All Episodes
Previous Next
March 28, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:46
March 28, 2012, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program documented to be almost always right seven percent of the time.
We are here behind the golden EIB microphone, Rush Limbaugh serving humanity simply by showing up.
Don't try this at home, folks.
The great make it look easy.
Remember, I am a highly trained broadcast specialist with enormous God-given talents, and you're not.
Well, at least in this field.
Uh telephone number 80082-2882, the email address L Rushbow, EIB net.com.
All right, now here is hope you were listening in the first hour.
It's a classic illustration of what I'm talking about.
How everybody gets caught up in the pundit game.
And how everybody wants to come up with a scenario that nobody else has come up with.
So they can prove when it's all over that they're the smartest in the room, while the country's hanging in the balance, and that ought to be what everybody's talking about.
But no, we've got an intellectual feast going on here.
And no, I'm not against smart people.
Don't misunderstand.
That's not what this is about.
I'm just our eye isn't on the ball.
This a piece of legislation is going to fundamentally, foundationally transform this country.
It's going to destroy it as founded if it ever gets implemented.
And that ought to be the focus of the debate here.
But I understand the courts up there deciding it, and it's too exciting to ignore the oral arguments.
I'm still.
I don't know.
I don't even know how to express it.
The idea that here we are.
A nation of 311 people, we now know from an AP story, and I've never, by the way, believed these numbers of 42 million uninsured, 50 million uninsured, because they emergency room.
When they made those arguments, all these people uninsured, incumbent in the argument was then they don't get health coverage or treatment, they don't get medical treatments.
BS, everybody gets medical treatment in this country.
Even the illegals get it when they show up.
So the ER.
But it turns out that in a nation of 311 people, million people, we only 15 million of them don't have health insurance.
Only 15 million, and the vast majority of those have chosen not to have it.
They're young, they think they're going to live forever, they're certainly not going to get sick.
And the others are rich people.
That'll pay for it themselves as it happens rather than go out and blow a bunch of money on insurance.
The numbers of people that really want it and don't have it is so smite, and yet we're doing this.
Yep, we're going to fundamentally alter the Constitution and the founding of this country for 15 million people who don't want it.
Will we do this for 15 million people who don't want to vote?
Well, maybe we would, because if this passes, if this does become law, the day's gonna come where Obama can tell you to go buy a vote in order that we all band together to save General Motors.
And don't think that I'm trying to make you laugh.
That is a real possibility, it's as real as these people telling us that we must own health insurance.
These are power hungry utopian statists.
They're in love with tyranny.
They are in love with the power over other people that they feel is in their grasp now.
They want to use that power.
If the vault is failing and General Motors is down the tubes and they think it's worth saving General Motors, then make you go buy a vault.
Those of you who can afford it, I mean, if you can afford higher taxes, they're gonna they're gonna ladle those on you.
Why not make you buy a vault?
Once they can make you buy health insurance.
Now, what's happening, we had the argument over Supreme Court today was over severability.
See, they forgot, well, actually they couldn't.
That's the dirty little secret.
But it's being said they they they forgot to put a severability clause in it, meaning if if one part of it is found unconstitutional, the rest stands.
That's not in the bill.
And so that was being discovered or argued today at the Supreme Court.
And based on that, we had everybody offering their opinions about what would happen and what it means if AB or C happens.
I'll play the game with you.
My version of the game is this.
Okay, what do they really want?
If I were a pundit on television and I were in competition, say with Charles Krauthammer or uh F. Chuck Todd to be the smartest pundit on TV.
That was my objective.
That's what I wanted at the end of the day.
If I didn't care about the real outcome here, all I wanted was to be the smartest guy.
I want everybody to think I'm the smartest guy at the end of the day on this.
Then what I would say to you is, okay, well, what is Obama and what are the left really want here?
And I would tell you they don't want a mandate.
Obama argued against the mandate when he was running against Hillary.
