All Episodes
Previous Next
March 2, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:08
March 2, 2012, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, folks, I just heard, and by the way, there is for those of you tuning into this program to find out what's going on.
There's something, there is a central element of the whole Sandra Fluke story that you are not being told in the mainstream media.
We've discussed it repeatedly here, but it's not part of the reporting in the mainstream version of it.
But Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, just said that Obama finds the attacks on Fluke to be reprehensible, disappointing, personal, and crude.
So I ask Jay Kearney, will President Obama now give back the one million dollar donation that Bill Maher just gave his super PAC.
You want to get some tapes of some of the things that Bill Maher has called Sarah Palin?
The C word over and over again.
Bill Maher and some of his comments about I mean, make me look like Rompa Room Choir Boy.
So will Obama be giving back Bill Maher's money?
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open live Friday.
Great to have you here, folks.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882.
The email address, L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
Open line Friday.
You get to choose what we talk about when we go to the phones.
It is a giant career risk.
Not taken anywhere else in the big media.
Not just Bill Maher.
Look at how they have characterized Sarah Palin all of these years.
The media included.
I know Jay Carney will not be asked.
So will Obama give back Bill Maher's money.
He can't, Mr. Limbaugh, because Bill Maher gave the money to the president of the super pack, and if you know Mr. Lumbo by this is the voice of the newcastrality.
The uh the the president has nothing to say whatsoever, Mr. Lombaugh about the Thuper PAC.
Right.
Great to have you on the program, folks.
The uh email address again, Lrushville at EIBNet.com if you want to go that route.
By the one to remind you of something else.
We had the soundbite yesterday on this program.
Kathleen Sibelius was testifying on Capitol Hill, which she actually said, quote, the reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception.
She was suggesting that fewer babies born would make the cost of contraception not be as much.
And it would reduce health care costs overall as well.
Now what's happening here politically with the elevation of contraception here to such prominence in the national debate is the to me it is evidence that the Democrats, the left, have encountered utter political and moral failure on their decades-long abortion push.
It just isn't the winning issue for them it used to be.
It is not the issue.
If it were, this wouldn't be about contraception.
This would be about abortion.
Follow me on this.
This is key politically.
The Democrats need these planks to scare voters about the Republican Party.
If abortion were still the winning issue that the Democrats think that it used to be, Sandra Fluke would be testifying about that.
Sandra Fluke would be upset that abortion is not being paid for at Georgetown.
A Catholic Jesuit university.
But she's not, is she?
She's testifying about contraception.
Contraception is the replacement plank for abortion in the Democrat Party platform.
That's what's happening here in a political sense.
Now, it isn't going to work, not only because of the failure logic and broad persuasive power, but because the whole gin dub thing is so phony.
Free and cheap contraception is available everywhere.
Nobody's being denied contraception.
It's free.
Just call the Board of Health, call the Department of Health, and they'll send you as many condoms as you want.
But the thing is, voters know this.
Voters know that contraception is not being denied to anyone.
Voters know that contraception is cheap.
It is available anywhere, any time, in abundance.
There is no army of whipped up, angry female voters ready to mobilize on this issue, no matter what the Democrats and the media are pretending here.
Sandra Fluke is an army of one.
They may be able to get five or six track stragglers, but there's this is this is not representative in a political sense now of any mass movement.
And if they create one, that'll be exactly what they've done, create it, because it doesn't exist.
For this to be genuine, contraception would be difficult to find.
Birth control pills would be priced out of sight, you'd be difficult to get them, and therefore the demand would be genuine, genuine, but it's not.
Contraception's everywhere.
It's cheap.
Five bucks at Walmart.
We heard yesterday.
So what I'm doing and what I'm saying and how I'm reacting is reprehensible.
But it's not reprehensible for Obama to violate the Constitution.
It's not reprehensible for Obama to impose his own morality on the Catholic Church and all of its schools and all of its hospitals.
No, that's not reprehensible.
To me it is.
To me, it's insulting and reprehensible.
It's also very frightening.
