All Episodes
Previous Next
March 1, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:40
March 1, 2012, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It is the fastest three hours in media, the fastest three hours in broadcast history.
Two of them are already in a can.
We got one more to do, and there's lots of stuff I still want to squeeze into the busy broadcast hour.
Great to have you back.
Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Talent online from God.
Here's our telephone number, 800-282-2882, email address, lrushbo at EIBnet.com.
Look, this Sandra Fluke stuff and the free contraceptives, if all of it is a little esoteric, and I hope it's not.
I mean, I think we've made this abundantly clear what's going on.
But the simplest way to understand this, it's just a new welfare program.
And welfare is a bad word, and they can't use it.
They can't sell it.
So now it's disguised, welfare disguised as women's health or women's reproductive rights.
But it's just another welfare program.
That's all this is.
Here we have a woman, Sandra Fluke, materialized out of nowhere, it seems, to testify before a committee to talk about the Republicans denying women their contraceptives.
It's all fake, ginned up, trumped up, and phony.
But I finally asked myself, why go to a Catholic college?
You want to have all the sex you want all day long.
No consequences.
No responsibility for your behavior.
Why go to a Catholic college?
And therein lies the answer to all of this.
Washington Post.
Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage.
Now stop and think of that for a moment.
Here you have a female student arriving on campus interested in contraceptive coverage.
When you are reviewing schools for your kids to attend, do you look around at contraception coverage?
Well, Fluke told the Washington Post that she did.
The Washington Post reports that Fluke researched the Jesuit college's health plans for students before enrolling, and she found that birth control was not included, and she enrolled anyway.
Why?
Quote, Fluke, I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care.
In other words, Georgetown's a great law school, and I'm going to go there.
Even if they don't have contraception, I'm going to go there and make them give me my contraception.
So, why did she have to go to Georgetown?
Why didn't she go someplace else instead of trying to get them to change their religion?
If you ask me, this is part of the coordinated assault on the Catholic Church.
And this little bomb is like a hand grenade, the timer that has just been waiting for the right political moment to be exploded.
You must understand none of this just happened.
None of this evolved naturally.
This is a Democrat plot waiting to be hatched to create a new welfare program and at the same time try to cast Republicans into election year as anti-female.
Fluke is a typical liberal.
Now, this ginned-up birth control crisis just shows there's literally nothing the Democrats will not use to try for political gain and to advance their agenda.
They're the ones who have no respect for women or for human life or for anything.
This woman is being used.
You realize, at the end of the day, what's happening here, the Democrats are putting on parade a woman who is happily presenting herself as an immoral, baseless, no purpose to her life, woman.
She wants all the sex in the world whenever she wants it, all the time.
No consequences.
No responsibility for her behavior.
That is what the Democrats consider a great example of citizenship.
An oppressed victim of something.
She's a typical liberal.
She stands on her head and says the rest of the world is upside down.
She went to Georgetown University, knowing their views, and demands they change their religion for her.
This has never been about birth control.
It's about political control and creating a new welfare program.
Fluke spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue, the Georgetown University.
She spent the last, so she is a reproductive rights activist.
That's how she is being portrayed.
You know what I would ask her?
Ms. Fluke, could you explain to me, since you are in law school, what is the legal definition of a reproductive rights activist so I can understand the foundation of your testimony and your arguments?
What intellectual criteria do we use to determine your expertise in being a reproductive rights activist?
What classes did you take?
At what school?
What have you written on the subject?
What lab or field experience do you have which qualifies you as a credible reproductive rights witness in this hearing?
Why are you even here?
Is what I would ask her if I were a Republican on a committee.
Georgetown's a pretty expensive school.
I don't buy your argument that it's unaffordable.
Have you ever heard of the term budget?
Have you ever heard of aspirin?
Have you ever heard of saying no?
You can't afford it.
You don't buy it.
You can't afford it.
You don't do it.
But it's asinine to tell us this is unaffordable.
And then I would ask her if she thought Hugh Hefner would be a reproductive rights activist.
Well, he's got Elliot Spitzer.
Is Elliot Spitzer a reproductive rights activist?
Bill Clinton, how do you become one?
Listen to this soundbite.
Grab number 30.
This morning in Washington on Capitol Hill, there was a hearing of the health subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
And the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, testified.
