All Episodes
Previous Next
March 26, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:40
March 26, 2012, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program documented to be almost always right, 99.7% at a time.
And there's nobody even close.
And we're here and we're having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have our telephone number, and we're going to get to your calls in this half hour.
800-282-2882 in the email address Lrushbo at EIBNet.com.
By the way, I just decided we're going to extend the Twitter iPad giveaway a couple of days.
Today was supposed to be the last day.
This was the this is day seven.
Well, is it it's day five.
We started last Tuesday, and this is day five working days.
Uh I'm going to extend it to a full week, seven days.
So we'll have one that will give away today, tomorrow, and then on Wednesday will be the last one.
If you uh sign up for a Twitter account and start retweeting the stuff that we have at Limbaugh or at Rush Limbaugh, you'll be eligible to win one of these fabulous new generation iPads.
Okay, uh, we're back, and ladies and gentlemen, the uh uh new Black Panther Party, the last time they were in the news, you may remember this uh since the Duke Lacrosse case was when they and uh Minister Farrakhan sat down for dinner with Mahmoud Ahmedini Zad in New York.
That was back in September of 2010.
They met with uh Mahmoud Ahmedini Zad, the uh lunatic that runs Iran and Calypso Louie of the Nation of Islam, and they have offered a $10,000 bounty.
They have uh put 5,000 black men on the case to track down George Zimmerman, offering a $10,000 bounty for whoever turns him over to them.
I uh I want to share with you some some thoughts here from Jay Nordlinger, who is a friend of mine, he writes a piece at National Review called Impromptus.
And it's all about where we are in the country terms of um race.
He says every once in a while something will happen that makes me think, oh yeah, that's why I became a conservative in the first place.
Ever happened to you.
Robert De Niro made a joke, just a joke.
Sometimes often jokes tell us something.
De Niro said, Callista Gingrich, Karen Santorum, and Romney.
Do you really think our country's ready for a white first lady too soon, right?
Now, when I was growing up, the liberals around me seemed to think of everything and everyone in black and white.
I've the same thing.
I have the same observation that Jay Nordlinger has.
I it is it is the left that doesn't see the humanity in people.
They see the surface.
It's the left who sees black and white, male and female, gay and straight, whatever, because they groupify everybody, and then victim eyes, everybody.
And they don't ever just see people.
They see race, they see gender, they see sexual orientation first.
And Neudlinger writes here, when he was growing up, the liberals around him had race on the brain.
People weren't people with their virtues and flaws, they were skin colors.
He writes, does it occur to you that Michelle Obama is black?
Not to me.
It occurs to me she's a left-winger, a fitness enthusiast, a left winger, a fashion plate, a left-winger, a jet setter, a left winger.
And I can say the same thing about Obama.
I remember back on January 16th of 2009, when I first said I hope he fails.
Everybody said to me, how can you say that?
It's the first black president.
I got past that after he won the election.
He's not black to me.
He's a left winger.
This guy has ideas that I totally disagree with.
That's who he is to me.
He's not black.
He's not anything.
He's a human being.
He's a liberal, or worse, who I hope fails implementing his ideas.
Now, everybody who criticized me knew exactly what I meant, by the way.
That outrage back then over I Hope He Fails was fake and ginned up, uh, just like practically every bit of outrage about me is, is manufactured.
This is just the way it is.
But I I got past the historical aspect of his election, the day of the election.
The day after, okay, fine, we've elected our first black person.
Now who is he?
Because the media had not told us who he was during the campaign.
He had not been vetted.
And by the same way, just as Jay Nordlinger here talks about Michelle Obama, I really do not see a black woman.
I see somebody who's trying to force us to eat what she thinks we ought to eat, to exercise the way she thinks that we ought to exercise, and I see that that's none of her business.
Whether she's first lady or not.
That's what I see.
Now, Nordlinger says, Does it occur to you that those other women, those other wives, meaning De Niro, the one that De Niro talked about, Callista Gingrich, Karen Santorum, Ann Romney?
When you look at them, do you see that they're white?
Is the first thing you notice about them?
No.
