All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 27, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:55
October 27, 2011, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know, you'd think you'd think that Michelle Obama would send some of her organic vegetables to the White House garden to her supporters, husband supporters at Occupy Wall Street.
You think Michelle Obama took home.
You think she's she thinks she's old enough to have uh taken Homek.
Well, that could explain a lot.
Hi, folks, how are you?
Rush Limboss serving humanity.
How by being here?
It's a sheer and a delight.
Sheer delight to be with you, thrill and delight here at the Excellence and Broadcasting Network.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, and the email address L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
Hillary Clinton, very, very smart woman, they tell us.
America's top diplomat.
She laughed about killing Qaddafi.
By the way, do you see that Gaddafi's relatives are going to sue NATO?
You didn't see that?
Qaddafi's relatives are going to sue NATO for killing him.
And I thought I thought Barry did it.
I I uh all this time.
Yeah, here Moamar Gaddafi's family reportedly will sue NATO for the role they believe the International Military Alliance played in the death of Moamar Gaddafi, said a lawyer for the family to the French news agency.
Marcel Cesoli, French lawyer who previously worked for Qaddafi's regime, now represents his family, told the French news agency yesterday that the complaint would be filed with the International Criminal Court in The Hague because the family believes that a NATO strike on Qaddafi's convoy led directly to his death.
So Hillary laughed.
Did you hear about this?
Hillary laughed about killing Qaddafi.
She said, We came, we saw, he died.
We came, we saw he died.
Imagine if Bush said that.
She also talked about what a great ally Mubarak was less than two weeks before Obama called for him to step down.
Very interesting.
Let's hope that Hillary isn't put on trial in Libya or before the world court for her role in killing Qaddafi.
Because she's out there laughing about it.
Yeah, what did she say about Sharia Law?
I didn't hear what what do you say it's okay?
So Hillary says that in certain circumstances in, say, Libya, if they want to do Sharia law, fine with her.
Pretty much.
Really?
Hillary's saying that.
Sharia law?
Fine with I haven't seen that.
I'm gonna have to look.
That's that's new to me.
I will um I'll find that out.
Anyway, folks, I hate to mention this to you.
But it's in the Washington Times.
It is, I believe, an editorial.
The headline of the story, bottom line issues, stall Republican efforts to pull back Obamacare.
Republicans scored historic gains in last year's elections in part on their pledge to scrap Obamacare, but their passion for repeal has dimmed in the face of a split Congress and the difficulties of untangling the complex legislation.
This is a story about Republicans in Congress.
Not you, not the voters.
Dozens of House passed repeal bills and amendments have stalled in the Senate, as Republican leaders have shied away from using them as bargaining chips in the broader spending debates that have dominated Washington this year.
Eighteen months after Obama signed the legislation, the only change to reach his desk has been a relatively minor repeal of the 1099 tax reporting requirement that drew near universal condemnation from businesses.
By the time we got to the debt ceiling debate, You could tell the leadership, the Republican Study Committee, the organizations that pushed the priority agenda through our conference had turned over to the money side of this equation rather than the principled side of Obamacare, said Representative Steve King, an Iowa Republican who sponsored some of the repeal efforts.
Part of the problem is the bottom line.
The Affordable Care Act, as Obamacare is known, intricately wove incentives, such as expanded coverage for young adults in pre-existing conditions, together with more contentious provisions like Medicare payment cuts and the individual mandate that requires all Americans to find coverage.
Undoing the tax increases would require finding revenue elsewhere.
A tough sell in the fiscal debate, and unraveling one unpopular part of Obamacare could mean the ends of popular programs as well.
You see how this is being set up.
I was afraid of this.
The Republicans are basically saying that, well, you know, there's some people like keeping the kids on the parents' planned age 26.
Some people like that.
We might have to support.
And and people like the pre-existing condition stuff.
We're not sure we want to repeal the whole thing.
I was afraid of this.
The passion for repealing Obamacare has not vanished in the voters.
The passion for getting rid of Obamacare has not dimmed among us.
But the Washington Times has a story the passion is sort of dimmed among the uh elected Republicans in Washington.
This uh this never ceases to frustrate me.
This undoing the tax increases would require finding revenue else.
Why?
Why can't we just repeal this thing and go back to where we were before it?
What in the world do we go have to if we're going to repeal it, the tax increases don't exist, so they don't have to be replaced.
What is this nonsense about replacing the revenue that would supposedly be lost?
Repealing tax increases in Obamacare.
