All Episodes
Previous Next
March 1, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:50
March 1, 2012, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And greetings to you, music lovers, till seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plane.
Broadcast excellence, all yours, the next three hours, which are the fastest three hours in media.
Hosted by none other than me.
The all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-concerned, all-everything.
Maha Rushi.
And boy, did I get the left's underwear in a wad yesterday with my comments on Susan Fluke.
Oh, Sandra Fluke.
Sandra Fluke, right?
I mean, even now, Sheila Jackson Lee is referring to me on the House floor, denouncing Mr. Lombard, as she affectionately refers to me.
Anyway, folks, great to have you here.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882 and the email address LRushbo at EIBnet.com.
A few words about Andrew Breitbart.
I've known Andrew Breitbart since the 1990s when he was working with Matt Drudge to help produce that page, the Drudge Report, each and every day.
Grew up in West Los Angeles, surrounded by liberals, father-in-law Orson Bean, the comedian.
Sometime during the 1990s, the early 90s, Breitbart had an awakening of constantly questioning what was all around him, which was really extreme liberalism.
And he became, as many of you in the audience know, a bulldog.
He literally was an indefatigable bulldog for the conservative cause.
Did things that nobody else has done on the internet where there are a lot of players.
He accomplished quite a lot, much more than a lot of people.
A lot of people get into the business for a number of reasons.
His was to affect change.
He really sought to affect change above everything else.
A lot of people get into it to make a name for themselves.
He was about that too, of course, but he really was about affecting change.
And he did on numerous occasions with Acorn, Anthony Weiner, Shirley Sherrod, just to name three of his most famous examples.
But he was a bulldog.
He was walking outside his home in his neighborhood in Brentwood just after midnight, keeled over.
People had talked to him two hours prior.
He sounded perfectly fine.
They're shocked.
His family's stunned.
I mean, there were some reports of health problems, but there was no indication of this.
So everybody's in a state of shock today, trying to make sense of it.
And when something like this happens to somebody a lot of people know at a very young age, you could say he died too young by half.
He's 43 life expectancy in the early 80s.
You're reminded, once again, it's become a cliché, but it's worth mentioning.
You only get one life.
And most people don't get as much out of it as they could.
It's human nature.
And one of the reasons that most people don't get the most out of their lives that they can is they can't stop thinking about themselves.
And the more you think about yourself, the more depressed you're going to get.
Human nature.
The more you think about yourself, the less you are aware of things going on outside your sphere.
It's hard not to do that.
And Breitbart did that.
Breitbart was outside himself in all of his quests.
Would I say indefatigable?
I never heard of him sleeping.
I know he did, but he was constantly on the go.
He was also a grateful guy and very thoughtful.
He was guest at our wedding in 2010.
And about two months prior, he sent Cookie a note, wanted to know if she knew who one of my most inspirational figures was.
She told him.
He presented us with a classic painting of Ronald Reagan.
And every year since, every birthday, three birthdays, he has sent me a giant painting, a different rendering of the American flag.
It's a very, very sad thing to see this happen.
And I've been made aware that some of the leftists on Twitter and other blog sites are filled with an unspeakable, callous and coarse mean-spiritedness today.
And when I heard about it, I went to some of these sites and I read some of the tweets, some of them from well-known left-wing journalists, Slate.com.
You would not believe him.
And I'm struck.
What is there to compromise with these people?
Where is the area for compromise with these people?
I mean, it is really vicious stuff, which in the end, he would have loved and was a testament to his effectiveness, and effective he was.
Even today, the AP in their story/slash obit of Andrew Breitbart misrepresents him, even in death.
And maybe fittingly, maybe fittingly, given his quest in life, this AP article is a textbook example of the kind of outrageous mendacity in the news media today that he fought against.
Even in death, the AP cannot refrain from lying about him and misrepresenting him.
They treat his posting of the Shirley Sherrod video clip as one of the highlights of his career only in order to use it against him.
But Breitbart's clip did not misrepresent her views.
The clip that he posted, he had the big government websites, big journalism websites, the clip that he posted of Shirley Sherrod contained enough of her comments that any fair-minded viewer would realize she was telling the audience about her previous prejudices.
This was the case involving all of the mythical black farmers who ever signed up for a giant government payout.
And she and her husband were in on that.
And so many of them were not qualified to receive the payment.
