All Episodes
Previous Next
March 27, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:45
March 27, 2012, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
Rush Limbaugh hosting the most listened to radio talk show in the country, the most talked about radio talk show in the country, hosted by the most listened to radio talk show host in the country, who happens to be the most talked-about radio talk show host in the country, and maybe the most talked-about person in the country outside of Tim Tebow.
Great to have you with us, my friends.
One exciting sterling hour of broadcast excellence remains, hosted by me, all of the above.com.
Terrence Jeffrey, Cybercast News Service Administration admits to the court under Obamacare.
A select group can get health care and not pay for it and not buy insurance and not pay a penalty.
Referring to this earlier, the Solicitor General for the for the regime did not have a good day today during uh oral arguments.
And now that this bill's been passed, we continue to learn what's in it and what it means.
More government control, free riders are still going to ride free.
That's what Terry Jeffrey has uncovered here.
The long article, I won't read the whole thing to you.
President Obama has justified the mandate in his health care law that requires everybody to buy health insurance by arguing that it will eliminate free riders.
That is people who get health care, often from emergency rooms, but lacking insurance never pay anything back into the health care system.
That's why the mandate's important, Obama said in a speech last August.
Because the basic theory is look, everybody here at some point or another is going to need medical care, and you can't be a free rider on everybody else.
You can't not have health insurance and go to the emergency room, and each of us who've done the responsible thing and have health insurance, suddenly we now have to pay the premiums for you.
That's not fair, so if you can afford it, you should get health insurance just like you get car insurance.
However, at the Supreme Court yesterday, Justice Samuel Alito forced Obama's solicitor general Donald Verrilly to admit that under Obamacare, these free riders will not be eliminated despite the individual mandate.
From an elite group, including people eligible for Medicaid who don't sign up for it, and people whose health care expenses exceed 8% of their income.
The Obamacare mandate is no mandate, and the penalty is neither a penalty nor a tax, because they aren't required to pay it, period.
Under Obamacare, and the government lawyer admitted this, these free riders can continue to receive free health care, not sign up for health insurance, not sign up for Medicaid, and not pay a penalty.
And it was Justice Sam Alito who took the Solicitor General apart on this.
In fact, we have three sound bites from the oral arguments today.
We have Ruth Vader Ginsburg, we have Antonin Scalia, and we have Justice Kennedy.
Now remember, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was in Egypt recently, where the Muslim Brotherhood's taken over in the so-called Arab Spring.
And she was advising them on creating a constitution.
And she specifically told them to not model their constitution after the United States Constitution.
She said that it was old, antiquated, had too much discrimination built in, did not have enough human rights and social justice included in it.
This is what she said.
An active sitting associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court told the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, forget us, we didn't do it right.
That's why I tell you that this health care law is not about health care as far as the left is concerned.
It's about throwing out a huge chunk of the Constitution that they don't like.
Anyway, that's who she is, and we have our first soundbite.
Here she is trying to help Varilli, the government lawyer.
And her argument that she makes here to him, uh she's arguing for the mandate here in uh in oral arguments this morning.
And it's not an emotional argument that she's making.
It's not about the Constitution at all.
Listen to what she says.
Your major point of your argument was that the people who don't participate in this market are making it much more expensive for the people who do.
That is, they will get a goodly number of them will get services that they can't afford at the point when they need them.
And the result is that everybody else's premiums get raised.
So it's not your your free choice just to do something for yourself.
What you do is going to affect others, affect them in in a major way.
She's telling the government lawyer what to say here.
Which she can do.
I mean, this oral argument, the justice can ask or say whatever they want, make observations.
But she's trying to help Varilli because he was floundering today.
And she was trying to help him make the right argument.
She said, This is what you need to be saying, you doofus.
Up next is Anton Scalia, who buries Virilli.
You'll hear him in this soundbite on the broccoli argument.
Could you define the market?
Everybody has to buy food sooner or later.
So you define the market as food.
Therefore, everybody's in the market.
Therefore, you can make people buy broccoli.
No.
That's it's quite different.
It's quite different.
The food market, while it it shares that trait that everybody's in it, it is not a market in which your participation is often unpredictable and often involuntary.
It is not a market in which you often don't know before you go in what you need, and it is not a market in which if you go in and uh seek to obtain uh product or service, you will get it even if you can't.
Is that a principled basis for distinguishing this from other situations?
I mean, you know, you could also say, well, the person subject to this has blue eyes.
That would indeed distinguish it from other situations.
It is is it a principled basis?
I mean, it's a basis that explains why the government is doing this, but is it a basis?
Is it a basis of law?
And how how about the differentiation that uh that Virilli came up with here between the food and the health care market?