What the hell is that?
That's Democrat talk.
What in the world are we thinking like that for?
This really isn't complicated.
It's a problem.
They make too many things up there complicated, or they purposely want them to seem complicated.
We have a piece of legislation.
Now I know parts of it have been implemented, but not nearly all.
We want to repeal it.
Repeal it.
Send a repeal up there every month, is what my suggestion.
Well, you make them defend this every day.
They haven't done that.
Make them make, you know, set the campaign agenda.
Make Obama defend this thing.
Make the Democrats defend health care every month.
Send a repeal bill up there.
Why do they get to set the campaign agenda?
Which is Republicans want dirty water and dirty air and they want people to die and they support physical malfeasance on Wall Street, all this crap.
And now somebody's telling the Republicans if you cancel the tax increases in Obamacare, you're going to have to find ways to replace that lost revenue.
What lost revenue?
I don't think they've given up, said this is Sander Levin, a Michigan Democrat.
I don't think they've given up, but I think they see that more and more people are benefiting from Obamacare, and therefore I think they're trying to now talk about jobs without any real effort other than talking about it.
Now, repeal was a major part of the Republican campaign last year and is featured prominently in the Pledge to America, the document that the House Republicans issued in the run-up to the elections as their uh governing blueprint.
House Republicans consider this pledge to have been kept.
They point to the passage of HR II, a repeal bill that passed the House on January January 19th.
So I guess what the Washington Times is telling us here is that the Republicans say they've kept their promise.
They offered the repeal bill.
Of course, it's true they don't have the votes to repeal it, and they certainly don't have the votes to override an Obama veto of the repeal.
But it appears, if this story is right, that they think they've done as much as they can, and they're now off to other things, and it's uh intricately woven piece of legislation.
Some of it's already been implemented.
There are things that a lot of people like Mr. Limbaugh are keeping the kids on the policy to 26 and uh pre-existing conditions.
There's some things we can't pull out of there.
I don't know what we want to pull out of there.
And then there's this paragraph.
Republicans are also losing steam when it comes to public opinion.
A Bloomberg poll in September indicated that 34% of the country supports repealing the health care law down from 41% six months earlier.
This is not the Washington Post.
This is not the New York Times.
This is the Washington Times.
A conservative publication.
Now, let me move on to Ohio.
On November 8th, there is an election.
And there are many issues on the ballot, the election Tuesday, November 8th in Ohio.
This is the thing that the Romney was in town for with Kasich.
Romney took a lot of heat.
Kasich is trying to do with the unions in Ohio what the governor of Wisconsin did there.
And Romney was there and would not endorse plain spoken reforms for unions.
The same kinds of reforms that Republicans in mass supported in Wisconsin.
Romney took a lot of heat for it, and the next day, oh, wait a minute.
Well, of course I support Governor Casey, and of course I support the repeal of support absolutely.
I am 100% behind Governor Casey, and we gotta we gotta really take it to the union.
So Daniel Henniger in the Wall Street Journal made a point.
Romney's going to have to be pushed and nudged to the right, and this is an example.
But there is another issue beside the union reforms on the ballot in Ohio.
It is issue three.
On the Ohio ballot, November the 8th is about exempting Ohio from the Obamacare mandates.
Now this might explain why Romney was touch and go when he was in Ohio visiting with Kasich because Romney care had mandates.
This might be why Romney didn't want to get into the specific issues on this ballot.
Because he is defending Romney care.
And Romney care, the administration is saying was the foundation for Obamacare.
And so issue three.
An Ohio health care amendment will appear on the November 8th ballot in the state of Ohio as an initiated constitutional amendment.
The measure calls for exempting residents of Ohio from a national health care mandate, which would stop any state law from forcing persons, employers, or health care providers from participating in a health care system.
I've got the full text of the proposal here.
It's a lot of legal ease.
I'm not going to go through it.
Let me tell you what the importance here is.
The regime has asked for an expedited review of Obamacare at the Supreme Court.
Remember, they they they lost a key element of it at the 11th Circuit, and they went to the Supreme Court and they won an expedited review.
Now, right now, the conventional wisdom is the Supreme Court's divided 4-4 on the issue with Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote.
It is also assumed by many experts and followers that Supreme Court justices follow election results and that they do follow public opinion.
And one of the things that people who want Obamacare repeal are really afraid of if issue three fails in Ohio.
In other words, if the people of Ohio go to the polls on November 8th and do not vote to exempt themselves from the mandate of Obamacare.