Now he only did that because Hillary came out for it.
He had to differentiate himself.
So Obama, and also to show that he wasn't a radical, starts criticizing the mandate, much as conservatives today criticize it.
He said the same things.
Well, if you can be forced to buy health insurance, then they can force you to buy Obama said this.
And everybody, well, look at this guy, he's a real centrist, man.
He's a really moderate guy, not some radical like those talk radio guys are saying, he's not some radical, he's a very reasonable guy.
Well, no, no.
Obama's wanted single payer from day one.
And we've got him on tape saying so.
And we've got him on tape telling the SEIU that it's going to take 10 to 15 years to get there, and everybody just be patient.
Country's not ready for any of this, he told the union.
So we're going to have to gradually turn the heat up on the water so they don't know they're boiling to death until it's happening.
But their objective is single payer.
That's what they want.
They want the government in charge.
They want no private sector health insurance industry or business at all.
They want to be the one-stop shop.
You have to go to them.
And that's nirvana.
That is power over every aspect of your life.
Every, every way you live.
That's it.
That's power.
That's what they want.
So we have three outcomes.
Well, two.
Let's focus on two outcomes.
First is that the mandate is found to be unconstitutional, but the rest of the bill survives.
And the conventional wisdom on that is, well, that'd be van trovable.
I don't know.
And then there are other people say, no, that'd be great.
And those people are saying, lose the mandate, but the rest of the bill stands.
Well, the funding mechanism is gone.
So Congress has got to fix that.
And it's assumed it'll be a Democrat Congress that fixes it.
So if the mandate's gone, the funding mechanism, what do they replace it with?
Well, hallelujah.
We go right to single payer now.
But we don't call it single payer.
We'll do Medicare for everybody.
That we're already taxing people for Medicare.
We'll just expand the beneficiary list and raise taxes.
Medicare will no longer be for the elderly.
It'll be for everybody.
And we've got our single payer.
And that will force the private health insurance industry to close up shop.
And there may be some validity to that.
There might in fact be some validity to the fact that Obama wouldn't mind losing the mandate as long as he maintains his position, as long as he's re-elected and the Democrats end up running Congress.
Oh, I can see where the mandate being thrown out would be a godsend for him.
The third or the second actual possibility...
If the mandate's unconstitutional, what happens to the rest of the law?
Does it remain?
Is it severable or not?
If the court decides that it's severable, and the rest of the bill stands, then listen to James Carvel.
Hey, the best thing could happen here is the Democrats would lose to the Supreme Court.
That's the best thing could happen.
Now, he's saying that the reason it's the best thing could happen is because it'll fire up a Democrat base.
He'll hate us even more, and they'll get re-energized, and they'll show up in numbers like they did in 2008 and guarantee Obama's re-election.
Can I tell you what the truth of this is?
Here's the truth of this, and this is not punditry.
And I'm not competing with any pundit when I tell you this.
And I I don't, I'm not playing the game with this bit of analysis.
Would somebody see, I live in Realville on the mayor.
Here you have Barack Obama.
He's at 41% approval in the New York Times poll.
He's a just as bad in the in the Washington Post poll.
He is really hurting with women.
I don't care what they tell you has been the result of this flock business.
He is hurting with women.
He's out trying to make it look like he has okayed the Keystone pipeline.
We have got a guy who is in trouble.
So we've got an economy that's in a shambles.
There aren't any new jobs.
Home prices are there's nothing.
There's not one element of Obama's record on which he can run for re-election.
There's not one thing they can tout that has been good for America.
And thus Obama deserves four more years.
Not one thing.
So the Supreme Court throws out the mandate, let's say, and let's say they throw out some other parts of the law.
What are they saying?
In realville, where real people live, the Supreme Court has just said Obamacare is illegal.
That's what unconstitutional means.
It's illegal.
They want to try to spin that as a positive.
Let them try.
Let them try spit Obama's signature legislation.
The thing his name's on.