The President of the United States is behaving outside the bounds of the Constitution.
This is something Henry VIII would do.
Find me reprehensible.
I can't do anything.
I can't deny you anything.
I can't provide you anything.
I can't mandate that you get anything.
I can't do one thing to you.
Obama can.
Wants to, in fact.
Now, what's the central element here that in all of the drive-by stories is missing?
It's very simple.
What's missing in this, let me explain it in a different way.
Let me illustrate it as a lot of people, in fact, if you're new to the program to this, probably what you think.
We have this struggling co-eb at Georgetown.
And when she got there, she found out that they've got this very discriminatory, restrictive policy on contraception.
She can't get any.
And the Republican Party hates women and doesn't want this student, this co-ed to have her birth control pills.
And so she has courageously and bravely sacrificed her anonymity and her privacy to step forward and lead a cause against a highly discriminating repressive Georgetown University, denying her a birth control pill here or there.
The truth is, and if this were reported as part of the story, all the rest of this would make sense.
If everything she has said were part of the story, it would all make sense.
It was Sandra Fluke who said that she was having so much sex she can't afford it.
See, it's it's a different thing for people.
People who may be sympathetic.
Here's a 30-year-old woman, might not have a lot of money despite how much Georgetown costs, but I'm talking about perception, wants to have sex now and then, but just can't.
Very responsible woman, can't because people are denying her a contraception.
The truth is she's spending $3,000, $1,000 a year on pills, and she's going broke and wants us to buy it.
Now, if that were part of this story, if if that that's that's central to this.
That is the fund.
That's the foundation of this story.
That's why she's there.
By her own admission, in her own words.
Sandra Fluke is having so much sex that she can't afford it.
She's going broke, I believe, she said.
And then she said she'd run the numbers.
And that the circumstances are the same for 40% of the co-eds at Georgetown.
That they will spend $3,000 on contraception.
And that's somehow just not fair.
She claimed that 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported that they struggle financially as a result of the policy at Georgetown.
They struggle financially.
Why are they struggling financially?
They are struggling financially because they're having a lot of sex, for which they need a lot of contraception.
Now they're laughing on the other side of the glass.
I happen to think this is fundamental to the story.
Is it not?
Dawn, what you worried here, I'm just stepping in it deeper?
Yes, you are.
But this is the truth.
Oh, does she have more boyfriends?
They're lined up around the block.
Well, they would have been in my day.
Anyway.
Without that being part of the story, it's quite understandable that people who hear this on the periphery might say, well, the heck they don't understand.
But by her own admission.
Maybe they're not having a lot of sex and want to.
I don't know.
But she's saying that they are struggling financially as a result of the policy at Georgetown.
Struggling financially, that's a thousand dollars a year for contraception that she can't afford, wants us to pay for it.
You put that, Brian Williams, in your report tonight.
All the rest of you on cable news, you put that.
Put her own, use her own words.
I'm not making any of it up.
You put all the details that she brought forth.
She's struggling financially.
Why?
Her sex life is active.
She's having sex so frequently that she can't afford all the birth control pills that she needs.
That's what she's saying.
You put that in the story, and it changes for everybody.
But politically, what this really means is that abortion doesn't carry the weight politically that it used to.
And this whole contraception thing is a replacement plank for what's failing on the abortion side.
Babs in Illinois.
Great to have you on Open Line Friday.
Hi.
Hi, Ross.
I would just like to say, thank goodness this woman is taking birth control, so there won't be any more of her around.
Now, can we put this subject to bed?
Because I'm tired of it.
Go ahead.
Thank you.
What do you want to talk about?
Oh, that's all she wanted.
So thank she said, thank Godness.
Good goodness, the women, the woman's taking birth control, so there won't be any more of her.
Well, isn't that the point?
She isn't.
She's run out.
What she said she's out.
That's why she's up at Congress asking for money for more.
Well, I don't I'm just assuming that that she's uh unable to have protected sex, and that's why this is unique.
Well, I hadn't looked at it that way.