And Tim Murphy, a Republican from Pennsylvania, had this exchange with the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
I just want to get this on the record, Mr. Chairman.
So you're saying by not having babies born, we're going to save money in health care.
Providing contraception as a critical preventive health benefit for women and for their children reduces health.
Not having babies born is a critical benefit.
This is absolutely amazing to me.
I yield back.
Family planning is a critical health benefit for avoiding pregnancy.
They're portraying it once again, pregnancy as a disease.
Not having babies born is a critical benefit for healthcare.
Fewer babies, less cost.
Fewer babies, less expense.
This is all part, this hearing today is all part of this scam to create a new welfare program.
But we've been here before.
Remember this from Nancy Pelosi.
We are back.
El Rushball, meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis.
From zerohedge.com, only 54% of young adults in America have a job.
That's the lowest it has been in 64 years, and it's 7% worse since Obama took office, and is another reason why they're not going to be able to portray a roaring economic recovery.
The question is, these 54% of young adults who have a job, are they happy about it or are they mad?
If they're mad about it, who are they mad at?
And as bad as this number is, it's worse for minorities.
Do they ever ask themselves, why are these things worse under Obama?
Do you think people have voted for Obama are asking themselves yet, why are things worse under him?
Remember how he came into orifice?
He came into office as the Messiah.
He came in as the great unifier.
He was going to get rid of all of these partisan divisions and all the anger and the rancor.
Love for America was to be restored around the world.
Everybody would lay down their arms.
The politics of old was supposed to stay.
The politics of the old.
Everything has gotten worse demonstrably, sometimes by a factor of five.
It has gotten worse.
Do you ever think that people who voted for Obama ask themselves why did they get worse under Obama?
Or are they asking themselves, what do I watch after the daily show?
54% of young adults in America have a job, down 7% since Obama took office.
From Gallup, this is another story that has the lift in a tizzy.
By 53% to 45%, Republicans, including independents who lean Republican, are more likely than Democrats and Democrat leaners to say they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting.
That's a convoluted way of saying there's a lot more enthusiasm to vote on the Republican side than there is on the Democrat side.
Remember, the media is trying to discourage you.
The media wants you dispirited.
They know that Obama is in trouble.
So it's imperative that they discourage you, make you think Obama is inevitable.
But there are more of us than there are of them.
Their trick is to make us think that's not the case.
Their objective every day is to make us think that we are the minority.
From thedailycaller.com, a story by Nicholas Ballsey.
Microsoft co-founder and chairman Bill Gates said that President Obama told him that he supports a 2% national energy consumption tax, though the president said it likely could not be implemented because of gridlock in Congress.
Gates at the Energy Innovation Summit in Washington Tuesday said we certainly need a price on carbon.
What?
How do these obviously smart people, where do they go to get so dumb?
Well, he dropped out of heart.
Where do they go to get so ignorant?
You're like, energy prices are not high enough, Mr. Gates.
Gasoline prices are not high enough.
Government wants to make good use of our money all the time, such good use.
So Obama's rich friend Warren Buffett wants higher taxes.
His other rich friend Bill Gates wants a 2% energy tax.
And Obama agrees with all of this.
Higher income taxes, higher energy taxes, higher health care premiums.
And we're supposed to pay for this babe's contraception at law school in addition to everything else.
We're not supposed to buy the wine.
We're not supposed to buy the body oil, the KY jelly, or the candles, but we're supposed to buy the pills.
What a convoluted, upside-down world and country the Democrats have us in.
Here is John in Columbus, Ohio.
Hi, John.
Great to have you on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hello.
Thanks very much for taking my call.
You bet.
I just had a couple of quick comments.
If this Miss Flake was having trouble making ends meet because she had to buy so much contraceptive, perhaps if she had more trouble making ends meet, she wouldn't need so much contraceptive.
Exactly right.
Exactly right.
But we're talking about making ends meet here.
If that doesn't happen in all this, the rest of it's academic.
Right.
Another thing, too: if Georgetown wants to improve their academic standards, they might teach a little more of the Constitution so that Miss Flake would know this was unconstitutional.
What she's asking Congress to do.
By the way, it's fluke.
We don't want to disrespect her here.
Oh, okay.
Ernamus Fluke, like in an accident.
Oh.
Well, maybe she's just trying to avoid another accident.
They both work.
But fluke is fluke is it.
Okay, well, thanks for the call.