Obamacare, the great savior of this country, and the Supreme Court says it's illegal.
Okay, and then let's couple that with the rest of Obama's record.
This is not something that's isolated.
You've got the stimulus which didn't work.
You've got all the mortgage assistant programs that didn't work.
You've got various other home buyer assistant programs didn't work.
You've got the green energy boondoggle that didn't work that led to bankruptcies.
You've got all the efforts, so-called to put people back to work that haven't worked.
You have put this nation in almost unrecoverable debt.
And they want us, the carvilles of the world and these leftist puns, want us to believe that the architect of a failed stimulus, failed economic policy, failed jobs policy, failed homeowner policy, failed mortgage policy, supporter of Occupy Wall Street, supporter of the new Black Panther Party, supporter of the chaos that's going on in this country, the cultural rot somehow wins when the court says his law is illegal.
Uh-uh.
Not in real.
Let them sit there.
Let them sit there and think they've got a big win.
Let them go through these contortions and pretzel themselves and oh, yeah, yeah, we'll we lose the mandate, and then why we just go straight to single pay.
Have you people seen the polling data on Obamacare?
Have you seen the polling data on, I mean, you look you liberals, have you seen the polling data on single payer health care systems?
There isn't any support for it.
That may be true, Mr. Lumbaugh, but we're not going to call it that.
We will fool the American people again because we will simply say it.
You just have Medicare for everyone.
Everybody loves Medicare.
Okay, try it.
Go for it.
I love it when presidents are told by courts that the things they believe in are illegal, coupled with all their other failures.
Yeah, I love people also see that as a road to victory.
Yeah, the next thing going to tell us is that this is Obama's grand strategy to fail at everything, but make a great effort at it, be very popular, be very liked, but fail at jobs, fail at economic recovery, fail, and then force an illegal health care law on the country that it did not want, and that's the key to victory.
Yep.
You tried that.
Go ahead, Democrats.
I can't wait.
CNN has a story, uh, ladies and gentlemen.
Not everybody hates health reform.
Why would they run such a story?
What is the premise?
If if CNN after yesterday's so-called debacle, CNN's at, no, not everybody hates health reform.
And that means that most people do.
It's in trouble.
With the American people, it's in trouble.
And that ought to matter.
But it doesn't.
If it's not in trouble with Anthony Kennedy, it's not in trouble.
But Mr. Lumbaugh, the American people's representatives elected and then supported and voted for this, but don't give me that, Mr. New Castradi.
This thing couldn't have seen the light of day without a bunch of legislative tricks, people not reading the bill who voted for it.
Don't give me that the representatives of the people wanted this.
Obama had a full Democrat House and Senate, and it took every trick in the book, including considering deeming the thing to be passed without even voting on it.
The Democrat Party has been governing against the will of the people since Obama set foot in the Oval Office.
The American people do not want this bill.
But that doesn't matter.
To the phones.
People have been patiently waiting.
Here is uh Mark in Portland, Maine.
Mark, welcome to the program.
Great to have you here.
Hey, thanks very much, Rush, and a real pleasure to talk to you.
Thanks much.
Um just a real quick thing, Rush.
Uh, a friend of mine has a son who's in high school and was recently uh enrolled in a health class.
Took a test, and the question was something to the effect that what's the the biggest problem facing Americans today in health care?
And they were given a choice of about four multiple choice questions or answers.
And one was uh, you know, uh uh mental illness, one was uh sexually transmitted diseases, one was uh drug abuse and this type of thing.
The number one answer that got your your your answer correct was access to health care.
That was the answer of the biggest problem facing Americans today.
Now, mind you, this was taken by a student who comes from a large, large family of nine who are all on main care and have never missed an opportunity to go to the emergency room.
Wait, wait, I'm not uh you need to take me back to the beginning here.
This is a t was a multiple choice test.
Multiple choice test in high school, high school health class.
High school health class, and and uh how many students in the class would you guess?
