would require honor.
And that would the Supreme Court balance is 4-3 Republican in Wisconsin.
If she would recuse herself, that would upset the balance.
They're not going to do that.
They don't.
The reason this is all happening anyway is because they don't like the election results of last November.
What happens?
The losing candidate in Wisconsin has to file a petition in the circuit court, which in Wisconsin is a trial court.
That petition has to be filed within five days of the completion of a recount.
And because it's a statewide election, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court selects which judicial district shall hear the case.
The circuit court judge hears the case without a jury.
And the losing party at this level can then appeal to Wisconsin's fourth district court of appeals within 30 days.
Now, what's the latest on the count?
This has been, it's all day long.
It's been reported that Prosser was up by 500 and 400, 600, 300, some odd.
The last missing precinct, the latest information I have, the last missing precinct to be counted in Wisconsin is Jefferson County.
If voting patterns in Jefferson County hold for their final precinct, last precinct should give Prosser a 100 to 120 vote margin.
Now, Kloppenberg, the Democrat, right now is up by 235 with one precinct left to go.
So if Prosser can get this 100 to 120 vote margin, which is expected because of voting patterns there, would take Kloppenberg down to 115 votes, maybe 135 from 235.
That would mean the Republican Prosser would be on the losing side.
Now, the problem here is that in Wisconsin, any of these things, 75% of the case is leading it when it's over.
And it would have been really helpful if Prosser here was leading when this whole thing ended.
Not quite sure, who knows when this final tally from Jefferson County comes in.
But Klappenberg, Democrat, now up by 235.
And if the 100 to 120 vote margin in Jefferson County, Wisconsin comes through as expected, that would take the margin down to 115, maybe 135.
That would be worth fighting.
That would be worth filing for a recount.
You know the Democrats would.
The media would lead the charge.
So it's a and by the way, Prosser gained votes early this morning in counts in places that they wasn't supposed to, again, based on existing patterns.
So the news is not all that bad.
But again, the Chief Justice is a sworn enemy of Prosser.
His opponent, Kloppenberg, was her intern.
You've got a classic conflict of interest recusal here, but we wouldn't expect that to happen.
So that's the latest we have on this.
We will keep a sharp eye on this, of course, but it's going to end up, I fear, being Florida 2000 all over again.
Beirut for the lawyers, if you will.
Also, speaking of Beirut for the lawyers, the NFL case was heard today.
The players and the owners went to federal court in Minneapolis, actually in St. Paul, where Judge Nelson heard the complaints.
Basically, this is about whether or not the lockout of the NFL players is legal.
Because the union decertified, they're now a trade association.
And their claim is that the trade association is a bunch of individuals, not a single performing union or unit.
And therefore, that the league, which is now 32 separate businesses, cannot lock them out.
So there's an injunction right now.
So the judge is going to hear this case.
A lot of people were hoping for a ruling today that probably won't happen.
But it's wide open speculation as to what the ruling will be.
Whatever it is, it's going to be appealed as well.
But if the expected ruling is that the lockout will be lifted, that the judge will find that the lockout must be lifted, cannot remain.
Well, nobody knows what would happen if what rules go into effect after that.
Well, you would assume that the rules from last season on free agent signing and trades and is the normal, the doors to the practice facilities would open up.
Players can go back in.
Practice the OTAs would begin.
These light practices.
So it's not really clear what would happen because there's not a set of rules going forward.
The current agreement ended back in March.
So let's see, where else are we?
Okay, results at this moment.
Supreme Court reporting 99% Joanne Kloppenberg.
Let's see, they're both at 50%, but the numbers, let me look at this real carefully, 79, 73, 48, 54, 500.
It's basically a 200-point swing here in favor of the Democrat.
200-vote difference.
Worth fighting for, but that's still that one precinct to go, Jefferson County, which is going to narrow it.
We'll see.
Meantime, obscene profit timeout time will be back and continue right after this.
An interesting little factoid here about the Wisconsin Supreme Court election.