You bet.
Thank you.
I appreciate it.
Get this from the Boston Channel.com.
This is from Methuen is how it's spelled, Massachusetts, M-E-T-H-U-E-N.
I don't care.
Massachusetts.
Some local parents are outraged after a school menu boasted KKK chicken tenders as one of next week's lunch specials for the little children.
KKK children tenders.
I don't know.
That could well be the Robert Byrd School.
It'd be more likely to be in West Virginia, Massachusetts.
A parent who asked not to be named said that the printed lunch menu that her daughter brought home from the Marsh Grammar Schruel on Monday listed KKK chicken tenders for March 9th.
She said her fourth-grade daughter walked up to her and said, Mommy, mommy, what is KKK chicken tenders?
And the mother said, What did you say to me?
I said, Mommy, what are KKK chicken tenders?
So the parent, the mother, called a school to complain about this.
She was told by somebody in the nutrition department at the school that KKK chicken stood for crispy, crunchy chicken, and that the Cs had been swapped for Ks.
Do we really believe they can't spell chunky, crunchy chicken, a crispy, crunchy chicken with Cs?
I asked, how are you going to address this concern?
The mother said, well, we're not going to reprint a bunch of menus.
She didn't even care.
She was, oh, well, it's there.
That's what it is.
And this is what they're eating.
And we're not changing the menu.
KKK chicken.
From Yahoo News, incompetent people are too ignorant to know that they're incompetent.
You know people like that.
Do you know incompetent people who have no clue how incompetent they are?
I do.
And this is the result of years of self-esteem teaching.
A growing body of psychology research shows that the incompetence, incompetence drives, let me start again here.
A growing body of psychology research shows that incompetence deprives people of the ability to recognize their own incompetence.
To put it bluntly, dumb people are too dumb to know they're dumb.
It's a blessing.
You know, the worst thing would be to be dumb and to know it.
And there's evidence all over that the dumb do not know they're dumb.
You can see it.
You can see it.
How do you know that a dumb person doesn't know they're dumb, Brian?
What's the first clue?
What is the first clue that a dumb person doesn't know that he or she is dumb?
What is it?
Well, do you know what it is?
The first clue that a dumb person doesn't know they're dumb.
They open their mouth.
The way they dress.
The political party that they join.
All kinds of evidence.
Unfunny people don't have a good enough sense of humor to know that they're not funny.
You ever been around somebody that thinks they're funny as hell and they're not?
That's because they're too dumb to know that they're too dumb.
This is why banning the ugly, making it voluntary, never worked.
The ugly are too dumb to know it, and it's a blessing.
As long as I'm here, it doesn't really matter where.
Here is Rush Limbaugh, the sound of one man thinking.
And to Hicksville, New York, this is Bill.
Welcome, sir.
Glad you waited.
Great to have you on the show.
Hi, Rush.
Nice to talk to you.
I appreciate that.
Thanks a lot.
I was reading an article today in Yahoo about gas prices, how we're better off handling them now than we were back in 2008.
Really?
Yeah.
What a miracle.
Kind of like how lying was good for us back in 1994-95.
Right, exactly.
Well, one of the reasons is, well, one of the things is they say we're back to almost 2009 employment, you know, and people, companies have higher, have better trucks with gas miles and stuff like that.
And people have cars that get better gas miles.
So it's not going to be so painful this time.
This is amazing.
Isn't it just classic?
We're back to 2009 unemployment levels, which we're not.
And high gas prices, nobody's feeling them.
We're adjusted now.
We got cars with better gas mileage, and so we're out of pocket.
Aggregate expense is no different than what it used to be.
And we're totally accustomed now to high gas prices.
Isn't that amazing?
Isn't it amazing how that works?
Why, I can remember five years ago, six years ago, high gasoline prices were the end of people's lives.
But the problem with that statistic is that we're keeping our cars longer than ever, almost up now to just over 10 years, the average length of time people are keeping their cars now.
So how does it work that people are buying all these fuel-efficient cars that helps them adjust to and accept with a smile on their face, by the way, $5 gas?
Cool.
You don't care.
Folks, you're adjusted to it.
It's a new norm.
And you know what else?
As these gas prices go up, there aren't any windfall profits.
The oil companies are not in the crosshairs.
Have you noticed?
Except on Ted Baxter's show, where they're always in the crosshairs.