Twenty-five.
Twenty-five, and the and the number one answer was the biggest problem in health care is access to health care.
Correct.
In this class of twenty-five.
Right.
And your point is that everybody in that class has access to health care one way or the other, right?
Not only everybody in the class, but the student that was taking it is is on main care, which is a fantastic program for families who can't afford health care.
Wait, but that's what confused me.
You said the student who's taking it.
I thought all 25 took it.
Yeah, they're they're all taking it, but but the exception here is that this student happens to be a prime example of access to health care.
You know, she has access to health care, and yet the test uh number one answer says nobody has access.
And uh Well, that see, but that makes sense because she's been told that the country's unfair, and only rich have access.
She she she doesn't at all.
She hadn't been taught to look at herself and her own family as evidence of access.
She's been told that the poor there are 42 million people that don't have it.
That's that's been out there, 42 million, 50 million.
That's been out there for 25 years, and she's heard it.
Her mother and dad have heard it, even though they've got this is the thing that's always amazed me about about uh I'll take you back to 2006.
The media was doing its best to convince the American people we were at the beginning of a recession.
Unemployment was at 4.7%.
Economic growth was way, way up.
The liberals hated the Iraq War.
They hated Bush and they had to get rid of Bush.
So for years.
They ran story after story and men on the street stories about how rotten the economy was, how we're headed door to recession.
And I've got people called me on this program.
They were doing fine.
They weren't any recession in their own lives, but they'd heard on the news it was bad.
They thought their neighbors were hurting.
Well, just like your your student here.
She got plenty of access.
She and her eight brothers and sisters, or whatever the number of the family is, they have access with main care and whatever else.
But she's been told that access to health care is one of the and it's partly and mainly, mainly because how unfair and unjust this country is to the poor and to minorities.
By the way, uh, ladies and gentlemen.
Justice Scalia during oral arguments today.
I guess he said to um the government lawyer, Mr. Virilli, in the discussion today was the severability of the mandate from the rest of the health care law.
And they're discussing what aspects of it to keep.
If they're all speaking hypothetically, if the mandate gets thrown out, does the whole thing go?
Do we keep parts of it?
Scalia, during oral arguments, said, You want us to go through 2700 pages.
A justice of the U.S. Supreme Court said to the government lawyer, you want us to go through 2700 pages?
You realize.
What do you think the number of members of a House of Representatives have read that bill is?
How many of them do you think have read all 2700 pages and know what's in it?
We know that it was ran through so fast that nobody, well, not no very few people who voted for that bill or had seen it, had read it.
It wasn't around long enough.
It wasn't posted long enough.
Uh John Conyers said, hey, we can't expect to be expected to read this stuff.
That's what we got.
Lawyers, lawyers read it, and they tell us what's in it.
It's all legal ease.
We couldn't understand this stuff.
And he said it with a completely straight face, and he said it with utter sincerity.
He's a member of Congress in Detroit, and he's an utter sincerity.
Oh, yeah, well, we can't expect us to read this.
We wouldn't understand it.
We we hire people to read it for us and tell us what's in it.
Sounds like Scalia hasn't read it either.
You want us to read 2700 pages?
It's hilarious.
What it really signals is they're not going to get into the minutia of this.
They're i if if ask yourself, how are they gonna decide if they throw the mandate out, but then they decide to keep parts of the rest of it, how are they gonna the court is gonna read the 2700 pages, and in the court is gonna vote?
Come on, give me a break.
That isn't going to happen.
And they would probably have to go hire a couple additional clerks to read the stuff and tell them what the bill says.
Anybody thinks that we're gonna get a defined totally comprehensive result here about what's gonna stay and what gets thrown out.
They're not gonna read 2700 pages, but Scalia's just pointing out.
And how the if they're not gonna read all 2700 pages, how in the world are they gonna decide what stays in and what doesn't?
What a what an utter mess.
This is an embarrassing mess.