Well, you don't know when you're gonna need health care, and you don't know how much you're gonna need, and you never know in advance.
Uh therefore it's it's unpredictable, and sometimes it's involuntary.
The food market, you're gonna be there every day, you're gonna be doing this and so forth.
Well, so even more justification for the feds being involved.
I mean, if if if it's predictable and everybody's gonna be in the food market every day, then what better set of circumstances for the government to get in and tell people what they have to eat in order for our health care costs, for example, to be kept down.
Here's Anthony Kennedy to uh Vermilly Verrilly.
And this is uh this is the point that we opened the program with today that that that Scalia, or rather Kennedy said, You got a heavy burden here, pal.
You have got a really heavy burden you got trying to make here.
This is Kennedy saying it.
This is a step beyond what our cases have allowed.
The affirmative duty to act to go into commerce.
If that is so, do you not have a heavy burden of justification?
I understand that we must presume laws are constitutional.
But even so, uh, when you are changing the relation of the individual to the government in this what we can stipulate is I I think a unique way.
Do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution?
Yeah, you do.
And again, bad day for Mr. Virilli and Jeffrey Tubin, if you weren't here, earlier today on CNN expressed total shock.
He was an early predictor that this would sail through, be found constitutional.
After oral arguments today, he thinks all bets are off.
He thinks it's going to go down big.
He didn't think it has a chance now.
That caused Wolf Blitzer to go into hysterics and start blaming the government lawyer for not doing a good job fumbling around, stumbling around, maybe wasn't well prepared.
And uh and many in the legal left here are now beside themselves today.
They really did.
They thought they had a slam dunk here.
And particularly with Kennedy, and and the tone and uh the direction Kennedy took in his questioning has not got them petrified.
But it's still just oral arguments.
And that nothing more.
Tubin did say that oftentimes oral arguments are a good predictor, but not always.
So we uh must still wait.
Now, from the Daily Caller today, former NAACP leader C. L. Bryant is accusing the uh Reverend Jacks and Al Sharpton of exploiting the Trayvon Martin tragedy to racially divide the country.
Those are his words that's in quotes, racially divide the country.
Reverend C. L. Bryant, in an interview with the Daily Caller, said his family, meaning Trayvon Martins, should be outraged at the fact that they're using this child as the bait to inflame racial passions.
Now, C.L. Bryant is a conservative black pastor.
He was once the chapter president of the Garland, Texas NAACP.
He called the uh Reverend Dax and Al Sharpton race hustlers, said they're acting as though they're buzzards circling the carcass of this young boy.
The uh Reverend Dax, for example, recently said Martin's death shows how blacks are under attack and targeting, arresting, convicting blacks, and ultimately killing us is big business.
I haven't remembered the numbers.
I saw them yesterday.
The uh numbers of black citizens murdered by other black citizens as compared to white citizens is off the charts.
Most violent black crime is intra-racial.
It's uh what was it, FBI numbers or census?
I forget which, but the the uh Reverend Dax is entirely wrong here in his implication that violent crime against blacks is committed mostly by white people.
It isn't.
It's committed by blacks and other minorities.
So it's it's it's one NAACP guy from uh Garland, Texas.
Now here's the Miami Herald story on the uh uh detailing the life of Trayvon Martin.
Um this stuff's been out, as I said, this story happened a month ago.
This stuff has been out there, it's been known for a while.
It's just now surfacing.
And I don't want to spend a lot of time on this because none of it justifies him being shot.
The uh I think I think the reason why it's coming out, the original portrayal was of innocent young teenager eating Skittles shot by white Hispanic cop wannabe, and it turns out that uh the original picture was not accurate at all.
And I think now there can be some people concerned that we might be dealing with a variation of the Duke LaCrosse case here where he had a stereotype.
Everybody wanted it to be the way the stereotype is written, and it's turning out not to be, a little upset about it, because it's not as simple and cut and dried as uh either the Reverend Sharpton or Reverend uh Jackson wanted it to be.
But they talk about the contents of his backpack, the little marijuana dust in their screwdriver that he had used as a burglary tool.
They've they've looked at his uh tweet handle, Twitter handle, and it's it's uh used the N-word, and they've reprinted some of his actual tweets and they're you know, teenager type stuff.
Uh and that's got his mother all ticked off now, trying to destroy his reputation, she says, after they've killed my son.
But meanwhile, the mother of Trayvon Martin, Sabrina Fulton, has filed A trademark to protect the rights to his name as an attempt to control and collect money from the merchandise being produced in support of their cause.
It was uh this the UK Daily Mail.