It's funny how Justice Prosser won the nonpartisan primary election recently.
It was 58 to 28% over his Democrat challenger, Joanne Klappenberg.
Won the nonpartisan primary 58 to 28% two months ago.
And then the unions pumped about $3.5 million of involuntary union dues into Wisconsin since then.
Where's the media outrage at all of the outside influence?
This is the classic illustration of my claim that all this ends up being is a money laundering operation that ends up being money in political coffers for Democrats.
So two months ago, the nonpartisan primary election, Prosser cleans up against Klappenberg in nonpartisan, meaning no party affiliation was a factor, 58, 28%.
And they come in after the primary, they have the final election.
Unions go and throw $3.5 million.
Where'd they get it?
That $3.5 million is Wisconsin taxpayer money.
That $3.5 million derives from the taxes collected by Wisconsinites, plus the union dues, which is also from Wisconsin taxpayers, because the Wisconsin public unions are paid 100% via the taxes of Wisconsin citizens.
That money ends up as taxation to the state of Wisconsin.
The state of Wisconsin then hires public employees, pays them with taxpayer revenue.
Of that taxpayer revenue, a percentage of it ends up as union dues, which are involuntarily donated, and they end up in Democrat Party campaign coffers.
And that's how in two months, three and a half million, and they say it's $3.5 million spent with a union, which technically truth, $3.5 million the union only has because of taxes levied against Wisconsin citizens.
That's whose money it is.
Pure and simple.
Back to the phones of Coco, Florida.
And Dawn, great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
I am so excited to get to talk to you.
This has been a dream to get to talk to you.
Literally, actually.
My sister and I have both dreamt of dating you at different times in our lives.
Wow.
That's what it's like to be me, folks.
It just is.
Anyway, I had an idea in the meantime from your last caller.
It reminded me of the Monty Python scene where they go through and they call out, bring out your dead, and ring that bell.
And I don't know if you remember that scene, but that might be one way to solve the.
Yeah, I vaguely, I was never a big Monty Python guy, but I vaguely remember that.
Okay, yeah, it would also create jobs, I thought.
So if we could get something like that going, we could solve that problem.
But my main issue was I agreed with your point on, well, I understand what the point you were making with slavery and the people on welfare being enslaved.
But I think it would be more accurate to say that the taxpayers are the ones who are enslaved because slaves produce something, whereas the people who are on the doll are really not expected to do anything at all.
Well, look, you're slicing and dicing this in a fine-point way, and I understand what you're saying, and I don't disagree with it.
What we're really talking about here is indentured servitude.
And the point that I was making that she's responding to is that whenever the reason Democrats get hysterical when a budget cut is proposed is because it will lower, it will reduce the size of government.
It will increase economic and personal liberty.
And the Democrat Party survives.
It exists on the dependency of people that it creates as dependents, people's needs.
Let me stop.
No, we're not talking desires or wants.
When your needs, and I mean it in the strictest sense of the word, when your needs are provided by somebody else, you are essentially indentured to whoever it is that's providing your needs, whether you're working or not.
And this is what the Democrat Party does.
And the smaller government is, the less there is the opportunity for the creation of indentured servitude.
I use the word slave to tweak the media.
But essentially, it works.
And whether we're talking about minorities, minorities is clearly accurate, but you don't have to be a minority to be an indentured servant of the Democrat Party.
You don't have to be.
But my point is that that's what you are.
That's the kind of voter they seek.
That's why they're so concerned about illegal immigration, for example.
Simple way to put this, the Democrats are completely dependent on making people dependent on them.
That's a simple way to put it.
Democrats are completely dependent on making people dependent on them.
Now, the real scandal, the dirty little secret here about this shutdown is, in fact, somebody just sent me a picture.
At the front door, and I'm sure there are many doors to the Smithsonian.
Big sign.
Sorry.
They're only showing the sign.
Sorry, because of the government shutdown, we are not permitted to open today.
The real scandal about the shutdown is that nobody.
Oh, so that picture's from 1995.
