All Episodes
Previous Next
March 6, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:35
March 6, 2012, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, by the way, folks, just if you'll permit me, just one more observation about this woman, Tracy McMillan, her book on food justice.
Are we really supposed to believe that only Walmart is selling below quality produce?
You think Whole Foods might be doing this?
Do you think Costco might be doing this?
Do you think any of these change?
Why Walmart?
Why does this political science major writing a book about food justice focus on Walmart and produce at Walmart?
Are we really supposed to believe that other grocery stores don't do what that woman's accusing Walmart of doing?
They all trim their products.
They all crisp it.
They all fresh it up.
They all do what she accused Walmart of doing.
Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radical.
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.
That's Barack Obama.
That's who he is.
He is an acolyte of Saul Olinski.
And that's right from the Rules of Radicals for Radicals, which, by the way, was dedicated to Satan.
As the first radical, Saul Alinsky dedicated the book, Rules for Radicals, to Lucifer as the first real radical.
Great to have you back here, folks.
Here on the EIB network, Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis.
From my adopted hometown of Sacramento, California, a day of boisterous protests over cuts to higher education that included thousands of students swarming the state capitol ended with dozens of arrests after demonstrators refused to leave the building.
Authorities last night arrested 68 people, most of whom will be charged with trespassing, according to the California Highway Patrol.
Four people were arrested earlier in the day.
Students, ladies and gentlemen, students are angry over steep tuition increases and fewer courses at California's public universities and colleges.
And they waved signs and chanted, they say cut back, we say fight back.
We've seen this in Great Britain.
We've seen it when they started charging tuition, raising tuition.
We've seen the spoiled little students raise hell, having protests, throwing bricks through windows and so forth.
Tuition has nearly doubled in the past five years to $13,000 for resident undergraduates at University of California schools and to $6,400 at California State University schools.
Community college fees set to rise to $46 per unit by this summer.
That's up from $20 per unit in 2007.
Democrat lawmakers addressed the group and lamented the deep cuts to higher education they've made in recent years.
So there's only one group to blame for this.
Here are the students upset, mad that tuition is being raised.
They're protesting.
Who runs that state?
Now, it's a double whammy as far as I'm concerned.
Have you noticed from the Democrat Party, one business in this country is forever immune to any attempt to bring it to heel?
And that's education.
And particularly higher education.
No matter what the tuition is, you never hear Barack Obama rip into big education.
You don't hear Chuck Hugheschumer do it.
You don't hear Nancy Pelosi.
Why?
Because that's the proving ground.
Higher education, the American Academy, Academe, the institutions of higher learning, that's where the indoctrination takes place.
And whatever that costs is worth it.
Plus, their buddies work there, the professors, the student assistants, the graduate assistants.
They all ought to make a lot of money.
They all ought to have tenure, not have to work very hard very often, and make a lot of money.
So here are these students who have been trained to believe their enemy is the Republican Party, trained to believe their enemy is conservatism, trained to believe their enemy is anything the government doesn't control, upset that the Democrats who run the state of California, the Democrats and the liberals who run California's education system are raising tuition.
And yet somehow before all this is over, this will be the fault of Republicans, who are no doubt in the midst of conducting a war on education.
Oh, only a matter of time.
Only a matter of time.
Before somehow, in a state totally controlled, dominated, and run by Democrats, an education system totally dominated, run, controlled by Democrats, Republicans will get blamed for high tuition and for not doing anything about it.
Now, a question, would University of California tuition be so high if illegal aliens had to pay out-of-state tuition prices?
Well, I'm just asking.
The average tuition, University of California system is $13,200.
Compare that to Georgetown Law, which is $45,000.
And that's just tuition.
A room and board at Georgetown Law is another $20,000 on top of that.
Out-of-state tuition, University of California, $36,000 a year.
That's what the illegals would be paying at the very least.
They're out of state.
By definition, they're out of state.
Illegal equals out of state.
But they're given in-state tuition.
Now, if the illegals were forced to pay out-of-state tuition, what do you think that $13,000 in-state tuition fee would be?
Would it be as high?
But of course, that's going to be the Republicans' fault too.
Specifically, Mitt Romney or whoever is the nominee, it'll be his fault.