It was revealed today that Sabrina Fulton, the boy's mother, filed two petitions last week to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to specifically gain the rights to the phrase I am Trayvon and Justice for Trayvon, both of which have been frequently used by protesters across the country.
Dawn is theorizing that maybe this is to help pay for the new Black Panther Party bounty.
All right.
On George Zimmerman.
By the way, according to a local Miami TV station, eyeball 10 news, the police are reporting that Trayvon Martin protesters have ransacked a Walgreen store in North Miami Beach, reporting that North Miami Beach police said surveillance video shows dozens of Haskrul students demonstrating in the Trayvon Martin case Friday, ransacking a Walgreens.
The incident occurred during a walkout from the North Miami Beach Senior High School in support of Martin.
Surveillance video shows dozens of teenagers running to the store.
Police said about 80 to 100 students stormed in, ransacked the shelves before the school's vice principal ordered everybody outside.
What the vice principal followed them over to Walmart.
Uh Walgreens.
Some of the students dropped their IDs on the way out of the store, according to the police, so that investigators have no idea who was inside.
So it continues to fester.
And yes, the new Black Panther Party bounty is still there.
And again, not one entity from any government has denounced it, criticized it, or called anybody in and said, hey, yank it.
Not one.
You'd almost think that people want this chaos.
Gotta take a break.
We'll be back much more straight ahead right after this.
I just was told the new Black Panther Party has upped its bounty to one million dollars.
Ten thousand dollars, apparently not enough to get somebody to tell them where George Zimmerman is.
So the new Black Panther Party has upped that bounty to one million dollars.
I am nearly speechless over this.
A million dollar bounty.
I don't need to provide any more details.
I really don't.
Folks, we have a great tweet coming up.
Uh hopefully I'm going to get this thing up shortly after the program.
It's a great piece, Jeffrey Lord today in the uh in the American Spectrum.
But wait till we tweet it so you can retweet this thing out.
It is j it is.
It is a priceless piece on this terrorism disguised as a boycott of my program and others.
Uh he points out who the next targets are.
Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram, Sarah Palin, and uh Mark Levin are the next targets of this whole effort here.
And it's uh just a fan, it's a long read.
Well worth some of it you know already, but we're getting ready to tweet it out, and another new generation iPad given away today to another lucky person who signed up with a Twitter account.
So what we're asking you to do is just go to Twitter, sign up with your email address, free, no other obligation, and then follow me at Limbaugh, the ampersand at Limbaugh or at Rush Limbaugh.
No space between the two words, between the two names, and see everything that we tweet out and retweet it.
And gazillions of people will see what we tweet.
Here is Robert, Tex Arcana, Texas.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hey, Rush.
My question today, or more of an observation, would be where is if I hope I'm saying this correctly, the Rasa or any of the other Hispanic leadership or the Hispanic community standing behind Zimmerman, seen as how he is the victim, how he was assaulted, and you don't hear anyone standing up from him from the Hispanic community.
You know, that's an interesting point.
I you're right.
I haven't heard a word from La Raza about this.
It it's it's it just takes me back that I'm I I guess it doesn't further any of their goals.
My wife is Hispanic and she is actually.
Yeah, but wait a minute now.
We we've we've learned I've got it right here.
George Zimmerman's a registered Democrat.
He's not a conservative, he's not a Republican.
Right.
Where where is anyone coming to his aid?
He was assaulted.
Well, one thing it's gonna he did pull the trigger on the kid.
It that that's that until we know what happened, it's gonna be tough for somebody to come out and defend that.
Uh uh, but but the uh clearly you you can you can uh uh speak up for him on this bounty for crying out loud.
Yes, the bounty is just absurd.
I just cannot believe that they're allowing this to happen here in America.
Yeah, I that is mind-boggling to me.
That's a great way.
They're allowing it.
It's being permitted.
I i it is stupefying.
It really is.
Uh but you w once they label Zimmerman, the New York Times, once they label him a white Hispanic, then uh that's that's a built-in excuse for La Raza to take the day off.
And nothing on La Raz's website about Zimmerman, by the way.
And uh I it it's a it's a it's a good point.
Again, th you you I don't think you'd expect anybody to come out and defend him for pulling the trigger before we know what led to that.
But clearly the bounty and this pursuit of him under those circumstances, yeah, somebody ought to speak up.
Ladies and gentlemen, I misspeaked.
When I said it's the ampersand, I meant to say it's the and sign, not the ampersand.
The circle A gizmo at Limbaugh or at Rush Limbaugh, not the Ampersand, as uh it was a misspeak.
And uh also have a minor, minor La Raza connection.