Put the subject to bed.
That's quite funny.
Can't we put the sub Hey Babs is only one thing?
It's open line Friday, and the callers get to talk about what they want to talk about.
Um I do.
Let's go to the audio sound right roster, though.
We do have last night, Obama had four fundraisers in New York last night.
I think Obama has had double the fundraisers at this stage that George W. Bush had.
He was at a restaurant run by celebrity chef Jean George Zanzarichton.
Von Jerichin.
And Obama spoke.
During his remarks, he was interrupted by an unidentified protester, and here is that segment.
We are leading again by the power of our moral example.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Grab number 18.
We got time.
We're going to grab audio soundbite number 18.
This is a good one.
Around the world.
Gandhi.
Nelson Mandela.
What they did was hard.
It takes time.
It takes more than a single term.
It takes more than a single president.
It takes more than a single individual.
What it takes is ordinary citizens who keep believing, who are committed to fighting and pushing and inching this country closer and closer to our highest ideals.
And I said in 2008 that I am not a perfect man and I will not be a perfect president.
But I promised you.
I promised you back then that I would always tell you what I believed.
I would always tell you where I stood.
Wait a minute, I'm confused.
Not a perfect man.
I thought he was going to lower the sea levels and unite the country and create love for the country amongst all of our enemas.
Enemies.
Hmm.
And let's see also at the ABC kitchen.
This is a restaurant by Jean-George von Jerichen.
This is Obama.
Uh scolding a protesters, what this is.
We are leading again by the power of our moral example.
That's what change is.
None of this.
Change.
None of uh nobody's uh announced a war, young lady.
So we appreciate your sentiment.
You're jumping the gun a little bit there.
And a uh protester was shouting, no war in Iran, no war in Iran.
I f I have to laugh when I hear the president talk about his moral example.
The president's moral example.
The president's moral example is making you and me provide contraception for women who want unlimited any time no consequence of sex.
Some morality.
And we're back, El Rushbo's serving humanity here on the cutting edge of societal evolution, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Here's another uh section of Sandra Fluke's testimony before Pelosi and the Democrats.
You be the judge on this.
I I'm not going to offer any analysis myself.
You be the judge.
Sandra Fluke.
One woman told us that she knew birth control wasn't covered on the insurance, and she assumed that that's how Georgetown insurance handle all of women's reproductive and sexual health care.
So when she was raped, she didn't go to the doctor even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections because she thought insurance wasn't going to cover something like that, something that was related to a woman's reproductive health.
So she claimed that a raped woman did not go to the doctor because she was afraid she would have to pay for it herself.
And Cole in Paducah, Kentucky, not far from my hometown of Cape Girarde, Missouri.
Hi Cole, great to have you on the program.
For taking my call.
Um I just been told actually that a tornado is touching the area, so at the risk of losing my lie for the sake of conservatism, I have something to share with you.
Um I am a student at Murray State University as a uh biology major, and I was in biochemistry this morning, and there was an emphasis on um on discussing the regulation by the government of sugar and particularly fructose,
and so he had us read an article, and I'll read you a quote from the article that said, if national bodies are truly concerned about public health, they must consider limiting fructose to individuals and society as a whole.
And so their suggestion of how to do this, they really had had five suggestions.
They said we need to reduce the hours retailers are open, control the location of retail markets, tighten the licensing requirements on vending machines in schools and workplaces, uh designate an age limit on who can buy the fructose, and they they suggest age of seventeen, and then their last suggestion is the doubling of the price through taxation.
And you know, I just sat there in class thinking, my goodness, you know, how how brainwashed do people have to get well brainwashed they this is a biochemistry class?
Yes.
This is a biochemistry clas, not a public policy class or a political science or sociology class.
This is p this is biochemistry.
Right.
We've been discussing sugar, so he wanted to talk about possible you know, w the the possibility of of the government being able to to regulate sugars and and thought that might be a good idea.
Particularly fructose.
Yes.