It don't know enough about them to think of them as anything at all, but I'm pretty sure their skin color is one of the least important things about them to me, says Jay Nordlinger.
And then he says, how sad and how wrong to live in a black and white world.
Of the shooting victim in Florida, Trayvon Martin, President Obama said, you know, if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon.
Yeah?
So what if he wouldn't look like Trayvon?
What difference does that make?
And I I know what Nordlinger means here.
What if the victim had been Chinese?
Or freckly redheaded Irish American or Jewish?
What?
What prompts somebody to say, yeah.
If I had a son, he'd look like Treva.
What is the point?
I this is all it really is foreign to me.
The way the people on the left think and the way they view, the way they see things.
Nordlinger continues here, what is wrong with people?
Do we really serve the god of biology?
What Barack Obama's offspring would look like, isn't that the least important thing about the Trayvon Martin case?
And he's right.
It is the least important thing, what the kid looks like.
This poor kid was shot.
And the president of the United States' only public reaction, Margaret, if I had a son, he'd look like that.
For what purpose does one say that?
And what must you be thinking about this situation to think that and then say it?
Questions answer themselves, obviously.
If I remember correctly, this is Nordlinger writing.
If I remember correctly, Chris Rock once had a talk show, which had Jesse Jackson as a guest, and the host, Chris Rock, said to Jesse Jackson, could you tell me something, Reverend?
I've always wondered, what is it you do?
A few days ago, Jesse Jackson said blacks are under attack.
Nordlinger writes, that's what he does.
When Rick Santorum spoke out against internet porn, he was supposed to have committed some grave political error.
Why is he hung up on porn?
We have big, big problems.
Serious fish to fry.
What is it gets so distracted about internet porn?
Well, my reac is somebody a favor of it here?
What's it it is a huge problem.
Our whole cultural rot is a big problem.
What was the big faux pas that Santorum made?
I didn't see it as a faux pas.
I'll be honest, I didn't understand everybody else thinking that it was a huge political gaff.
There's a lot of stuff in this country that needs fixed.
There are a lot of things that are wrong.
Cultural rot is in the middle of this mix, some of the cultural rot going on in this country is a direct descendant of political decisions and political programs that have been put into place.
Santorum's mistake is that he assumes a lot of people think and see things as he does.
And a lot do, but the political class doesn't.
Political class gets fixated on whatever the issue of the day is as defined by the mainstream media, and then rolls with that.
But he's exactly right here.
I I I I do not understand, and I have no problem saying so, I do not understand the president of the United States not saying anything when a group of citizens issues a bounty for another citizen in the United States of America and the President or his Justice Department don't even seem interested in that.
And then when this young kid gets shot in Sanford, Florida, the reaction is if I had a son, he would look like me.
Sorry, last thing that ever occurs to me when somebody gets shot.
When somebody's murdered, the last thing is that they look like me.
It doesn't compute.
But the left, they see things like this purely as surface matters.
These are political opportunities for these people.
That's the sad thing about this.
Here you have the death of an American citizen that's seen as a political opportunity.
There's no humanity in that.
There's no compassion in that.
It's just, as Don would say, it's very sad.
It's very sad.
And it is.
I got to take a break.
You sit tight, we'll be back and continue much more here on the EIB network when we get back.
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
No mean feat.
I continue to think about the Obamacare, oral arguments at the Supreme Court.
You know, that there's something about this that is genuinely troubling.
We have nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court.
The media is focusing on five of them.
Four of them are excused.
Four of them are considered to be locked and loaded and above and beyond question.
And those are the four liberal justices.
They are not expected to be open-minded.
The media is not asking them to consider things outside their normal purview.
But the four conservatives and the one moderate Anthony Kennedy, the media is challenging them to be open-minded about this, to maybe see the way to voting against the way they are preternaturally inclined.
So four justices are given a pass.
The four liberal justices are considered, obviously, locked in stone and properly so.
And the pressure is being brought to bear on the other five.
But beyond that, do you not find it troubling that in a case so blatantly unconstitutional, in a law that is so blatantly in violation of the United States Constitution, that we have to rely on one or two justices to protect the republic?