And they all got the payment on the basis of past racism and bigotry and all of this.
And he exposed Shirley Sherrod.
Just as he exposed Anthony Weiner's photos.
Or Anthony's Wiener photos.
He exposed them.
Where's Weiner today?
He's walking the baby to the dry cleaners in Queens.
Then there was Acorn.
Remember the James O'Keefe videos?
That was Andrew Breitbart walking in portraying a pimp and a prostitute, looking for ways to scam the system.
And there was Acorn telling them how to do it.
All caught on tape.
It caused Acorn to theoretically shut down and change their name and come back to life as a bunch of separate organizations.
The AP article damns Andrew Breitbart with faint praise.
It describes him as an outspoken critic of the mainstream media, but was lionized by his fans for his efforts at exposing government corruption and media bias.
Now, was he only lionized by his fans?
Wouldn't you think, wouldn't you think that real-life journalists would applaud Breitbart's efforts to expose government corruption and media bias?
I mean, what does the media claim to exist to do to hold the powerful accountable?
Speak truth to power, is that the phrase?
Well, the mainstream media has become part of the power when that power is held by the Democrat Party.
The mainstream media covers up the corruption.
He was exposing it.
He did more and greater work than Woodward and Bernstein.
He should have been one of their heroes.
But he wasn't.
He should have been given the same kind of hero worship that Woodward and Bernstein have got.
And unlike the work of Woodward and Bernstein, Breitbart's investigations were actually truthful.
Now, at the bottom of the article, the AP notes that, quote, Breitbart's websites also featured a 2009 hidden camera sting video that brought embarrassment to the community group Acorn.
The videos show Acorn staffers offering advice on taxes and other issues to actors posing as a prostitute and a pimp, close quote, which is another blatant misrepresentation.
We all know that those Acorn staffers were doing more than offering advice on taxes and other issues.
Why else would they have been fired?
They were all fired in humiliating disgrace.
Why did Acorn lose its funding?
Why was it disbanded and then rebranded and put back together?
Because of Andrew Breitbart.
All in all, this AP article just goes to show that the country desperately needs another 1,000 more Andrew Breitbarts, if you ask me.
And he was something constantly on the go.
Constantly revved up.
He was at tea party events.
He went to CPAC.
He even would occasionally go to breakfast meetings of various Republican members of Congress, sit with them and discuss strategy, the way to effectively advance ideas and be victorious.
Excuse me.
So, you know, all of us are unique.
It's true to say that there'll never be another Andrew Breitbart.
There'll never be another anybody because we're all unique.
I hope that the people who worked with him can maintain the tradition, the energy, and the effectiveness that his websites all were in his passing.
I know they're going to try.
And I know they'll do it, sense of honor and duty and devotion to Breitbart, as well as the fact they love it too.
It's just really a sad thing.
And everybody is totally taken by surprise, as I say.
He was on the phone with people two hours before he died.
Nobody knew that anything was wrong.
Now, he'd had some health problems.
People knew that Was no terminal diagnosis involved here.
There was no ongoing illness that people were aware of.
There were some health problems, but nothing that indicated anything like this, except maybe to very close to him people.
Who knows?
But at 10 o'clock last night, people talking to him on the phone, and two hours later, he keels over on the sidewalk outside in his neighborhood in Brentwood.
He'll be missed by a lot of people.
I will say one thing that happened to him.
The Pigford thing, that was the Shirley Sherrod case that was over the USDA, the Pigford settlement.
This was where black farmers scored big on the federal government for past discrimination way, way back.
And they just tried to find as many people as they can.
It had never been farmers, family had never been farmers.
It was one of his highlights of his career.
But I noted change in him over the years.
I think this is a life lesson.
Over the years, it seemed to lose the whole thing that he was involved with seemed to lose some of the fun factor as the intensity and the seriousness of it picked up.
And this loops back to the notion that we all only have one life.
I hope that that didn't have anything to do with it.
I mean, he was very, he was profoundly intense, and at times he would get very mad, very angry, as we all do, frustrated.
Everybody wants to matter.
Everybody wants to be effective.
He was far more effective than he probably ever dreamed, but probably wanted to be even more so.
So let's hope that the people that are around him that were inspired by him can keep his work going as though he were still there, because that work is crucially important to a lot of people on the conservative side.
As I say, remember now, he grew up in West LA.
He grew up surrounded by liberals.