And your professor made you read or cited some things that would limit the availability of fructose, even going so far as to limit the hours that stores that sell fructose products can be open.
Correct.
And and you know, wanting to restrict the location, putting them, you know, as far away from schools as possible, and uh you know, tying this into to the contraceptives as well, I thought this was interesting.
Um we had also talked previously that uh oral contraceptives have been considered by uh the International Agency for Research on Cancer as class one carcinogen.
Right.
But you know, I haven't heard FLOTIS going out there and saying that we should restrict the the use of uh oral contraceptions.
No, well, uh there's also a relationship of uh abortion to breast cancer that has been established, too.
Right, right.
That of course will be suppressed as well.
But this is exactly the kind of thing.
So I'm actually not surprised by this.
I'm not surprised that you've got a brainwashed professor who openly willingly thinks this would be a great thing for the government to do, because now fructose is an enemy.
Fructose is and therefore the people who make it distribute sell it are enemies, and they will be targeted, and we're going to limit where it can be sold, how it can be sold, uh all of these things, and the I've shuddered to think what the reaction to the other students in your class to it was.
They're probably nodding their heads thinking this is a great.
You know, that's the thing, you feel like the the lone conservative on campus sometimes you you look around class and think, you know what, these these students are also buying into this and and don't realize just as you mentioned earlier, you know, if they can if they can regulate these things, then what can they not regulate?
If they can tell you what food you can eat, what can they not tell you what what to to do with with your body or with your life?
Well let me let me tell you something, Cole, how long this has been going on.
You you m was this the first time that fructose had been hit uh in your class this way?
Yes.
Okay.
Back in two thousand seven, before he was vice president, Joe Biden was on Bill Marr's show on HBO.
And Bill Maher asked Biden this question five years ago.
Senator Biden forgetting about the upcoming Iowa caucus for just a moment, which would you honestly say is more likely to contribute to the death of your average America, the terrorist strike, high fructose corn syrup, and air that has too much coal in it.
And Biden said air that has too much coal in it, corn syrup next, and then a terror attack.
So Joe Biden said fructose would be the second greatest threat to contribute to the death of the average American over a terror attack and after air that had too much coal in it.
So th this this attack on fructose sugar, and by the way, that's political.
Uh The sugar barons are Republicans in many places.
So this is pure politics.
You've had in a biochem class, you have had pure politics, raw politics thrown right in the middle of your chemistry class.
Right.
And it's, you know, again, it's not, it's not surprising.
This is this is what I the type of thing I do with every single day.
You know, you just have to, that's why we have people like you who are out there, you know, uh, you know, out there reaching millions of people, and we need people like you to fight for conservatism because, you know, those who are supposed to be the most intelligent in our society uh, you know, tend to tend to be liberals, and you know, um it's also the most intelligent people that come up with stupidity like this.
So I appreciate you being out there.
Thank you, Cole very much.
The most intelligent, I see probably the most educated is what you mean, tend to be liberal and also tend to be uh tend to be wrong.
Uh they they now want to make fructose a controlled substance.
It's just sugar made from corn syrup.
Fructose.
It's the sugar that's in soft drinks.
They don't use granulated sugar in there.
I remember when I was a child, and I would my mother would bring home some chocolate milk from the grocery store.
I'd say, how come there aren't any chocolate granules in the bottom of the glass?
I don't know.
Because whenever I got some Nestle quick and put it in the milk, it never always it never all dissolved.
There are always remnants in there.
I said, but at the same time, how come what I would put sugar in iced tea even after stirring it up?
I could see the sugar in there, and then some of it would end up on the bottom of the glass.
So how come there's no sugar at the bottom of the coke, mom?
Well, it was fructose.
It's liquid.
Corn syrup.
And Joe Biden actually placed it second on a list of things that threaten death to the average American ahead of a terror attack.
Cole, thanks so much for the call.
We'll be back, folks.
Open line Friday rolls on right after this.
Uh no.
Uh, ladies and gentlemen, answer to many questions.
We do not use fructose in two if by tea.
It's not in there.
