All Episodes
Previous Next
March 1, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:27
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 on lawn from God.
Here's our telephone number, 800 282-2882, email address L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
Look, this uh 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 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 there in 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, 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.
Even if they don't have contraception, I'm gonna go there.
I'm gonna 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 in the 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.
But 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?
Miss 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 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 rep reproductive rights activ activist.
Well, he's got uh Elliot Spitzer.
Is Elliot Spitzer a reproductive rights activist?
Bill Clinton.
How do you become one?
Listen to this sound bite.
Grab number thirty.
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, uh, Kathleen Sibelius 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 the presentation.
You said you said avoiding pregnancy avoiding pregnancy.
They're portraying it once again, pregnancy as a disease.
Not having babies born is a critical benefit for health care.
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 uh 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.
That 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 us asking themselves, what do I watch after the Daily Show?
Fifty-four percent of young adults in America have a job, down seven percent since Obama took office.
From Gallup.
This is another story that has the left 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 the Daily Caller.com story by Nicholas Balsey.
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 hard.
Where do they go to get so ignorant?
Yeah, 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 conception or 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 uh 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 uh 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 contraception.
Well, 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 uh unconstitutional.
She's asking Congress too.
By the way, it's fluke.
We don't want to disrespect her here.
Oh, oh, okay.
Oh, maybe she's just trying to avoid another accident.
They they both work.
Uh but but fluke is uh fluke is it.
Okay, well, thanks for the call.
You bet.
Thank you.
I appreciate it.
Get this from uh from this is the Boston Channel.com.
This from uh uh Methewan 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 Bird School.
It'd be more likely to be in West Virginia than this is Massachusetts, but a parent who asked not to be named said that the printed lunch menu that her daughter brought home from the Marsh grammar scruble on Monday listed KKK chicken tenders from March 9th.
She said her fourth grade daughter walked up to her and said, Mommy, mommy, wait, 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 C's had been swapped for Ks.
Do we really believe they can't spell chunky crunchy chicken, uh crispy crunchy chicken with C's?
I asked, how are you going to address this concern?
The mother said, Well, we're um we're not gonna 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, you know what it is.
There's it the 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.
Ever 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 uh Yahoo about gas prices.
How we're better off handling them now than we were back in 2008.
Really?
Yeah.
Well, what a what a miracle.
Kind of like how lying was good for us back in 1994-95.
Right, exactly.
Well, one of the reasons is uh, well, one of the things is they say we're back to almost 2009 uh employment, you know, and people um uh companies have hired uh have better uh trucks with gas mileage and stuff like that, and people have cars that get better gas mileage.
So we're it's not gonna be so uh painful this time.
This is just amazing.
Isn't it uh it's just classic?
We're back to 2009 unemployment levels, which we're not, and high gas prices, nobody is feeling them.
There we're adjusted now.
We got cars with better gas mileage, and so we're out of pocket aggregate expansions, no different to what it used to be.
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 ten 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, uh $5 gas.
Cool.
You don't care.
Folks, you're adjusted to it.
It's the it's a new norm.
And and 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 five dollar 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.
I'm not surprised at all.
Who's next?
Where we uh where we headed uh where we headed next.
I'd say 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.
Uh, 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 health care 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 limbs.
It's all very shocking.
I imagine people have very strong opinions about it.
Big difference, right?
Birth control, having sex.
Uh yeah.
Do you realize they don't get it?
These are the liberal foot shoulder foot soldiers.
These are not the libs, leaders.
These are the foot so they don't get they don't see 10% of what I see.
It just doesn't compute at all.
We just did a story, snurdly on how the stupid don't know they're stupid.
Snerdley just asked me, can they really be this ignorant or dumb?
Yes.
To 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 contraceptors paid for by us.
Moving on.
Were these kinds of women around when I was in school?
Oh, that no.
Oh, no, no, no.
That you mean unlimited sex.
Like, no, I didn't know any flukes.
Well, well, wait.
Uh 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 the two at your school, I mean, you know, you no.
Even with birth control, you wouldn't go there.
That's the uh big uh big difference.
I mean there were women that you might think you could get a disease, but you didn't care, but but not.
No, the the the two on average back then you wouldn't get no, you would no.
I see what you mean.
They were there.
And they were well known.
They were widely known.
And so were the greasers that uh spent time with them.
But you didn't find them in the AW parking lot on Friday night, let's just put it that way.
Now we move on further uh in the audio soundbite roster this morning on CBS this morning.
Uh the congressional correspondent Nancy Cortis had a report about the disappearance of moderates in Congress.
Terrible thing.
Uh 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 Bye 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 uh uh what what do you call thin the herd?
She wanted them out of there because they they they they gave the rest of the Democrat Party a bad name.
So last night on Charlie Rose on PBS, he interviewed uh Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill.
Charlie Rose said, Tell me what you think is the reason for this.
Fewer moderates around.
Uh and whether anything can be done about it.
We're losing moderates, Claire.
Senator McCaskill, what can we do about it?
And And if 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, um, 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 have a homework assignment.
I want you to produce me great moderates in the United States Senate.
Okay.
What a crock.
All the great work we 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 Rio Linda, 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 tsunamised.
At one point or another.
Charlie Rose, very upset about this.
What's interesting about this is that elections are one in the center.
Elections are one in the center.
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 Reed.
They w they they want her to be stubbornly independent.
They don't want her to say yes, sir to Harry.
It sounds to me, Claire, like they don't want you to be a commie babe liberal.
All made is this applicable to what we're doing today.
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.
Um one, while I disagree with your characterization of Miss Fluke, I would note that having been in law school um 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 forty percent represented by Miss 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 internships.
Professors do not pay for abortions, they don't pay for contract.
Everybody knows professors are exempt.
And so that 40% may not be indicative of interaction with it doesn't matter to me.
Okay, so there's a different uh degree of of status for women, so that 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's sampled from that 40 percent 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 costs.
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.
Uh nine hundred dollars a year for condoms at Amazon.
She wants a thousand dollars a year for contraception from the Congress, which is us.
The numbers are pretty close, but now we're throwing STDs in there like gongria 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.
No.
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.
It just we just there there are national uh 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 that's wrong here.
Look I don't if this woman wants to have sex ten 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 uh our old buddy white comedian Paul Shanklin.
I I can't take credit for the but to this Shanklin today reminded me that it's professors are exempt from having to pay for abortions.
▲
Export Selection