Speaking of which, let's move to the audio soundbites.
For the longest time, I on this program incurred the wrath of millions of you by suggesting, because you thought I had chosen sides and still haven't chosen sides.
You thought that I had it in for Romney when I pointed out that, in my view, based on my instincts, my gut, study, my knowledge of who the left is, I thought they wanted Romney as the nominee all along.
That's what Occupy Wall Street was all about, was to set up Romney as the guy they were protesting.
Romney is the kind of guy they were protesting, Occupy Wall Street.
And of course, Romney Kerr.
I often thought that's who the Democrats wanted.
Another reason I thought that was because the well, many in the left actually said so.
In other ways, they indicated it as well by trying to tell us that they thought Romney would be the toughest challenge for them.
Now, when the party Barack Obama comes along and says, yeah, I tell you what, you guys were really worried about Romney.
They wouldn't tell us that if they really believed it, for one thing.
But let's go to the audio soundbites.
This morning on Joe Scarborough's show, PMS NBC, Time magazine's senior political analyst Mark Halperin had a discussion about Romney and his USA Today op-ed supporting the individual mandate in healthcare.
Santorum on the campaign trail hammering Romney, saying he's wrong on the central issue of our time.
Halperin says, comments about it.
You'll hear Scarborough in here, too.
Can I give you a subsidiary point that Republicans should be terrified of?
My hunch is that this stuff is coming not belatedly from the Republicans, but from Chicago, from the Obama campaign, which is sitting on more opposition research than you can imagine about Mitt Romney.
So they're teasing this out now, I think, to try to weaken him.
But if with and when he becomes a nominee, they'll just be sitting in Chicago every day saying, let's do this one now and this one next week.
So much stuff they're sitting on.
Oh, uh-oh, wait, what was that?
Did Mark Halperin, who would know, did he just say, my hunch is that this stuff is coming from not from the Republicans, aimed at Romney, but rather from Chicago, the Obama campaign.
They're sitting on more OPPO research than you can imagine about Romney.
That's what Halperin says.
When Romney gets the nomination, they're going to unleash.
There is no way Romney will be able to survive it.
That's what they are saying now.
In fact, here is a guy saying it on the same show, Joe Scarborough, Morning Joe, MS, NBC.
New York Magazine National Affairs Editor John Heileman talking about all of this said this.
Mitt Romney's had this much trouble winning the Republican nomination against rival campaigns, if it's in truth coming from Chicago.
Chicago has been doing opposition research on Romney for a year and a half.
What is going to happen to Mitt Romney when he gets hit with not just like decent opposition research, but the best opposition research that money can buy, having gone through this entire race, stumbling without being faced with that kind of opposition research?
I just think it's unfathomable.
Unfathomable what's coming aimed at Romney from Chicago.
They can't wait.
They're being told.
Now, I think this is a bit overblown myself.
But I'll tell you this.
There are a bunch of stories out today, and from credible left-wing sites when talking about Obama, there are stories out that Obama has told members of Congress, I don't have the money to give you for your own campaigns.
This isn't 2008.
They had money rolling in from all over the world in 2008, folks.
Obama had money coming in in denominations under, what was it, 200 to 250 that you didn't have to report the donor.
If it's less than 200 or 250, you don't have to report the donor.
They had money coming in from all over the world.
That's not being repeated.
They are not going to have a billion dollars, as they have said prior to now.
And Obama, the Obama campaign, has told members of Congress, you're on your own.
We do not have the money to share with you for your campaigns.
But yet they've got all this money, the best OPPO research money can buy to unleash on Mitt Romney.
It is an election year, and in his press conference, President Obama just said, essentially, that he's going to make it impossible to foreclose on anyone in the military.
It's going to be impossible.
By the way, they're also not foreclosing on people who have second homes.
I take that back.
They are foreclosing, but they are not kicking people out of their houses while the foreclosure proceedings take place.
That's a heck of a deal.
And you should go try to see if you can get that yourself.
They want to stay in my, you know, my second home.
I want to stay in my second home while you foreclose on both of my homes.
Oh, sure.
Here you go.
It's a new Obama policy.
It's one of these things they announce, but you can't find anybody benefiting from it.