Two if by tea has no fructose.
Or you won't see any granules in there, and you won't find any fructose.
It ain't there.
Um the three separate, three separate investigations must be over because the New York Times is announcing five U.S. service members have been found responsible for the burning of the Quran in Afghanistan.
Five American service members and an Afghan American linguist were directly involved in the burning of Korans at a NATO base, an event a week ago that plunged Afghanistan into days of violent protests.
This, according to the preliminary conclusions of a joint military investigation.
All six will be referred to the proper U.S. authorities for further action, said an official familiar with the joint Afghan American investigation.
And by the way, there is no mention in the New York Times, very long article of the report that the Qurans were burned because Muslim prisoners had written in them.
The enemies of Obama are under assault.
Talk to the Koch brothers.
Charles and David Koch of Coke Industries in Wichita.
Private citizens under direct assault from the White House.
There are people commenting that they've never seen this before.
George W. Bush did not personally attack private citizens in the White House and set his army against them.
Clinton did with me.
George H. W. Bush didn't.
Jimmy Carter didn't.
Ronald Reagan didn't.
This is unprecedented.
The President of the United States.
Personally directing attacks against private citizens who happen to disagree with him.
The anger that's directed in this country at anybody other than Obama is misdirect misdirected.
The one real threat to your freedom, to your birth control pills, to your abortion to wherever comes from the White House from the Democrat Party, not from a guy on the radio who can't do anything about it.
Obama apparently has an enemies list.
Remember the last time a president had an enemy's list, what happened to him?
Richard Nixon.
It's open line Friday.
Listen to this, Stephen Chu.
We had I mentioned this, you know, we've got number 24 here.
This is Chu, the uh Nobel Prize winning energy secretary.
And he was talking about gasoline prices up on Capitol Hill on Tuesday.
Well, I I I think I uh absolutely w we should be judged on what we're trying what we are doing, uh and I should be judging on my track record when it became Secretary of Energy.
I mean, we we will do everything in our in our powers to and we agree that there is great uh suffering when the price of gasoline increases in the United States.
And so we are very concerned about this, and uh as uh I have repeatedly said um in the Department of Energy.
The what we're trying to do is diversify our energy supply of transportation so that we have cost-effective means, but is the overall goal to get our price?
No, the overall goal is to uh decrease our dependency on oil.
Does this guy sound like he has a clue?
It's a Nobel Prize one we uh and diversify uh uh uh uh no just tell me something, sir.
Here are our overall goal to get the pass of gas no, nope, we're not trying to lower the crisis price of gas.
We just want to decrease our dependency on oil.
Newt Gingrich last night with Greta Van Susterin.
By his own admission, he wants American prices to be about the European level, which would be nine or ten dollars a gallon.
When he was asked yesterday, he said that he had no intention of trying to get gasoline to be less expensive.
His goal was to get the American people to go to alternatives.
It tells you that by his standard, the current gas prices are terrific.
They're doing exactly what Obama and Chu want them to do.
They're causing pain for Americans, and they hope that will force them into smaller cars and force them into other kinds of vehicles.
And I think their strategy is to get to nine or ten dollar a gallon gasoline.
And he wasn't finished.
Because the president's now given two speeches in less than a week in which he tries to pretend he's concerned about energy prices.
I have a simple test for him.
Fire Chew, appoint somebody from the oil industry who knows what they're doing, have them assigned to go out and produce oil in huge quantities, and they'll get it done.
And Newt's right.
They don't want additional supply of oil.
They are not in to oil.
The Koch brothers are, by the way, which is one of the reasons why they are in the enemies list.
There you have it.
Quick time out.
Back with more after this.
Ten power plants are being shut down in Illinois.
By the way.
Most of them are in Illinois.
Ten coal-powered uh power plants shut down the next couple of years.
Also, the White House, so I need to apologize.
The White House says that uh Sandra Fluke's name is not the way to pronounce it.
The correct pronunciation they say is Sandra.
Uh it's a sh uh it's uh let's not floke.
▲
Export Selection