That this might be the last election in the country about this issue where the people would speak at the ballot box and the members of the Supreme Court follow this would see it.
If Ohio, if Ohioans don't care about the mandate, people are afraid it could influence how justices of the court think.
And so it is very important in Ohio on Tuesday that issue three go the right way.
And again, issue three is a constitutional amendment that would exempt residents of Ohio from national health care mandates, which would stop any state law from forcing persons, employers, or health care providers from participating in a health care system.
If that goes down to defeat, you watch the regime and the Democrats are going to look at that election and they're going to say that this is the American people speaking, Ohio being a very important swing state, and they're going to say, see, there is no desire to repeal Obamacare.
Nobody really wants to do that.
That was just a flash in the pan coming thing.
People want Obamacare.
People want lower premiums.
People want expanded coverage.
People want the miracles and the wonders of Obamacare.
Look at Obama or Ohio had a chance to totally blow it wide open, and Ohioans said they want Obamacare.
That's what's at stake with issue three.
In addition to the union stuff that's on the ballot.
We'll be talking more about it as the date approaches.
Quick timeout now.
We'll be back and continue here in just a second.
You know what's silly about all this?
In fact, this Washington Times story...
That uh that that says the Republicans say, well, you know, if we uh if we repeal, if we repeal the tax increases in Obamacare, we've got to find a way to replace the revenue.
I I tell you, folks, sometimes it's more than even I, El Rushko, Rushboat can take.
There's not a penny's worth of savings in Obamacare.
It is not a revenue saver.
Repealing Obamacare would say I don't I can't calculate the trillions we would save.
Repealing Obamacare would be the single fastest best thing we could do to trigger economic growth.
Right now, if we repeal that, other policies would follow from that, of course.
But repealing it successfully would have the greatest immediate impact on economic growth in the private sector, anything we could do.
And the idea that there's any cost saving associated with Obamacare is absurd.
Sorry.
Nothing is within easy arm's reach.
This is from Harvard.
It's a new study from Harvard that finds that Medicaid enrollment under Obamacare may be far higher than the official projections.
No, don't tell me now.
As a result, the amount of federal spending on Medicaid through Obamacare could be twice as much as they told us.
When they try to tell us.
It would save money.
The Congressional Budget Office's official cost estimate.
For last year's health care overhaul.
Projected the law would cost a little less than $950 billion over its first decade.
Remember that BS?
About half of that cost came from the law's Medicaid expansion.
Which was projected to enroll 16 million new individuals.
In the joint federal state health care program for the poor and the disabled.
But researchers at Harvard are now warning that policymakers should be prepared for substantial uncertainty about the true enrollment effects of the Medicaid expansion.
In a paper published in the journal Health Affairs earlier this week, a team of health economists estimated that under the law, new Medicaid enrollment could be as low as eight and a half million people, but as high as twenty two point four million people with additional costs to match.
And so what we're looking at here, a new study from Harvard that finds Medicaid enrollment under Obamacare, which was a technique for saving money, may be far higher than the official projections.
Medicaid enrollment, meaning more people signing up than we were told would sign up.
Really?
No.
And we only learn this now.
So the amount of federal spending on Medicaid through Obamacare could be twice as much as they told us.
They forecast this $950 billion in new spit had to keep it under a trillion for the CBO.
Based on this study, just the Medicaid expansion provision of the law could cost more than that.
There's no cost saving implementing this.
Repealing it is how you save money.
You know, they're doing thermal imaging at night of the Occupy protesters in various places.
London, Oakland.
Thermal imaging will show who's inside a tent and who's not at night.
Ninety percent of the tents occupy protest tents in London are empty at night.
They're going back home to their comfortable homes and coming back and joining the protest during the day.
And this is from the New York Post.
The Occupy Wall Street volunteer kitchen staff launched a counter-revolution yesterday because they're mad about working 18-hour days to provide food for professional homeless people and ex-cons who are masquerading as protesters.
Which would say most would meet that would be most of the protesters right?
Aren't you cooks being a little selfish here?
After all, you have food and the homeless people don't have food.
Where's the social justice in that?
Of course, if you've got food in your kitchen and people who don't have food and they show up and want food, aren't you obligated to share your food with them?
For three days beginning tomorrow, the cooks say that they're only going to serve brown rice and other Spartan food instead of the usual menu of organic chicken and vegetables, spaghetti bolognese, and roasted beet and sheep's milk cheese salad.
If these people want gourmet meals so bad, why don't they go to Club Gitmo?