But as far as the Democrats are concerned, the oil companies are not evil.
There are no windfall profits.
There are no obscene profits.
There are no oil execs being flown to Washington on private jets to explain themselves.
Because $5 a gallon gasoline is the new norm.
And you're cool with it.
You're hip to it.
You've adjusted to it.
It's okay.
Yahoo News.
I'm not surprised at all.
Who's next?
Where are we headed?
Where are we headed?
I'll tell you what, I don't know where we're headed next.
Let's go.
The audio sound bites.
Carol Costello, CNN.
This is morning on CNN's newsroom, reporting the story about Sandra Fluke and me and the brave congressional testimony.
This woman who wants unlimited, no responsibility, no consequences, sex, paid for by you and me.
Carol Costello, CNN's stalker, assigned to me.
You'll also hear Suzanne Malvo in this report.
Rush Limbaugh, blasted a young woman who called birth control a healthcare issue.
What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex?
What does that make her?
It makes her a slut, right?
Makes her a prostitute.
She wants to be paid to have sex.
She's having so much sex, she can't afford the contraception.
She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.
What does that make us?
We're the pimps.
See what I mean?
Wow.
You're still reeling from the Rush Limbaugh.
It's all very shocking.
I imagine people have very strong opinions about it.
Big difference, right?
Birth control, having sex.
Yeah.
Do you realize they don't get it?
These are the liberal foot soldiers.
These are not the libs, leaders.
These are the foot soldiers.
They don't.
They don't see 10% of what I see.
It just doesn't compute at all.
We just did a story, Snerdley, on how the stupid don't know they're stupid.
Snerdley just asked me, can they really be this ignorant or dumb?
Yes.
The answer, they heard every word I said, and they are dumbfounded, and they are reeling.
Big difference, right?
Birth control, having sex.
You don't need birth control if you're not having sex.
The woman wants unlimited, no responsibility, no consequence of sex.
And she wants it with contraceptives paid for by us.
Moving on.
Were these kinds of women around when I was in school?
Oh, that.
Oh, no, no, no.
You mean unlimited sex?
Like, no, I didn't know any flukes.
Well, well, wait.
Of course, you take it back.
Yes.
Every school had a couple of them.
You know, for every 500 students, every school had a couple of these.
Now they're everywhere.
That's what you're getting at, right?
And the two at your school, I mean, you.
No, you, no, even with birth control, you wouldn't go there.
That's the big, big difference.
I mean, there were women that you might think you could get a disease, but you didn't care, but not no.
No, the two on average, back then, you wouldn't get, no, you wouldn't.
No.
I see what you mean.
They were there, and they were well known.
They were widely known.
And so were the greasers that spent time with them.
But you didn't find them in the ANW parking lot on Friday night.
Let's just put it that way.
Now we move on further in the audio soundbite roster.
This morning on CBS this morning, the congressional correspondent Nancy Cordis had a report about the disappearance of moderates in Congress.
Terrible thing.
CBS News lamenting the death of the moderate.
The ranks of centrists have thinned.
Most of her fellow moderates have either moved to the right or retired.
Moderate Democrat Evan Bayh cited gridlock when he left the Senate in 2010.
Connecticut Independent Senator Joe Lieberman is retiring at the end of this year.
In the House of Representatives, 22 of 54 centrist blue dog Democrats were defeated in the last election.
To some degree, the disappearance of the middle is a reflection of the electorate.
According to Gallup, the percentage of Americans who consider themselves moderate has dropped over the past 20 years.
Now, these blue dogs they're talking about.
I'll tell you what happened to those blue dogs.
They campaigned as conservatives, but they were liberals in many ways.
And they got up there and Pelosi said to them, okay, Pelosi wanted them gone.
Pelosi wanted to, What do you call?
Finn the Herd.
She wanted them out of there because they gave the rest of the Democrat Party a bad name.
So last night on Charlie Rose on PBS, he interviewed Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill.
Charlie Rose said, tell me what you think is the reason for this, fewer moderates around, and whether anything can be done about it.
We're losing moderates, Claire.
Senator McCaskill, what can we do about it?
And if no moderates are in the Senate, what will it mean for how this country goes about its business?
If we don't begin to take better care of the moderates in both parties in our democracy, it's not going to be pretty because if you look through history, Charlie, all of the great work we've done in Congress has been around a table of compromise when it comes to the most difficult problems.