And it was, he told me, we interviewed him here for his book.
We interviewed him for the limbo letter, and he described the process that he took or that occurred to him as he began to question some of this stuff that had just been inculcated, drilled into him from the time he was born.
And he began to question it.
A lot of it didn't make sense.
And then one day, big burst of reality hit, and his life changed forever.
Andrew Breitbart is 43 years old, and he's going to be missed by everybody who knew him.
Oh, yeah, I'm going to deal with this.
I'm going to deal with it.
I think this is hilarious.
Absolutely.
The left has been thrown into an outright conniption fit.
This is Phony Soldiers times 10.
It's 10 times worse than Phony Soldiers, the reaction that they are having to what I said yesterday about Susan Fluke or Sandra Fluke, whatever her name is.
The Georgetown student who went before Congressional Committee and said she's having so much sex, she's going broke buying contraceptives and wants us to buy them.
I said, well, what would you call someone who wants us to pay for her to have sex?
What would you call that woman?
He'd call him ISA slut, a prostitute.
That has sent them into orbit.
Pelosi's into orbit.
Sheila Jackson, they're still talking about on the House floor.
The Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee sent out an immediate fundraising letter with a picture making me look like Dracula.
I mean, it is.
And I've got the original story here that all this feeds off of.
So all of you sit tight.
Look at Lisa.
I didn't call her a woman driver.
And I'll tell you this: you people on the left, I'll happily buy her all the aspirin she wants.
I think, Snerdley, you would agree we would happily buy Sandra Fluke all the aspirin she wants.
What could that possibly cost?
But contraceptives?
So much sex at Georgetown?
The headline, sex crazed co-eds going broke, buying birth control.
Student tells Pelosi hearing, touting freebie mandate.
A Georgetown co-ed told Nancy Pelosi's hearing the women in her law school program are having so much sex that they are going broke, so you and I should pay for their birth control.
Cybercash News Service.
So, what would you call that?
So, I called it what it is.
And bam, will you nail these people with the truth?
So, I'm offering a compromise today.
I will buy all of the women at Georgetown University as much aspirin to put between their knees as they want.
Well, here's the thing about that: where are all these guys?
Any wonder Clinton wanted to go to this law school and why Hillary went to Wellesley?
Is it any wonder?
But where are the guys here?
Do they not have a role here?
We assume they're having sex with guys.
Well, we're talking birth control, Snerdley.
So, you guys, you got to assume they're having sex with guys.
So, do they not have some responsibility?
Well, two women, I have to ask sex expert with Snerdley on this, but I'm not aware that two women without another device can get pregnant on their own using naturally endowed accoutrements.
I don't think times are now.
Maybe I am 61.
Maybe something I haven't heard about: that two women together would need contraception.
That's a whole new ballgame if that's, but I don't think we're talking about that.
So, it means there are men involved, and that would mean some responsibility on the part of the men.
Do they not have condoms?
Why don't these women go ask the men to buy them?
Why go before a congressional committee and demand that all of us, because they want to have sex anytime, has many partners as whatever, no limits on this.
I mean, the whole, but they're going broke, having to buy contraceptives.
They're getting back alley uphills, folks.
That's what this is up.
Ladies and gentlemen, something else is going on out there today, and I'm going to get to this in due course, but I wanted to scratch the surface right now.
They're voting in the Senate, or they were shortly before the program started, on something called a blunt amendment.
And just to put this in perspective, before the program started, HR got a call from Senator McConnell's office.
Senator McConnell's office wanted to tell us that a story about this at thehill.com is wrong when it asserts that McConnell is not interested in repealing Obamacare or wouldn't take an opportunity to do so should that present itself.
Now, the reason for this is, and McConnell's office told us that going after Obamacare needs to have certain stars aligned both vote-wise and procedurally.
And today, the vote today about religious freedom concerning private health care does not signify a lessened desire to repeal Obamacare.
So McConnell's office wanted us to understand what they're doing today.
And the reason for this is the Blunt Amendment being voted on today.
If I could make this as brief an explanation as possible, it really, at the end of the day, is ineffective.
It will not repeal Obamacare.
It will not exempt anybody from the congressional mandate to buy health insurance.
It is a public relations effort.
It is designed to make it look like that's what's going on, but it doesn't carry the force of anything behind it.
I think it's attached to a highway bill or some such thing.