You would think that this wouldn't even be a question for all nine of them.
Coerced contracts are against the law, much less the Constitution.
You cannot force anybody to sign a contract, which is essentially what Obamacare does when it mandates you to buy an insurance policy.
And yet we have to rely on one or two justices to see this.
That's precarious.
That is a precarious balance in which freedom is on the scales.
That's troubling to me.
Not to mention the fact one of these justices should have recused herself, Elena Kagan.
She was solicitor general in the Obama administration.
She argued cases before the Supreme Court.
She was responsible for formulating the Obama regime's legal defense of Obamacare.
She was that was her job.
Now, if that isn't enough to disqualify somebody as a justice on a case, I don't know what is.
This should be in a sane, reasonable, responsible world, and automatic recusal, and she should do it on her own as a matter of honor and legal ethics.
But there isn't any pressure brought to bear on her to speak of.
And obviously left to her own devices, she is not going to recuse herself because at the end of the day, that's precisely why she's there.
That's why Obama nominated her.
That's why she's on the she is there for one purpose.
Well, one primary purpose, and that is to provide a vote for the constitutionality of Obamacare, and then to stay on the court and continue to write law as a liberal.
So it's but the primary reason she's nominated is to be a vote that Obama can count on here.
When her job as the Solicitor General, Solicitor General, by the way, if you're new to the program, the Solicitor General is the lawyer for the government who tries cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.
That's the government's lawyer.
And as such, her job was to formulate the Obama administration's legal defense of Obamacare.
Grounds for recusal right now.
If she had any legal ethics, she would recuse herself.
There shouldn't need to be any pressure.
That's why all the liberals are sure things.
Lockstep.
They were picked because they could be certain to vote the liberal way, not because of judicial temperament or any any any sort of uh legal brilliance.
They were picked precisely to be a reliable liberal vote on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Now, some of you might be shouting at your radio, well, well, don't the Republicans do that.
Well, they may try, but they don't succeed.
I count you a whole bunch of so-called conservative judges appointed to the Supreme Court who become liberal over time, David Souter is one.
But there are countless others.
But you notice that the Republican-appointed justices are not dependable.
This is this is what I'm really getting at here.
They're not dependable, so they have to be pressured by the media, which is working for the administration to make sure they get this right.
But the four liberal judges don't even think about talking to them.
Don't even ask them to be open-minded.
Don't even ask them to consider the merits of the case.
They are there to vote for Obama.
Pure and simple.
Or whoever.
The Democrat president is.
Folks, I uh I don't usually cover the local crime beat, but since it seems to be popular topic this week, there is a bit of news.
A 21-year-old Mississippi State University student was killed over the weekend in his dorm.
He was the victim of multiple gunshot wounds.
And shortly after the incident, it's a quote now, shortly after the incident, investigators said witnesses and security cameras observed three African American males fleeing the scene.
The suspects were so thoroughly identified it was announced that They were not Mississippi State University students.
Now, this murder hasn't gotten very much coverage in the national media.
There is an AP story on it here.
The headline of the story, coroner rules MSU student death a homicide.
And a person of interest has been identified.
A weapon was discovered.
The uh victim is John Sanderson, 21 Madison received multiple gunshot wounds shortly before 10 o'clock Saturday at Evans Hall.
Shortly after the incident, investigators said witnesses and security cameras observed uh three African American males flaying the scene.
John Sanderson.
Well, I'm not your ask is white, yeah.
Um, but there hadn't been much on this story from uh Saturday night.
So I just I wanted to mention it to you.
Okay, we're back.
I know I said we're gonna get to phone calls in the last half hour, and I meant to.
I really did mean to.
So I'm gonna do it now, make it up to you.
John in Carlsbad, California, beautiful place, by the way, and it's great to have you on the program.
Hello, sir.
Great to be on the program.
Good morning and Megadiddos.
Uh thank you very much.
So I actually called to comment about the health care, but uh I just want to mention that I actually have the silver bullet for the Republican platform to win over many, many Democrats, if you'd like to hear at the end of this.