They say it's happening, but you don't know anybody, and how can you prove that it's not?
Basically, Obama just said that he's going to make it impossible to foreclose on anybody in the military.
Now, here's the story on Obama not having enough money to share with the Democrats.
It's not just that he's not going to give them any money.
He's not going to campaign for them.
He's not going to have time to fundraise for them.
The story is from Politico by John Bresnahan.
President Obama has a bleak message for House and Senate Democrats this year when it comes to campaign cash.
You are on your own.
The fact is, they've always been on their own.
The fact is, Obama has always only cared about himself.
Democrat congressional leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Dingy Harry and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, have privately sought as much as $30 million combined from Obama for America and the Democrat National Committee.
But that's not going to happen, said top Obama aides Jim Messina and David Plough.
They told Reid and Pelosi in back-to-back meetings on Capitol Hill last Thursday, it was a stark admission from a presidential campaign once expected to rake in as much as a billion dollars of just how closely it's watching its own bottom line.
You know, you really have to wonder what the Obama campaign is spending money on.
They make all their campaign trips on the taxpayer dime.
The news media does all their campaign advertising for them.
So what are they actually spending?
Messina and Plough told the two Hill leaders that there would be no cash transfers to the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee, at least not before Election Day.
Hill Democrats won't be seeing much of Obama at their fundraisers either.
Obama has offered to do one money event each for the DCCC and the DSCC.
He's not going to give them any money, and he's not going to fundraise for them.
They are on their own.
And this is the bunch wildly confident they're going to retake the House and the Senate.
Let's go to the audio soundbite.
No, I'm going to grab some phone calls.
We'll get to the sound bites when we come back on the break here at the bottom of the hour.
Where do we, where do we start?
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Sandra, I'm glad you waited.
I really am.
Thank you for holding on and welcome to the program.
Oops, I'm hearing somebody who disconnected, hung up.
Sandra, you there?
Yes, I'm here.
Here you are.
Great to have you.
Thank you.
It's an honor.
I hope Sandra is still one of your top 10 favorite names after the all the time.
Yours is, yes.
Great.
I wanted to let you know, I drove by Whole Foods yesterday, which is organic food, supposedly the best.
And they now accept EBT cards, which in New Mexico is famous fruit camps.
Yeah, the EBT, the debit card, food stamps, really aren't food stamps anymore.
It's a debit card.
Right, right.
But you were talking earlier about how the government is going to start controlling or wants to start controlling the best food to low-income.
Well, they can already get it.
Well, it's not, it's not.
Let me clarify.
It's not that they want to control the best food getting to certain people.
That's just the ploy to get you to go along with it.
That is the sympathetic tug at your heartstrings.
The purpose of the book is to make you break down in tears, practically, over the unfairness the poor are getting shafted.
Stuff that they're able to buy is second rate, third rate, it's dirty, it's filthy, it's artificially made to look healthy, and it has no flavor.
You're supposed to then, just like with global warming, you are supposed to then accept the premise that the private sector is failing basic human needs and the government has to take over.
It's not about the best food getting to poor people.
That's just the tug at your heartstrings.
That's just how they get you to go along with the premise that the private sector is incapable of feeding this nation.
The private sector, which is, I don't think there's a nation on earth that has fed itself better than this one.
And by this babe's admission in her book, food is the last base human need the government doesn't control.
So you're supposed to have tears in your eyes, pain in your heart when you hear that Walmart shoppers are basically buying crud.
That then will make you accept the premise that the government should fix it, just like you were to accept the premise that your car and your air conditioning and your profligate lifestyle has led to climate destruction.
And the way to fix it, government come in and to limit your emissions, to limit the kind of car you can drive and where you can drive it, or whatever they need to do to save the planet.
Everything's a crisis.
Don't get derailed by the so-called details here.
Don't lose sight of the big picture.
Alan in Louisville.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hi.
It's about this women's war on women's health issue.
Yes.
Wasn't it the Obama administration that tried to ban breast cancer drug?
I think it was called a vaccine.
And then they also raised the age limit to get a breast cancer exam from 40 to 50.
That's a part of Obamacare.