This whole thing is just a profound embarrassment.
The premise behind this health care is an embarrassment and it's a threat.
The the actual bill itself, the legislation, the language, it's an embarrassment.
Nobody knows fully what's in it.
And Pelosi, Speaker of the House at the time, said we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.
And she said that seriously.
She wasn't trying to be funny or clever.
She was being dead serious.
We've got to pass it to find out what's in it.
She always almost was using that as a okay, you want to know what's in it?
Well, pass it.
We're not going to tell you until you pass it.
This is how we're going to administer health care for 300 plus million Americans.
We have nine justices of the court read the 2700 pages and then write opinions on what ought to stay, what ought to go.
What a joke this has become.
And that's what aside from the genuinely severe tragic outcome of liberalism success.
That's what liberalism is.
It's a joke.
It is a really damaging, harmful, painful joke, but it is an absolute joke.
This is an embarrassment.
It is folly.
And that's another reason why I just I am beside myself when I listen to all these so-called high IQ intellectuals debate this on the highest planes of erudition, sophistication, and nobody knows what's in it.
I the the more unfolds here, the more obvious it becomes to me that this is one of the biggest embarrassments in this nation's history.
This whole episode, this whole law, this whole piece of legislation, this whole effort to ram it through its premise, its objective.
Plus it's it's tragic.
If it ever happens, if it if it ever really is fully implemented, it's it goes away, it stops being a joke.
It stops being an embarrassment, and then it becomes shackles.
Scalia, do you really expect the court to do that?
You really expect us to read 2700 pages, Mr. Virilli.
You really expect us to give this function to our law clerks.
Is this not totally unrealistic that we're going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?
That's a justice of the Supreme Court putting as plain as day what's before them.
You want us to go through 2,700 pages with our clerks, item by item and decide each one.
That's what you're asking us to do here.
And you know what?
That's exactly what they're asking him to do.
That's the point.
That is exactly what Obama's asking them to do.
They don't see anything strange about that.
You know, it's 2,700 pages, fairness, social justice, equality.
Damn right we expect you to go through this.
See how wonderful it is and keep it.
Who's next?
Where are we?
Raleigh, North Carolina.
Hi, Josh.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Rush, thanks for having me on and making me complex understandable.
Thank you, sir, very much.
I wanted to get to uh, let's say, for example, that what Farvell says is true, because I do know some people that agree with Obama a lot, but not Obamacare.
I want to take a look at the other side of that coin, and can you imagine the uptick in voter enthusiasm?
It would be 2010 all over again if Obamacare is declared constitutional.
I mean, so many people would it would be 2010 all over again in the war.
I think you're right.
2010 is uh is precisely uh health care is what gave birth to the Tea Party.
Health care is what created that landslide 2010 midterm election uh uh victory.
And I think I think you're right.
I I I think uh it that would erase anybody's concern over who the Republican nominee is.
This thing gets fully declared constitutional.
Then our side would know, okay, this is gonna have to be done in Congress, and we've got to get rid of Democrats.
That's what everybody would know.
I think you're right.
A lot of people think the opposite, though, Josh.
A lot of people think that having it declared constitutional would just dispirit our side and they would give up.
A lot of people think that would happen too.
By the way, uh Scalia was not addressing Varilli today.
I need to correct that.
He was speaking to Mr. Needler, K-N-E-E-D-L-E-R, who is uh deputy United States Solicitor General.
So he's he's part of the team.
Virilli was the solicitor general.
He let off yesterday, and uh he was profoundly humiliated.
So they sent Needler in there today to try to change it up, and apparently.
He was catching hell all day, too, from the justices, even from Sotomayor.
So it was apparently not much better for Needler than it was Varilli.
In fact, the Republicans grab some bite one real quick here.
Republicans put together an ad using Varilli's stuttering and pausing at the beginning of the oral arguments yesterday.