But again, Mr. Obama is the least qualified in the room.
You know, health care sometime in the 70s or 80s moved from or health insurance, I should say, move from insurance into this kind of health care thing.
It's not insurance.
Insurance was designed for people to take in and put a certain amount of money in to pool risk so that if the unlikely event happened, they could take that money and pay off that event.
I mean, that's really what it's about.
You know, you don't so you don't have to pay it all yourself.
You're you're sharing sharing the load.
But suddenly insurance, what we keep calling insurance is really turned into you're paying for health care.
So if you get everybody in this country paying into this, you can't just give them two hundred dollars a month and expect to get fifty everyone get fifteen hundred a month worth of care.
It's just not gonna work.
It's a Ponzi scheme.
So this whole idea that we can put everybody under one umbrella of quote unquote health care and get it less expensive than just paying for it outright is ludicrous, because as soon as you get everybody into it, you're you're Yeah, but you see, you're I look, I'm gonna tell you something I know you understand.
The money is irrelevant to the proponents of national health care.
How it's paid for, who pays for it is irrelevant.
As is everything going on with them now.
We are sixteen trillion dollars in debt.
Obama has run up the national debt more in three years than all previous presidents combined.
The deficits of Barack Obama dwarf those it's not even close, George W. Bush's, and he's doubling down for even more.
How the what what this is about, what national health care about is about, as you have described it here, is total control over the population.
Once they get this, once this is fully implemented, this is ball game, because everything that we do can be dictated to by by the government because it will have impact on our health.
They can restrict our movements, our freedom in any way they want because of what they claim will be the impact on the cost of health care.
That's when they will care about about cost.
This this administration and the Democrat Party don't care about how something's gonna be paid for other than rhetorically when they're opposing tax cuts.
But financial solvency is not a concern of theirs.
In fact, it's just it's uh it's it's just the opposite.
You're right in in terms of what they're trying to convince people that their premiums aren't ever gonna get.
In fact, Obama promised premiums would be reduced $2,500 per person.
And he's trying to convince people that for a meager fine for the first couple of years, they can be totally covered health-wise.
But uh you you're right.
Another way to illustrate it is birth control pills.
Why would birth control pills be covered Under the normal sense of health insurance.
There's no relationship whatsoever.
Unless you succeed in convincing people that pregnancy is an illness, that pregnancy is a disease, and that a birth control pill will prevent disease.
It's just a it's another political move designed to get the votes of women.
Obamacare is simply the gateway to totalitarianism.
It's the fastest way to get there.
That's what it's all about.
That's why all the Democrats are unanimously for it without caring about one detail, particularly financial.
John, thanks for the call.
Appreciate it.
Kevin Morristown, New Jersey, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Hello, Rush.
Pleasure to talk to you.
You were talking earlier about Obamacare being a compulsory contract, but there's another aspect to it I haven't heard anything about lately.
It's kind of gotten lost.
It's not just the contract that's compulsory.
Isn't it the treatments?
Aren't they going to put together some kind of boards or panels that determine you know what the recommended treatment is for whatever it is that's.
Now, this is an interesting thing you bring up.
Let's look, because yes, the answer to short answer question is yes, and let's look at Dick Cheney.
Dick Cheney received a heart transplant operation over the weekend on Saturday.
He waited 20 months.
He got no special favors.
By the way, you ought to see on some of the Democrat Party blogs some of the abject hate that is aimed at Dick Cheney.
I marvel.
I literally marvel at all the allegations that Obama and the Democrats make against Republicans and conservatives about hate.
They own and have cornered the market.
Some of the stuff, and it's voluminous.
There's a lot of it aimed at Dick Cheney is despicable.
It would make you sick to your stomach if you saw it.
But there's also another vein of criticism.
And it's from the people who deny that there will be death panels in Obamacare.
There are liberals and Democrats who say that Cheney's too old compared to other people to have received a heart.
Doesn't matter if he can afford it, doesn't matter if it was paid, doesn't matter.
He's too old.
Somebody more deserving should have gotten his heart.
Now, the hate for Cheney is part and parcel of this.