There is a breast cancer drug that is very expensive that they limited use of.
I can't remember the name of this drug.
I think it was Evaxin.
It's a very popular drug.
There was a real output.
That sounds right.
Yeah, but it's too expensive.
It's a drug that its primary purpose is very expensive, but there's a secondary benefit from it.
Avastin.
You're right.
Avastin is the drug.
And that's right.
It was the regime that was going to limit that.
And you're right.
It was the regime that's going to raise the age and limit the number of times mammograms can take place.
And these are true women's health issues, not contraception and abortion or, quote, reproductive rights.
You're absolutely right.
The war on women's health is really the Obama.
I agree.
And by the way, you realize that you just started the war on education by calling students spoiled brats.
So you're the one who's going to lead the cause against that.
You realize that, don't you?
Probably.
Thank you very much.
Ala, we'll be back after this.
All right, during Obama's press conference just now, he said the following.
He said, no amount of money is going to be enough to make it right who has had their piece of the American dream wrongfully taken away.
He was talking about all these robos signing mortgages, which these are the people that were not qualified, but were given a mortgage by these predatory lenders.
Of course, the same lie continues to be made here, that it was predatory lenders that targeted these poor, unsuspecting people, made them take out loans they couldn't afford.
Now their houses are supposedly being taken away.
And Obama says no amount of money is going to be enough to make it right for those who've had their piece of the American dream taken away, wrongfully taken away, wrongfully taken away.
They couldn't make the loan payments.
Wrongfully taken away.
But if no amount of money is going to be enough, what will?
That's kind of open-ended.
If no amount of money will make it good, then what's he going to do?
He's got to do something.
So there's foreclosure injustice.
We get food injustice.
We have social injustice.
Now we have injustice, period, in this country.
It's all because of the Republicans.
It's all because of the conservatives.
And now we're going to get it right.
Now we got foreclosure injustice.
Obama was going on and on about how effective the sanctions are in Iran.
There's widespread disagreement about that, by the way.
But in his press conference, Obama was going on and on.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, our sanctions in Iran.
Why, we're kicking butt with those sanctions.
Why, we're really, we're bringing Iran to its knees.
Now, you remember what the Democrats said about the sanctions on Iraq before we instituted military action there?
The Democrats railed against the sanctions in Iraq.
They claimed that the sanctions were starving the Iraqi children.
Millions of Iraqi children were dying due to U.S. sanctions, even though we were doing oil for food, which led to a whole separate scandal of its own.
But apparently, Obama-imposed sanctions never hurt women or children.
Just Republican sanctions.
Republican sanctions starve children and women.
Obama sanctions don't do that at all.
Let's move to the audio soundbites.
This is yesterday in Youngstown, Ohio.
Mitt Romney held a town hall event, a Q ⁇ A.
He had this exchange with a woman about repealing Obamacare.
I need an emphatic yes from you that you will repeal Obamacare.
Why would I not?
I need to.
There's no.
Early on, we were asked, is what you've done in Massachusetts something you'd have the entire government do, the federal government do.
I said no, from the very beginning.
No.
This is designed for our state and our circumstance.
So there's apparently was some question yesterday in Youngstown over whether or not Romney does intend to repeal Obamacare.
And it came up because of the 2009 op-ed in USA Today where it was interpreted from what Romney wrote that he believed in the federal mandate.
Last night on Your World with Neil Cavuto, Fox News channel, Neil Cavuto show 4 o'clock, had former Massachusetts First Lady Ann Romney as his guest.
He said, Newt Gingrich is piling on, saying your husband, maybe even you by extension, the Romney family in general, is oblivious to high gasoline prices and the cost of living in general, given your wealth compared to everyday concerns of average Americans.
I don't even consider myself wealthy, which is an interesting thing.
It can be here today and gone tomorrow.
And how I measure riches is by the friends I have and the loved ones I have and the people that I care about in my life.
And that's where my values are.
And those were my riches.
So for me, having gone through a difficult period in my life, both with MS and with breast cancer, it has done something to my heart and it's softened my heart and it's made me realize that there are many people suffering in this country and they're suffering from things that aren't financial.
And there's some people that are suffering from things that are financial as well.