They're also going to provide directions to local soup kitchens for the vagrants and the criminals and the other freeloaders who've been descending on Zicati Park in increasing numbers every day.
Ah, folks, I love it.
So these protesters who are demanding income redistribution and the end to income and wealth inequality are attracting criminals, the homeless, a veritable endless parade of human debris who want food.
And the cooks are saying to hell with you.
So here we have the Occupy Wall Street cooks, now part of the one percent.
They're the halves.
They're part of the 1% who won't feed the homeless.
They won't share the organic wealth.
And then there's this.
Where is it?
What did I do with it?
The cops, somebody suing uh what I guess printed it out.
Uh the cops somewhere are suing the protesters.
A cops union is suing the protesters somewhere in uh I guess New York.
I think it's New York.
Anyway, liberal on liberal lawsuits.
We got somebody suing Ariana Huffington for stealing their idea.
New York Times or somebody.
Ariana Huffing and Puffington's being sued, claiming that the idea of her website was stolen from some other people.
And now a cops union is suing protesters at Occupy Wall Street.
We find out the Occupy protesters are not staying in the tents at night.
The homeless and a criminal element showing up for free spaghetti bolognese.
And the cooks say, to hell with you.
Here's some brown rice.
Isn't irony ironic?
Like...
And by the way, the story goes on to say the protesters organized a 10 member security force to confront the homeless people to chase them out.
From Occupy Wall Street.
It's a vigilante.
They're setting up their own police force.
Now who are more sacred to the left than the homeless?
The homeless, they're among the most approved disadvantaged groups in the uh in the country.
The leftists are the first to scream bloody murder when the homeless are roused by the cops.
But when it comes to sharing their food with them, forget about it.
I don't know if the homeless are minorities or not.
You see, Snerdley, this is an excellent question.
I I wasn't even curious about that.
You see, my mind doesn't even go there.
You're in there wondering if the homeless are basically minority.
Let's cut to the chase.
You're you're asking me if the homeless are black.
Okay.
Okay.
That's an interesting perspective.
So Snerdley's sitting here saying if young effete, lazy white hippies are kicking black homeless people out of their enclave.
He wants to know about it.
Sternly wants pictures.
Because all this is happening.
This is these is all Obama's people.
Make no mistake.
Obama even did an occupy protest in Chicago.
When was it?
19 uh oh, I forget the date.
But Obama led one of these just like this when he was a community organizer.
When he was uh I it might have been after he was uh in the in the State Senate Illinois, maybe before that.
But this is right out of the David Axlerod AstroTurf handbook.
But they didn't expect.
You see, folks, it's kind of like if you're homeless, would you rather eat scraps from a dumpster, or if there are a bunch of people cooking spaghetti bolognese down the street, where are you gonna go?
It's kind of like your dog.
Once you let your dog taste human food scraps, why is your dog gonna eat the garbage you put in his bowl ever again?
We'll look into it, Snerdley, we'll find the racial makeup for you.
It's who the homeless are who are being so viciously treated, so unceremoniously disrespected.
When they show up and they just want to be shared with David in Memphis.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Nice to have you with us.
Pleasure to talk to you, Rushman trying to get through for years.
Mega homeless uh food for organic food.
Uh I've um I've got a point about these uh Wall Street protesters.
The their favorite term to use against the Tea Party is terrorists.
Well, two can play at that game.
They were afraid when the Tea Party came along, Christian militias and clan rallies were right around the corner, right?
Yeah.
Well it's I know a little bit about terrorism rush.
Ever since 9-11, I've made it sort of a hobby to study it.
Yeah.
When terrorism isn't fueled by Islam, it's usually fueled by left-wing student protest movements.
If you if you look at the history, the Bayer Meinhof gang in Germany, the Red Brigades in Italy, the Weather Underground here in America.
Bader Meinhof.
Mm-hmm.
Yeah, when you when it's not issues, it's all a bunch of spoiled snot-nosed leftist rich kids.
Don't worry about the violence the Tea Party will perpetuate, yet these kids are clashing with the cops on camera, and nobody's marching experts in front of the media to fret about the violence these kids could do could perpetuate.
Right.
Well, in this instance, though, in this instance, the media wants a little violence.
Well, obviously, yes.
They want it.
Uh and and and they want it because they want to be able to say that the violence is anger erupting at Republicans opposing Obama's jobs bill, uh, the Republicans Try to repeal Obama's health care.
That's what this is that that again, the optic that they're trying to create, the image they're trying to perpetuate here.