The problem now is the two ends are getting all the amplification.
The political system loves the extremes.
It doesn't so much show a lot of love for the moderates.
So it's really hard right now.
Senator McCaskill, I've a homework assignment.
I want you to produce me great moderates in the United States Senate.
What a crock.
All the great work we've done in Congress been around a table of compromise when it comes to the most difficult problems.
No, it has, not in her definition of great work.
Her definition of great work in Congress is when Republicans totally cave.
That's what their definition of compromise is.
But it's like I've always said, go to the library, library for those of you in Riolinda, and find me the book, Great Moderates in American History.
The book hasn't been written.
Great moderates in the U.S. Senate, great moderates in the U.S. House.
They all get tsunamied at one point or another.
Charlie Rose, very upset about this.
What's interesting about this is that elections are one in the Senate.
Elections are one in the Senate.
That's true.
I think the best hope to keep moderation on the Hill is, in fact, in the Senate, where you have states like mine.
I mean, you couldn't call my state a blue state under any stretch of the imagination.
But there's a lot of independent voters that want me to be stubbornly independent.
They don't want me to say yes, sir, to Harry Reid.
They want her to be stubbornly independent.
They don't want her to say yes, sir, to Harry Reid.
It sounds to me, Claire, like they don't want you to be a commie babe liberal.
Oh, man, is this applicable to what we're doing today?
Sir Douglas Quintet.
And she's about a mover.
How about this headline in the New York Times?
Beheadings raise doubts that Taliban have changed.
Really?
What a headline for the New York Times.
Beheadings raise doubts that Taliban have changed.
Whoever thought they had?
This is Eileen in Boise, Idaho.
Nice to have you here.
Thank you for waiting.
Thank you very much.
Hey, I have two questions I might ask, if I may.
Sure.
One, while I disagree with your characterization of Ms. Fluke, I would note that having been in law school several decades ago, women even then, and very much so today, and especially in Georgetown, would have no problems asking their male contemporaries for contributions to sexual protection.
So the first question is, is the 40% represented by Ms. Fluke indicative of participation of sexual activity with men in a superior position of power for whom they would be reluctant to ask for contribution, such as professors or supervisors.
Everybody knows professors.
Professors do not pay for abortions.
They don't pay for contraception.
Everybody knows professors are exempt.
And so that 40% may not be indicative of interaction with.
Well, it doesn't matter to me.
Okay, so there's a different degree of status for women, so now it's embarrassing to ask the guy, why ask me?
Why go to a congressional committee and demand it?
Well, then it leads to my second question.
With all this status, get it herself.
If it's the case that these are men that are employed and have money, and her costs that she sampled from that 40% are higher than what your research indicates, that would indicate that there's a higher rate of sexually transferred diseases that are now being treated that is increasing their cost.
Well, now you're throwing things in the mix that she didn't even mention, and we ran our numbers, and they are close to hers.
$900 a year for condoms at Amazon.
She wants $1,000 a year for contraception from the Congress, which is us.
The numbers are pretty close, but now we're throwing STDs in there, like gongoria and stuff.
Well, it stands to reason that if birth control is the preferred as compared to condoms and foam, which reduce sexually transmitted diseases, that if you pay for birth control and it becomes a national health care as compared to individual health care, then as a nation, don't we have a right to reduce disease and have a public listing of those people that could be carriers?
Eileen, it is incumbent upon individuals to assume responsibility for themselves.
Now, you're a smart woman.
I can tell you're a smart woman.
I don't know how you've been educated, but you're smarter than this.
There are national challenges on everything, and a lot of them derive from the fact that people are no longer assuming responsibility for their own actions and, in fact, want there to be no consequences for them or to them.
And that's one of the things that's wrong here.
Look, if this woman wants to have sex 10 times a day for three years, fine and dandy.
If she wants no consequences, let her take the steps necessary.
I shouldn't have to be, and nobody else should have to be responsible for her and guarantee her a life of no responsibility or no consequence whatsoever.
Not my job.
It was our old buddy, white comedian, Paul Shanklin.
I...
I can't take credit to this.
Shanklin today reminded me that it's professors are exempt from having to pay for abortions.
Professors never have to provide or pay for contraception in college.
And I would think a female law student would know that.
So thanks to Shanklin for that reminder.
▲
Export Selection