It really is PR for voters.
It doesn't have the teeth in it that I think people would like for us all to believe that it does.
Our buddy Eric Erickson at redstate.com, and the Blood Amendment failed 5148, by the way.
Eric Erickson at Red State ran one of his siren stories today saying that McConnell had as one of his objectives with his not irritating Senator Reed.
Now, I don't know anything more than that.
I haven't seen it anywhere else, but that's what Eric posted it.
McConnell didn't want to do anything to irritate Reed.
The problem with this is that it's an election year, and it also gave Democrats a chance to vote against the mandate when they really don't mean it.
To a lot of people, a blood amendment was one of these things that doesn't carry the force of any legislation, really.
It doesn't carry the impact of law behind it, but it allows members of the Senate to vote in a way that would be most helpful to them for their reelection, since there's no change at the end of the day and the end of the vote.
So that essentially is what the controversy is about this.
Yeah, we'll have greater detail, and if people want to tell me I'm wrong in my interpretation, we'll hear that too.
But I want to go back and get this out of the way, because I am sure that there is voluminous tune-in today to hear about this controversy that has arisen with my blunt talk about Sandra Fluke.
We've run some numbers on this.
According to Planned Parenthood, and they should know, birth control pills cost between $15 to $50 a month.
So at most, that would be $600 a year.
What is Sandra Fluke buying?
We then, I didn't do this, but a member of the staff well versed in these matters went to Amazon to check the purchase of condoms.
And essentially, what we found is that you could buy the equivalent of using five condoms a day for $953.
And if you paid for it at once, you could get free shipping.
And everybody's in a hurry here.
So free shipping would matter.
$953.
So Planned Parenthood, $600 a year.
Condoms, $953 a year.
Up on Capital Hero at Pelosi's hearing, thousands of dollars a year.
But they want it free.
They want the contraception free.
And I know condoms are free if you know where to go get them.
I don't know where to go get them free, but Sturdley assures me that they're free.
So let's go to the there is an iPhone app to find free condoms for New York City.
Well, cool.
Okay, there you go.
So we're not even talking $953 with free shipping.
Now keep that in mind while we're listening to this thousands and thousands of dollars in taxpayer dollars to satisfy the sexual habits of female law students at Georgetown.
Now here's the story that started all this.
It's by a guy named Craig Bannister at Cybercast News Service.
A Georgetown co-ed told Representative Nancy Pelosi's hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex, so much sex, that they are going broke.
So you and I should pay for their birth control.
Speaking of a hearing held by Pelosi to tout Obama's mandate that virtually every health insurance plan cover the full cost of contraception and abortion-inducing products, Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke said that it's too expensive to have sex in law school without mandated insurance coverage.
Apparently, four out of every 10 co-eds are having so much sex, it's hard to make ends meet if they have to pay for their own contraception.
And of course, what's sex if the ends aren't meeting?
But Fluke presented research to the committee.
Four out of every 10 co-eds are having so much sex, it's hard to make ends meet if they have to pay for their own contraception.
Have you heard of anything more ridiculous?
This is flat out thievery.
It's outright ridiculous that taxpayers should pay for the personal sexual desires and habits of everybody, including women at Georgetown Law.
Fluke reported 40% of the female students at Georgetown reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of the policy that Georgetown student insurance doesn't cover contraception.
The poor babes have to buy their own pills.
What has gone wrong with our country?
What has happened to our country where law students have to buy their own contraceptives?
What has happened to us, folks?
What have we done with our hearts?
How did we become so cruel?
How did we become so Heartless to require each other to pay for the contraceptions of the women law students at Georgetown.
Sandra Fluke reported to Pelosi it costs a female student $3,000 to have protected sex over the course of her three-year stint in law scruel, according to her calculations.
Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.
That's $1,000 a year for sex that she wants us to pay for.
Now, what does that make her?
She wants us to buy her sex.
She wants us to pay for her sex.
And she went to a congressional committee to close the sale.
That's the right place to do that.
Where do you think the insurance companies, forced to cover this cost, get the money to pay for these co-eds to have sex?
It comes from health care insurance premiums that everybody else pays.
There isn't anything free for a lot of students like me who are on public interest scholarships.
That's practically an entire summer's salary, complains Sandra Fluke.
$1,000, $3,000, practically an entire summer's salary that they now have to spend on sex.