That Smithsonian picture in 1995.
I'm sure they still got the sign, though.
Ready to hang in the front door.
Now, the real scandal about this is that nobody's going to be shut down, or very few are going to be shut down.
There were, let's see, the number 2,748,000 plus civilian federal employees in the U.S. as of January 2009.
It's surely much higher after another year of Obama.
But Reuters is reporting that should the government be shut down, 800,000 employees will be idled.
Only 800,000 out of almost 3 million.
And you know where they'll be?
At the Washington Monument or at the Cherry Blossom Parade or other such place, easily found by the media.
That will be the criteria.
We'll be.
Where can the media easily find evidence of the shutdown?
Where can we find children crying over not being able to get in to see the Lincoln Memorial?
Where can we find angry parents who have pictures of John Boehner with horns drawn on his head provided by the media?
Does anybody notice when the government shuts down for the 10 federal holidays we have every year?
Do they notice when they shut down their snow days?
In point of fact, there were government shutdowns every year that Jimmy Carter was president.
They averaged 11 days each.
There were six shutdowns during President Reagan's two terms.
Anybody notice?
Media didn't even bother to report on them.
But this shutdown, this, like the one in 95, will be because of the Republicans.
And so that's why this one will be noticed and why all of the pain and the suffering and the tears will be noted because they will say that this one is the fault of the Republicans.
Kerry, North Carolina, this is Sarah.
And you're up next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi.
I'm having a little bit of problems with my phone right now.
It keeps cutting in and out.
So can you hear me?
Yeah, plain as day.
First off, my husband and I, we both listen to your show every morning.
Thank you.
I'm calling confused, and I'm glad that I'm able to listen to your station while I was waiting.
With this whole thing with the shutdown, my husband got the news.
He's a staff sergeant in the National Guard, and he's active guard, so he's not just a weekend worrier.
That's his job.
Right.
He gets a meeting this morning saying that if they don't sign off on this budget thing, that he's going to be going to work, but he's not going to be getting paid.
So I'm confused.
I don't know if I should be angry.
And after, like I said, listening to you, now I'm like, maybe it won't happen.
Maybe it won't affect him.
So now I'm just confused.
Well, I think active duty military will be paid for a week.
Okay.
Active duty military will be paid for a week.
And there are bills pending in both the House and Senate to secure military pay even during a shutdown.
Now, those bills have not, at least as of this morning when I'm prepping the program, those bills had not been brought to the floor of either the House or the Senate.
But he's going to get paid.
I guarantee you, if he doesn't get paid at the time the backpay will happen, they always have been paid.
Just, you know, not for nothing, like just thinking of like, you know, he's been to Iraq twice.
You know, it's like, it just seems like, you know, one of those questions, like, why would that even be a possibility that he wouldn't get paid?
You know, I was thinking, that's outlandish.
Why would that even be a question of him getting paid?
You know, I would just figure that it would just happen.
Well, you'd have to figure if they're going, they will continue to send out Social Security checks, for example.
Yeah.
No, no, no.
The post office in its glory will remain open.
And your husband will get paid.
Okay.
Well, like I said, you know, I'm glad that I was able to listen to some of it.
If it were Thanksgiving or Christmas and you're going to miss the turkey, you would get the turkey later.
Yeah.
No, no, it sounds funny, but that's what happened in 1995.
Yeah.
All right.
Well.
He is going to get paid.
But I want you to be prepared for something.
Somewhere out there, there are Democrats listening to your call going, yeah, yeah, this is what we want.
This is the kind of stuff we want military wives upset at the Republicans that their husbands aren't going to get paid in the National Guard.
Well, I mean, you know, my husband and I, we both are Republicans.
Oh, I know that.
And not for nothing.
Like, you know, that was the first thing I thought of when he was telling me about it.
I'm like, why, when we're just starting to get the majority, would Republicans do something like this?
You know, like, I mean, that's just outlandish.
You know, like, it just.
The Republicans aren't doing it.