There is, or I should say there was a piece posted at La Raza by Janet Mergufa, who is uh president and CEO of the NCLR, whatever that is, uh oh National Council of La Raza.
And it's a report of an article posted at the Huffington Puffington Post.
And it was posted at La Raza on March 26th.
It's uh about Zimmerman.
I said there was nothing there, but Zimmerman, there is, but it's uh on March 22nd, it's five days ago.
And it's uh actually just a r a repost from the Huffing and Puffington Post.
Complete investigation, vital for justice in the Trayvon Martin case.
This piece never mentions Zimmerman as being Hispanic.
On the La Raza website.
It calls for a thorough investigation because there's such a long history of race crimes against African Americans.
On the La Raza site, but it doesn't say anything about Zimmerman being uh Hispanic.
There's a little ditchy here from the article they posted five days ago.
Unfortunately, Trayvon Martin's death reminds us of a frightening time in our country's history when violent crimes perpetrated against African Americans went unreported or were protected by law enforcement authorities.
So that's what's posted five days ago at La Raza.
So the caller was right.
Nobody in the Hispanic activist community is uh piping up here.
Here's Greg in Chatham, New Jersey.
Welcome to the program.
Great to have you, sir.
Yes, thanks, Maha Russi.
Uh Rush, to my knowledge, no one has yet taken a poll uh of the Hispanic eligible voters who may seem in light of uh Obama's comments to have taken sides uh against them and for uh Trayvon.
Just want to get your comments on that.
Well, I think I understand your thinking.
I just I think that's a little premature.
He did pull the trigger.
He did shoot and kill Trevon Martin.
That's that is a tough thing to stand up and defend the act itself.
So I think people are waiting to see the final detailed version of the story whenever that happens.
Now, whether the Hispanic community decides someday to get upset at Obama for choosing sides in this remains to be seen.
Depends on what the details of the story are, I would think.
And then to assume that the media is going to go out and do a poll that would end up showing something negative for Obama on this is another stretch.
But never know.
Could happen.
Dale in Ventura, California, you're next.
Your turn here on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hey, let me do those, Rush.
My question for you is should, and I'm taking a cautionary turn here, should, Should the health care law be ruled unconstitutional, we know it's going to hurt Obama.
By the same token, then, since Massachusetts was modeled after it.
Is it going to make Massachusetts null and void, and thereby Kurt Romney in his election run?
No.
States can do this.
The federal government, the interstate commerce clause, federal government, by virtue of the Constitution cannot mandate the citizens buy something.
Massachusetts being a state is not bound in this regard by the U.S. Constitution when it comes to the uh uh Interstate Commerce Clause.
So there won't be any fallout on Romney care as a result of what happens on the constitutionality or not of Obamacare.
The states are free to uh come up that's why it's often referred to the states or 50 individual laboratories where things like this let the states play with it, let the states come up with solution, let them test this, let them find the best way to work, then have the feds adopt that is a uh often uttered constitutional and and policy theory.
But Romney care safe on this score uh from um there was there might be some fallout on free birth control pills.
In fact, there will be.
If Obamacare is held unconstitutional and college co-eds could face uh personal expenses, what did we hear?
$3,000?
Thousand dollars a year uh to have uh protected sex.
So free birth control pills would go by the wayside, and who knows?
Uh a number of other things.
But Romney care would survive.
Diane and Jonesboro, Arkansas, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hello, how are you?
I'm good.
How are you?
I'm wonderful.
Thank you so much for taking my question.
You bet.
Okay.
Uh isn't Medicare socialized medicine.
Thus, if Obamacare is determined to be unconstitutional, wouldn't Medicare also be unconstitutional?
No.
It's a good question.
Uh the what what is being determined here as to whether or not it's constitutional is the Commerce Clause.
The Interstate Commerce Clause.
Uh Obamacare mandates that everybody buy health insurance, and if they don't, they pay a fine.
That's no different than mandating you go, you have to buy broccoli or you have to buy whatever they say you want to buy, once they can get past the notion they can force you to have or buy something, and you can that there's no limit on it.
Medicare, you don't have to buy anything.
Uh, are you sure?
Well, you're no but but it's it's it's not it's not the same Commerce Clause uh requirement that that we have here.
Medic if in fact the dirty little secret about all this is that the Obama administration cuts Medicare 500 billion dollars.
It's always been said the Republicans are gonna take away your Medicare.
Republicans are going to take away your social security.
There's Obama doing it in uh in Obamacare.
No, no, uh just like this wouldn't invalidate Social Security.
Or it wouldn't invalidate food stamps.
It this this is it's not gonna be found unconstitutional on the basis that the government can tax you to give the money to other people.
That's not what's going on here.