But by their own words and by their own actions, the left denying that there are death panels are now wishing that there were.
In the case of Dick Cheney, there are people, and they're not all fringe people who are claiming that this is a very selfish act with the Cheney family.
Take this heart.
He should have just died.
He's 71, he's finished working, he's performed his public service.
He's not doing he's written his book, he's not doing anything else.
Somebody else should get that heart.
Hello, death panels.
So your question here about treatment?
Well, the treatment may not be forthcoming.
That's the whole point.
You will be forced to buy, sign a contract, forced to buy health insurance.
But that, if this thing ever gets fully implemented, that's no guarantee you're going to be treated.
That's the whole point.
Because that all of a sudden is when cost will matter.
Oh, yes, my friends, that's in fact that's exactly when cost will matter.
Then they will start determining whether or not a 71-year-old former vice president should in fact get a heart.
How many years does he have left?
What kind of productivity are we going to get out of him?
What contributions to his country can he possibly make?
He's 71.
There are people far more deserving.
And that will be exactly what happens when Obamacare is fully implemented.
That's and they will use costs.
They will say, look, it doesn't make any sense for us to spend all this money on a pacemaker or a heart transplant or whatever for whoever, if they're 70 years old.
It uh it just doesn't.
In fact, let grab audio of somebody's twelve and thirteen.
Let's just put this in perspective.
What we have here last night on uh ABC's World News Weekend.
Anchor David Muir spoke with the chief health and medical editor, Dr. Richard Besser about uh Cheney's heart transplant.
And the question was a transplant for someone in their 60s and 70s, that can really prolong their life.
It's really incredible.
Seven and a half years.
That's the average length it will extend someone's life who has this transplant if they're over 65.
It used to be that age 55 was the cutoff.
Anything above that you wouldn't get transplanted.
But now they look at the person as a whole.
If there's no kidney disease, there haven't been any strokes, if they're in good health, age is no longer a barrier.
I was talking to the program at UCLA.
The average weight there is three to six months.
He waited 20.
He waited 20.
He didn't ask for preferential treatment.
He didn't get any.
But the hate moners on the left, he shouldn't have gotten it at all.
Let's go back to June 24th of 2009, ABC News, a primetime special questions for the president.
Prescription for America.
A woman shows up in the audience.
You're probably tired of hearing me say this, but I I please remember this audience is growing.
Leaps and bounds every day.
There are people have not been here before.
So please indulge me if uh you find this repetitive.
But I just when this happened back in June of 2000, and I was appalled that an American citizen had to ask the President of the United States if he would approve her mother getting a pacemaker.
What have we come to?
And I don't know this woman.
I don't know if she thought that that this was outrageous that she had to ask.
But she was part of the show.
Her mother was a hundred years old, wanted a pacemaker.
One doctor said no, it's uh it'd be a waste, it's too old.
Another doctor said, Ah, she's in good shape, I'll go ahead and put it in.
And her question to Obama was, should we take into account somebody's spirit, their will to live, their joy of living, their quality of life when we make these decisions as to who to pay for a pacemaker in this case?
And here's Obama's answer.
I don't think that we can make judgments based on people's spirit.
Uh that'd be uh a pretty subjective decision to be making.
I think we have to have rules that say that we are going to provide good quality care for all people.
End of life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're going to have to make.
But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another.
If they're not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they're being made by private insurers.
At least we can let doctors know, and your mom know that you know what, maybe this isn't going to help.
Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking uh the painkiller.
It's not his decision, folks.
It simply isn't and it should never be the decision of the President of the United States or the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
It should not be the position of anybody in government, whether or not a family member of yours gets a pacemaker or medical treatment.
That should be up to you and whoever your insurer is.
See, that's the rub, though.
When they become the sole insurer, when you have to go to them to get your health insurance and thus coverage, guess what?
Obama can tell you to take the pain pill.
That's what's at stake here.
Be right back.
You think I'm making all this up?
NBC ran a headline.
NBC ran a does did Cheney really deserve that heart transplant.
Alec Baldwin, Democrat in good standing, has tweeted about Cheney.