Well, you know, after listening to you, now I'm starting to get a little bit, you know.
I'm reading online, though, and I'm like trying to look at news channels, and I can't find anything.
And this is the first time I've ever called a radio station before because I just want to know what's going on.
Well, what specifically have you been trying to find out?
Whether or not your husband will get paid?
Whether or not he's getting paid.
Why exactly that would even be a possibility that he wouldn't get paid?
I mean, I just confused.
But, you know, I'm getting a little bit more clarity after listening to you.
Well, you know, the Democrats are players here, and the Democrats have a little say-so here, too.
Democrats haven't even done a budget.
What they're doing, and Democrats are holding back on defense precisely to create pressure, such as action from people like you.
Yeah.
You know, there are teachers and librarians of the federal government that are going to get paid, but they're going to have to refuse to pass the budget, or Obama has to veto it, one of the two.
So whoever is to blame here is a Democrat.
The Republicans are the only ones taking seriously the responsibility for a budget whereby the money to pay your husband would come.
The Democrats are punting.
The Democrats are doing that.
The Democrats are trying to thwart all this for a political game.
You can listen to them.
Old people are going to die in the streets.
Republicans are going to kill old people.
Republicans don't care about the military.
It's all a crock.
Yeah.
Well, one thing that I didn't realize was, you know, government shutdowns that's happened before.
Oh, geez.
How old are you?
That sounds completely ignorant.
How old are you?
I do try to follow the news and stuff like that.
But I think that's exactly what you're saying.
They're trying to target certain areas.
They're trying to create hysteria.
And, well, it kind of worked today.
Let me an hour and a half waiting to talk about.
She can't hear me, folks.
There's a state-of-the-art phone system.
How old are you?
I'm 31.
You're 31.
Okay.
So that's how Jackie Kennedy was when she was first lady?
Oh, wow.
Pretty close to that.
Wow.
Yeah.
Imagine yourself being first lady.
Having to redo the White House, check all the rooms to see what your husband's doing in the White House.
I'd go with Paisley.
Paisley, definitely.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to make a joke like that.
Now, I want to point something else out to you, Sarah.
The bills that are pending in both the House and Senate to see to it that the military get paid during the shutdown are Republican bills.
They have not been offered by Democrats in the House, the Senate, in the Senate.
The Democrats are the ones holding the bill to keep it from coming to a vote.
Okay.
The Republicans are not the ones responsible if your husband doesn't get paid immediately here.
Not for nothing.
I don't care who's responsible.
You've got to start caring.
I'm glad it's not.
I'm glad it's not.
But at the same time, it's like, I don't understand why we're not going to be able to do it.
I know.
I understand that, but you've got to start caring.
This stuff does matter.
What is your husband?
This is none of my business.
I'm sorry, what was that?
Well, I don't feel comfortable.
I was going to ask what kind of money we're talking about here in Ontario.
No, no, no, no, that's irrelevant.
But that's.
Well, no, it's not irrelevant.
It's not my business, but it's not irrelevant.
It's important to you guys.
Very sorry, but my phone is cutting up again.
I can't hear you now.
I don't know if you can still hear me, but I do want to say thank you.
I'm going to try to go online and listen to your show more.
If you do that, I don't know if you heard that or not, but you'll never have another question.
If you do that, you'll never have another question.
I'm glad you called, Sarah.
Don't give up here.
Don't give up.
Okay, Sarah.
Sarah was calling.
She's got the husband.
The last caller has the husband in the National Guard.
She's calling me.
I'm flattered.
But, Sarah, if you could, the people you should be calling are President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid.
They didn't pass a budget.
Now, let me go through this very simple.
The only reason there is going to be a shutdown if there is, and I still don't believe there's going to be a shutdown, but if there is a shutdown, it will be because Democrat senators will have refused to pass the budget, or because Obama vetoes the budget.
Whoever is to blame here is a Democrat.
The Republicans have presented a budget.
Last fall, the Democrats and the president did not present a budget, which is required constitutionally.