It's it's explicit.
You're sitting there, you're minding your own business, and then one day you're told that you have to go out and buy health insurance.
The government cannot do that.
They cannot.
It has never been constitutional.
It's it's it's I think this may be, and I stand to be corrected on this, this may be the first time that a political party or a president has tried this.
Now I I could be wrong about this because the there are so many massive liberal entitlement programs, but you can opt out of Medicare.
You can't opt out of this if this is if this is said to be constitutional, you can opt out of Medicare, but you can't opt out of this and it's so bad.
In fact if you refuse to buy the policy then they can fine you this is the funding mechanism to get the whatever the number is 30 million uninsured to get them health insurance look at it this way for the longest time we've heard about how unjust and unfair this despicable country is why there are 42 million Americans without health insurance what kind of a country are we?
What kind of a mean bunch of SOBs are we?
30, 42 million.
So here comes Obama with magic I'm going to get everybody covered and I'm going to have insurance premiums are going to get cheaper and health medical treatment's going to get cheaper.
It's magic.
Where is the money going to come from to insure these people?
You will be forced to buy a policy.
And that is where the bill is paid for.
That's why if this is thrown out, because that does generate a lot of money, requiring everybody to buy health insurance generates a lot of money.
And if it's not required any longer, that money is not generated.
That means the cost of this is going to double, at least, if it remains intact other than the mandate.
Romney has opted out of Medicare for.
example he says I'm not going to take it you don't have to buy Medicare.
You don't have to accept it just like you don't have to accept free birth control pills.
You can run around and demand them all day long but you don't have to accept them to clarify this Medicare business because that was a good question from Jonesboro, Arkansas.
Medicare is a direct tax for a benefit to look at it that way.
Obamacare is not a tax for a benefit Obamacare forces people to enter into a private contract or to be penalized for failing to do so and a compulsory contract is oxymoronic.
You can't be forced to sign a contract, but that's what you have with an insurance company when you get a policy.
And you simply can't the government cannot do that.
I I now the Supreme Court may say that it can but it's ignoring the Constitution when it does it's that simple which is what the left is hoping for by the way but there's no comparison people are taxed for the benefit that is Medicare.
But there's nothing like that happening in Obamacare.
There's no tax for a benefit just like you you don't go buy a car for a benefit you buy a car to buy a car.
You go buy it the benefit is not the car the car is the purchase same thing here with Obamacare.
You are forced to go buy insurance and compelled to sign a contract and that force that government force or the or the compelling you to do so or being penalized if you don't do it, is unconstitutional.
So there really is no comparison between the two.
John in Norwalk, Connecticut, you're next.
Great to have you, sir.
Hello.
Rush, how are you?
Excellent, thank you.
Rush, just uh just just a quick question.
Um, an Obama State of the Union message a few years ago, right?
Remember the Supreme Court was sitting in the first row.
Yep.
And he sort of like disrespected them a little bit.
Could it influence their decision?
I mean, to have that in their back pocket, you know what I'm saying?
If he was gonna uh to think in, I mean, they may not tell each other.
Idealistically you'd like to say no, but these guys are human beings, and he dissed them and their work on national TV in front of the world.
Exactly.
And it was over the Citizens United case, and he challenged their competence and their legal uh uh judgment.
And it was at that instance you Sam Alito shook his head, said, No, you're wrong, mouthed the words.
And I've I've like you, I've wondered if um if if the justices might not have forgotten that, have a little payback on mind.
Obama lied to him.
He lied to their faces, he lied to the American people about the work that they had done on the Citizens United case.
And he impugned their integrity in front of them and the world, and he did it right to their faces.
And so this open contempt for five justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Who knows?
We will never know if that's a factor in what they do.
Because you're right, they won't say so.
And uh I I doubt that they'll even talk about it amongst themselves.
It's not how it works.
There's not a whole lot of conversation between the justices.
They contrary to what you think, folks, they don't go into a room.
The case is before them and they they take a preliminary vote and they read their brief, but they don't debate.
Very rarely do justices try to persuade each other that they're wrong.
Well, I have this on the highest authority.
There's there's they don't go in the room and and uh start sipping coffee and Danish and start arguing with each other about these cases.
It's not I was surprised when I learned that, but it's uh it's not standard operating procedure.
I'm gonna have more on this tomorrow.
The Obama administration proposed today the first ever standards to cut carbon dioxide emissions in new power plants.
This would effectively bar the building of any new coal-fired plants, which Obama promised to do.
Uh and also head to Twitter not long from now.
We're tweeting a great, great piece by Jeff Lord from the American Spectator at Limbaugh or at Rush Limbaugh.
▲
Export Selection