He wrote, How about new hearts for all the all the all the ones that Cheney broke in a bogus war with Iraq and those of families of U.S. servicemen who gave their lives for oil?
These are the people who claim to have all the compassion and love for their fellow man and culture, society, and all that.
They are some of the angriest, most bitter, vile, enraged People that you will ever come across preaching compassion, demanding that everybody else treat everybody the way they demand.
But NBC News with a headline, did Cheney really deserve?
Who's if Dick Cheney can afford it, if his policy can afford it, and if his doctor thinks it medically advisable, what business is it of anybody else's, including NBCs?
It is nobody's business until the government runs everything, and then everybody's gonna claim it's their business.
And if you think unity is going to result from this, if you think we're going to have a peaceful society and culture, you haven't seen anything yet.
Until they start denying people treatment for whatever, based on whatever.
Tip of the iceberg.
Tim Tebow met the New York sports media to the sports media, I say.
At Florham Park, New Jersey, the Jets headquarters, their training facility.
They introduced Tebow.
First time I can ever recall a backup quarterback, Brian getting a press conference.
You know, a lot of Jets players are making the same observation.
I what is this?
Uh backup quarterback getting a press conference?
An introductory press conference never happened before.
But this again is the sports media.
What would the media say about a transplant for Bill Clinton?
He may need one someday.
He's already had a number of heart surgery.
What if he needs a heart transplant?
So what what what what if what if um what if some of the people at the Breitbart firm start questioning whether or not Clinton deserves a heart?
What do you think the outcry would be?
No.
I don't need to tell you, you can answer the question.
Here's the question from the New York Sports Media.
We got two of them here.
Tim, if you will, two-part question.
Number one, obviously you know New York's huge market, your faith very important to you.
Was the thought of being able to spread your faith in the New York market a big deal?
And how about spreading your faith within the locker room?
And do you do that very carefully?
Sports media asking a social issues question.
Well, I think, you know, first and foremost, it doesn't matter what market I was at.
Any market, I just want to be myself and want to mask about it.
I won't be ashamed of saying that, you know, I serve my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
And in the locker room, you know, it's not something that I'm super outspoken about.
It's just that's who I am and that's how I live.
And you know, I don't try to share it with a lot of guys.
I don't try to, you know, approach a lot of guys with it.
Because I think the greatest way to share the gospel is by acting it and by them saying who you are as a person, and that's how I approach it.
And the next question.
Tim, if you wouldn't mind talking to us about your core beliefs, and also some of the social hot button topics that we hear politicians talk about, religious leaders talk about.
You haven't said a whole lot about that.
Is there a reason why backup quarterback for the New York Jets, you haven't spoken out about social issues and your core beliefs that we hear politicians?
When was the last football player ever asked about core political beliefs?
Here's Tebow's answer.
We're at a press conference for a football team, so it's not exactly the platform to get up here and share everything you believe, but I have no problems ever sharing what I believe.
And um, you know, I'm a Christian, I'm a follower of Jesus Christ, and that is first and foremost the most important thing in my life, and for me it's about having a relationship with Christ, and that's pretty much it.
This is a press conference for the New York Jets football team.
And so I feel like it's an opportunity to answer questions about my opportunity to be here as a jet, and I'm excited about that.
And anytime I get an opportunity, I'm always gonna talk about Jesus Christ and what he's done in my life, but this is also here to talk about the Jets.
That's the New York sports media, just as liberal as their buddies in the uh the news press corps.
Okay, brief time out here at the top, we'll be back, folks, and move right on after this.
Yeah, I'm sitting here, I'm wondering if the New York Jets had just signed a Muslim be their backup quarterback.
And if they had a press conference like this, I wonder if the New York sports media would ask the Muslim quarterback questions about his religious beliefs or his thoughts on social issues as expressed by politicians.
Well, obviously the answer is no.
So why do they ask those questions of Tebow?
And again, the question answers itself.
AP, Dick Cheney Heart Transplant reopens debate.
What debate?
Reopens what debate?
What's the debate that is transport?
▲
Export Selection