The Democrats did not present a budget because they didn't want their plans to be seen during an election year.
Because Democrat budget plans are not what the American people want.
They do not want continued unfunded spending, deficit spending, debt upon debt piled up.
So the Democrats punted.
The Democrats voted present.
The Democrats chickened out.
That's why we're even doing continuing resolutions every week, pass another stopgap bill that keeps the government running for a week or two.
All because the Democrats didn't do a budget.
So the Republicans have presented a budget.
The Democrats and Obama are trying to stop the budget.
They are the ones causing the shutdown.
It's really that simple.
It's just as Bill Clinton vetoed the 1995 budget, Bill Clinton caused the 1995 budget shutdown.
It was Clinton's veto that shut down the government.
The Democrats are trying to use the military just like they used teachers and nurses and librarians and doctors and so forth, the cops at the local level.
Oh, cut the budget.
Okay, we'll have to let the cops go.
And we'll have to let the firemen off.
No, no, no.
This is the trick.
And now the federal level Democrats use the military, the National Guard, in their budget negotiations.
When are the Democrats ever cared about whether the military gets paid or not?
So, Sarah, your complaint would best be answered by President Obama or Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi.
They didn't pass a budget.
That's how we got here.
The reason we are here.
Listen to me.
Look at me.
Don't doubt me.
The reason we are talking about all of this gobbledygook in the first place is because the Democrats did not pass a budget.
But there are other reasons.
Obama's stimulus bill failed.
Jobs were not created.
Tax revenue has dried up.
They did not cut spending.
The budget is not balanced.
The only group of people in this country who are in Fat City right now happen to be public sector unions, federal and state.
They are the chosen people.
If the Democrats had passed a budget, if they had presented a budget, if Obama had had an economic plan to create jobs, we wouldn't be here.
None of this would be on the table.
We wouldn't be talking any of this.
The only reason we are here is because of the irresponsibility of the Democrat Party.
I know what you're saying.
Some of you say, Rush, I know you're right, but you're just driving people away.
You can't just keep blaming everything generically on the Democrat Party.
Sorry, if a shoe fits, then wear it.
We are exactly where we are because of the Democrat Party.
And they want the shutdown.
That's the next item.
Sarah, still out there?
They want the shutdown.
They are happy to hear you call this program and complain because they think that you're going to end up blaming the Republicans.
That's what happened in 1994.
They are convinced it's going to happen again.
That's what Obama wants.
That impromptu press conference he had yesterday, what ineptitude.
That alone is evidence that they want the shutdown.
And today he leaves.
Supposedly, everybody were getting down to the wire.
Negotiations are continuing at a breathtaking pace.
And what does he do?
He flies off to break bread with Al Sharpton, the National Action Network in New York.
You notice how much this outcry from the Democrats about Paul Ryan's budget plan came out yesterday.
The CBO has even published an attack on it.
I've got the, yeah, here's CBO, big health cost shift to elderly in GOP plan.
The CBO has published an attack on Paul Ryan's budget.
Ryan's budget is 73 very densely written pages long.
At 2 o'clock yesterday afternoon, he presents it.
So how could any of these people have had the time to read it and do the in-depth analysis that they are supposedly known for at the Congressional Budget Office?
CBO published their analysis less than four hours after Ryan presented his budget, and they rip it to shreds, particularly on the notion that the elderly are hardest hit and could die.
If anybody thinks the CBO is a bunch of nonpartisan people, you've got another thing coming.
And we'll be back after this.
Sarah, I'm still thinking about your call.
She says she doesn't care.
Sarah, the Democrat Party sought the defeat of the U.S. military at Iraq.
Harry Reid, this war is lost.
This war is lost.
They were out there doing everything they could.
They believed made-up stories in Time magazine about the Marines being mass rapists in Haditha.
The U.S. military was constantly ripped and impugned by the Democrat Party in this country.
They don't care whether you get paid or not.
They care about whether or not you'll blame the Republicans.
▲
Export Selection