But those that are suffering, for me, I just have a larger capacity for love and for understanding.
Okay.
Earlier today, MSNBC did a whole panel discussion on her answer, I don't even consider myself wealthy, because it can be all gone tomorrow.
It can be gone tomorrow.
So he doesn't think of herself that way.
I would tell you, I believe her.
I don't think that she made any of this up.
Well, I'll tell you what's hard to understand about the remark is that people who are not wealthy, whatever wealth is to them, and by the way, that's an interesting, fun game to play the next time you're with a group of people.
Ask your friends as you're sitting around talking, what is wealth to you?
How much is rich?
You will be amazed at the answers you get.
But my guess, Mr. Snerdley, is that people who don't consider themselves wealthy, who imagining themselves having the kind of money that it's assumed the Romneys have, what is Romney's net worth supposed to be?
$100 million or something, $100 million?
Let's just say it is.
Let's say it's $100 million.
People cannot imagine ever losing that.
They can't imagine ever spending it all.
They can't imagine $100 million vanishing.
They just can't.
And so when Ann Romney comes along and says, I don't consider myself wealthy, it's an interesting thing.
It can be here today and gone tomorrow.
What she's doing is sharing a fact of life, maybe even a fear that a lot of wealthy people have, that it will be gone tomorrow.
I can't tell you the number of people who think Obama's going to come take it from them or the Democrat Party in general.
Or there's going to be some policy somewhere down the road based on the way we're going that there is going to be a limit on how much anybody can have.
Now, that's going to be very hard because there's so damn many rich Democrats that they're not going to sit around with having their money taking and take it.
It'd be hard to exempt them.
But it's a natural fear for people who've earned it.
Because people who've earned it probably lost a whole lot in the process.
People who've earned it probably didn't have a lot to begin with.
They know how hard it was to get it.
And if it is ever gone, the process of rebuilding, it's an arduous thing to imagine.
Well, do you think a lot of people think you can get sick and lose $100 million because you get sick?
Okay.
Oh, oh, oh, oh, okay.
Well, yes, her focus on what real riches are.
And I've always said when you look back on your life, stuff that really matters to you, the stuff that really makes your fondest memories is the relationships you have with people you love.
It's not what you acquired.
It's not what you had.
It's not what you ended up being able to buy.
That's not what people cite when they get old and they start talking and reflecting on their lives and the things they remember.
I thought it was too.
I thought it was a very human thing, too.
I thought it was stood out in its quote-unquote humanity.
Romney's net worth is $202 million.
But they obviously, at least Ann Romney, doesn't live as though she's got that every day.
And the truth is, she doesn't.
It's probably invested away, squirreled away.
You just can't go grab it.
Anyway, left trying to make a big deal out of that.
Say she's heartless and has no ability to relate to people.
Doesn't think of herself as wealthy.
How can that be?
Trying to drum that up.
And we'll be back after this.
The views expressed by the host in this program documented to be almost always right 99.7% of the time.
Going back to the audio soundbite, CNBC squawk box Donald Trump appeared today.
Joe Kernan asked him a question.
I don't know what happened with George Will.
You saw that piece.
Give up on the presidency.
He said, just make sure the Republicans take the Senate and keep the House.
We told you about that George Will piece last Friday.
Kernan asks Trump, is he trying to motivate people by saying it's already too late?
What did you make of his comments?
I think George Will is a loser.
I've watched him for years.
I will say this.
Take away his little round spectacles and his cute little greasy haircut.
And I think you probably realize he's not a very smart guy.
The fact is, the Republicans have a great chance of winning under the auspices of Mitt Romney.
I don't like when you have a conservative person saying, essentially, let's give up on the presidency.
I mean, give me a break.
I've seen polls that have Mitt Romney ahead of Obama, certain swing states, it looks like Obama can't win them.
I don't know if he's doing it for effect or what he's doing.
Okay, that's Trump not holding back on George Will.
I don't know what he's doing.
I've seen polls have Romney ahead of Obama, certain swing state.
Let me tell you, Trump is right about one thing here.
It is not a slam dunk for Obama.
I don't care what the conventional wisdom is, and I don't care what the drive-bys say or the state-controlled media.