The problem is that you always fail to anticipate just how dangerous some of these people could actually be.
Well, in what way?
Well, you look at the bottom line Hofgang, for instance.
The people who found it, one of them was a left-wing journalist who uh thought Germany was a West Germany was a capitalist imperialist system.
Oh, oh, okay.
I see what you mean.
Yeah.
She joined she joined with uh Oh, right now this is a ragtag bunch, most of them who don't even know why they're there.
Obviously, yeah.
But they're trying to have something made of it.
They're trying to they're trying to make it look like that it's it's uh homegrown, effervescent, spontaneous, and it's not.
Uh this is this is astroturfed.
This is planned, it is orchestrated.
Uh and it's disappointing, actually, when you get down to brass tax, the numbers are quite small.
They're having to show all of these different cities to make it look like there's any significant size here.
Still, this is uh actually very, very small bunch of uh people.
I appreciate the call, David.
Thanks.
Can't let the show end without this mention of Charlie Wrangle, Democrat New York on Wednesday called for the redistribution of America's riches and hammered the wealthy for benefiting from a war effort fought by the poor and the middle class.
Citing stats that show one percent of Americans now own forty-two percent of the nation's wealth.
Wrangle said there's something wrong with that formula.
He offered no specific remedy for adjusting those figures during his comments on the House floor, but argued further that the wealthiest one percent have the added benefit of not needing to get involved in military service.
Why is it that we know or that we can suspect that the this war where we lost so many lives, so many people have been wounded, our brave men and women coming home will subject themselves with a lack of funds to deal with their physical or mental problems, and yet somehow we know that the one percent was not involved in defending our great nation.
So inciting class hatred based on lies.
They just keep it up.
Wrangle himself is a one percenter.
Here's Joe Sandy Hook, Connecticut.
Welcome.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
You're on the EIB network.
Rush, thank you for taking my call.
Happy diaper day from the nuts state of Connecticut.
Yeah, but diapers now third day in a row we've mentioned diapers here.
Rush, my point is I was uh prior to your call coming on, there was a uh a talk show I was listening to.
They interviewed an occupier.
He just graduated college uh with a degree in economics, and he's 20,000 in debt.
That's his complaint.
Yeah.
Uh my point is if this man enlisted into the military, he could pay that off in in in within a year.
And the government still takes care of him.
Yeah, but did he strike you as the kind that would look at that solution?
Oh, absolutely not.
No.
But that's a viable option.
You know, I'm uh he he was he his complaining that he was $20,000 in debt.
He's a twenty thousand dollars in debt.
He's got a degree.
He's got his economics degree.
He's got his degree, but he's $20,000 in debt, and that's why he's protesting.
Yes, sir.
He got a degree in economics.
All right, so it cost him twenty grand, at least in debt.
What what's the problem?
He knowingly incurred the death.
What what's I know they say they want the debt forgiven, but that that's uh Well, apparently he doesn't want to pay for it.
I mean, my point is, I mean, people that buy a new car if they finance it, they're over twenty thousand dollars a month.
Well, exactly, or a house.
Exactly.
What do these people want?
I mean, what is the utopian world for these people?
I mean, what do they want?
They want an exemption from reality.
What else could it be?
They want an exemption from reality.
They don't I I'll guarantee you, I didn't hear this guy, but I will guarantee you that he is part of a crowd That has been made to believe that education is a fundamental requirement and a right and ought not cost anybody anything.
He probably thinks, look, my parents made me go.
My culture, my society is telling me I have to do this.
If I have a chance to get ahead, why should I go in debt to have to do this?
Why shouldn't this be provided for me?
If this is what they're telling me I need, if this is what they're telling me to necessarily be a good decision, why should I have to pay for it?
I'll bet you a dollar to a donut, that's the guy's thinking on it.
Everybody's telling him it's a necessity.
Everybody's telling him he doesn't have a chance in life if he doesn't do this.
So if they're making him do it, essentially, why should he have to pay for it?
Why shouldn't everybody else pay for it?
If his getting an education is what's necessary to keep this country growing and great and blah, blah, blah, then why should he have to pay for it?
I'll guarantee you he's had a couple of professors telling him that.
and, of course, all of his buddies.
You know, it's amazing.
These 20-year-old, 22-year-old punk kids...
If they think college is expensive, wait till they get divorced.
So much to learn, and they think they know it all.
We'll see you tomorrow, folks.
Open line Friday in 21 hours.
▲
Export Selection