So she earns enough money in just one summer to pay for three full years of sex and they're full years because she and her co-ed classmates are having sex nearly three times a day for three years straight, apparently.
Well, that's what the numbers add up to.
We've run them here: 953 for condoms on Amazon.
That's a year.
That's close to a thousand bucks.
Why aren't condoms provided free by this stupid policy?
Why only birth control pills?
No, I'm not advocating.
I was asking a question at a dollar a condom.
If she shops at CVS Pharmacy's website, that $3,000 would buy her 3,000 condoms or 1,000 of them a year.
We've done all kinds of research on this.
And what about these deadbeat boyfriends or random hookups that these babes are encountering here having sex nearly three times a day while in law school?
If Fluke is going to ask the government to force anybody to foot the bill for her friend's birth control, should it be these guys?
Who pays for the abortions?
Oops.
We already know that too.
So that's where this all started.
That story.
That's where it all started.
A woman who goes to law school at Georgetown goes to a congressional hearing where Pelosi is and going broke, having sex.
I need a government to provide me condoms and get contraception.
It's not fair.
Okay, so law student, congressional committee, asking for us to pay for the things that make it possible for her to have sex.
Therefore, we are paying her to have sex.
Therefore, we are paying her for having sex.
We are getting screwed.
Even though we don't meet her personally, what would you call this?
Are we supposed to believe that it's impossible to find free condoms in Washington?
It's a good question.
Where are the guys that these women at Georgetown Law are having sex with?
Where is their responsibility?
I mean, these guys are going to learn if they have it already, they're going to be buying a lot more for sex than just birth control pills.
It's well, no, it just, it's, it's, it's, it's, I'm just, why the exemption here on birth?
What makes birth control pills so unique that the insurance company, government, somebody, taxpayers has to provide this.
Well, we all know the answer here.
Uh, this allows them to talk about women's freedom, women's reproductive rights.
But it's it's also the expansion of government.
Let's let's listen to some of Sandra Fluke.
By the you know, CBS, CBS ripped me for calling Danica Patrick a woman driver.
What is she?
Is she a male driver and I've missed it?
What is she?
Look at what's happening to our language.
I called Danica Patrick a woman driver.
Well, because she had said that she thinks the government is perfectly responsible in making these decisions for us.
She trusts the government.
I said, Well, okay, she's a woman driver.
You know, that makes sense.
What is she?
Here's Sandra Fluke before this committee, the House Democrat Steering and Policy Committee hearing on contraception.
Here's a portion of her opening remarks.
When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of contraceptive coverage.
Do you believe this?
Stop this.
Stop listening to it.
You think we're hearing about a killer disease here?
You think we're listening to testimony about some horrible crime that's being committed?
The faces of women affected by the lack.
Let me ask you people: when you walk down the street and you see a woman and you look at her face, can you determine whether or not she's had a birth control pill or not?
Do you know whether or not she's suffering and in pain and miserable because she can't find any birth control?
Who knows this?
How do you look at the face of a woman and know that?
But listen to the way this is being portrayed.
It's like a terminal disease not having your birth control pill.
Listen to this.
Last week, I have heard more and more of their stories.
They tell me that they have suffered financially, emotionally, and medically because of this lack of coverage.
Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.
For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships.
That's practically an entire summer's salary.
40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy.
Ms. Fluke, have you ever heard of not having sex?
Have you ever heard of not having sex so often?
What next that you can't afford are you going to go to Pelosi and say we need to buy?
Mink?
A Volt?
A Prius?
What next are you going to want, Ms. Fluke, that you see etched in misery on the faces of fellow students at Georgetown?
Because they don't have.
When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected.
Listen, just play the opening line of this again.
It's soundbite number four.
Listen to this.
When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of contraceptive coverage.
Prove it.
Stop it.
Prove it.
What is on their faces?
Acne?
What is it?
Acne?
It's what's on their faces that tells you.
Seriously.
You know, I'm the mayor of Realville.
I live in Littoralville.
This is hilarious.
Absolutely skyrocketing hilarious to have this portrayed as the latest killer disease brought to you by the Republicans, of course.
Folks, if you ask them, if you ask them, the Washington, D.C. Department of Health will send you free condoms and lube.
The D.C. Department of Health free condoms and lube if you just ask them for it.
So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal: if we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it.
And I'll tell you what it is.
▲
Export Selection