All of this talk that it's the worst year ever for the Republicans since Watergate.
Why?
The Republicans have never been in such bad shape.
I can't believe what's happened.
This election ain't going to be about the Republicans.
Obama and the regime are going to do their best to make it about the Republicans.
And I have no doubt that they've got OPPO research on Romney.
That is going to be hellacious.
And if it is as bad as everybody is talking about, it seems to me that at some point some people ought to stand up and say, wait a second, I thought this was the bunch that was promoting civility in politics.
If the OPPO research they have on Romney is so bad, they go up to Romney that bad, when's somebody going to stand up and say, wait a minute, Mr. President, didn't you say at that memorial service out there for Gabby Giffords that we got to stop this kind of stuff in our politics?
We've got to get a little bit more civil.
And you guys are leading the fray here on all this dirty politics stuff.
Some point they can overreach.
At some point, they can overstep.
The only place I think Trump is standing in a little quicksand here is when he makes fun of somebody else's hair.
Have to, I have to say that.
You hear what Barbara Bush said?
This is a no, it's just the worst campaign ever.
She was in Dallas yesterday, SMU, during a forum entitled America's First Ladies, a Republican War on Women.
No, I'm making that up.
America's First Lady is an enduring vision.
Barbara Bush said this about this campaign.
It's been, I think, the worst campaign I've ever seen in my life.
I just hate it.
I hate the fact that people think compromise is a dirty word.
That's why the campaign is the worst she's ever seen.
I hate the fact that people think compromise is a dirty word.
Now, Mrs. Bush comes from a more genteel time when the Republicans were thought of very highly when they compromised.
Such as, well, read my lips, no new taxes, and then compromise on it.
Such as instances like that, when we had 135 members of the House and the Democrats ran the show for 40 years.
That's when it was pretty smooth.
There wasn't a whole lot of acrimony going on then.
The worst that happened was the Republicans were laughed at and made fun of every day.
But they weren't called vicious names like hate bonkers and mean-spirited extremists, racist, bigot, homophobes.
And so it was a genteel time.
But now, Mrs. Bush probably does not see the future the same way we do, in the sense that we think the country is on the brink.
I actually folks think we're losing the country.
I mean, there's always going to be an America.
There'll always be the Continental 48 and Alaska and Hawaii.
There's always going to be a United States of America.
But I think we're losing the country as founded.
We're losing our moral core.
We are losing the foundation, the strengths that are required that made this the greatest country ever.
We're losing the things that distinguished ourselves, us, from everybody else.
And the primary thing that we're losing is freedom, because it is freedom.
An unparalleled amount of freedom.
Human beings in this country know and kneel like human beings in the rest of the world never even dreamed of.
Well, they did dream of it.
I take it back, they did.
Then they all tried to come here.
And that's what American exceptionalism is.
We are the exception to the standard living conditions of the vast majority of humanity.
Most human beings live in tyranny, lives of, if not squalor, certainly not prosperity, with no opportunity for it.
Many people lived in fear constantly of the authorities around them.
They were in jail.
They were in dungeons.
They feared being overheard.
That was the standard for human life.
Tyranny, despotism, dictatorship.
That's the way most people lived.
And the United States of America came along, and all of that changed.
And it all changed because of our Constitution and our founding documents, Declaration of Independence, all of them put together that acknowledged freedom comes from God.
Liberty, rights all come from God.
Our Constitution was written to limit what government can do.
Our rights were established on the basis of what government could not do to us.
The Obama regime and the Democrat Party as constituted today want rights to be redefined as what government decides it might or might not do for you.
Obama, the American left, the worldwide left want rights to result from dictatorship.
They want rights to be defined by government, not by our natural existence as created by God.
That's what we're losing.
And in so doing, we're losing the country.
Far more Americans than you would believe feel and think the same way.
Be right back, folks.
Don't go away.
Oops.
Sorry, I got to take the microphone on.
And the fastest three hours in media move on.
Ladies and gentlemen, we left a brief time out here at the top of the hour.
We've got much more straight ahead.
Your phone calls coming up.
Barely made a dent in the stack of stuff today.
And still a decent slice of the audio soundbite roster yet to go.
So sit tight.
▲
Export Selection