Now, this is a TV commercial, and while the audio plays, if you could envision the Supreme Court building and a graphic that says voice of Obama's lawyer.
So that's pictures Supreme Court building and the Chiron graphic, voice of Obama's lawyer.
Case 11398, the Department of Health and Human Services versus Florida.
For more than 80% of Americans, the uh insurance system does provide effective access.
Excuse me.
Uh because the uh the uh the excuse me.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Those pauses are all in the air.
He stopped speaking.
The clinking you heard, he was ice in a glass.
He was drinking water, excuse me, drinking water.
Lost his place, had no idea.
Dear what say.
That was in his opening argument.
And the graphic at the end of the ad is Obamacare, it's a tough sell.
That was the government lawyer kicking things off yesterday.
So to continue on one of the themes I opened the program with today, but how these people are they're not that smart.
And I by the way, let me again be specific and clear.
I'm not insulting anybody.
I'm I'm not, this is not, I'm not calling anybody stupid.
This is not my point is we live in a world where liberal elites are considered intellectually just a head and shoulders of everybody, and even the intellectual elites of conservatism acknowledge that and go out of their way to try to impress these people.
It's one of the things that frustrates us, frankly, isn't it?
So many of our people, particularly in the Washington, New York corridor, say things, do things, try to impress people like Varilli.
And Elena Kagan and Sotomayor and all the other highfalutin big-time liberals, this guy Virilli has been made a fool of as the solicitor general.
I don't even know that he knows it, but people are laughing are laughing at him.
His own side wants to throw him overboard because of his performance yesterday.
Now, who is he?
Well, he was editor-in-chief of the Columbia University Law Review.
How can he be incompetent?
See?
How can he be stupid?
Why?
He was editor-in-chief of the Columbia Law Review.
He's got to be smart, really?
Why?
What goes on at universities?
Education doesn't.
Indoctrination does.
That guy that called here about the test, the multiple choice test and the four answers, and the the answer that that won in the classroom was access to it, lack of access to that was the correct answer.
That's the that's the one that got you an A on the test.
It's propaganda.
There isn't any education that goes on.
There's no learning that happens in liberalism.
Indoctrination.
Propagandizing is what happens.
Inculcation, not learning, not critical thinking.
I had people asking me, well, why didn't why didn't Elena Kagan, who helped, you know, she she was the solicitor general for Obama before this guy.
That's what she should be recused.
Or she should have recused herself.
She had no business sitting on this case as a justice.
And a lot of people have asked me, well, why didn't why did she come to his rescue?
Ginsberg did a couple times.
Ruth Beter Ginsburg tried to come to Veruli's rescue and make his argument for him.
Well, Kagan should have come to his rescue because Kagan wrote all of his arguments in the first place.
That was one of her jobs was to prepare the defense of this bill.
When she was solicitor general.
Yet she didn't say much.
And I suspect the reason she didn't say much is because she ought not be there in the first place and doesn't want to call attention to herself in that regard.
Maybe they may not even be that smart to realize that that would appear to be an ethical laugh.
Verrilli is married to a lawyer, by the way, on the Democrat staff of the House Financial Services Committee.
He's very incestuous in that town.
So Varilli had the same position at Columbia that Obama had at Harvard Law.
Editor-in-chief, Columbia Law Review.
Has to be smart.
That's what that says.
But by virtue of his performance, where is the intelligence?
Now, folks, the Wall Street Journal today called yesterday a constitutional awakening.
And at first glance, you might say, yeah, yeah, okay, because what happened yesterday?
What happened yesterday was a bunch of people who thought that this was a slam dunk, that it was going to be declared constitutional, including the mandate, and the court went the way it did during oral arguments, and all of the learned people were shocked and stunned and couldn't believe it and sunk into immediate depression.
Well, we had a constitutional awakening.
I would beg to differ.
The constitutional awakening is the Tea Party.
The Tea Party is the constitutional awakening.
In 2009 and 2010, the Tea Party voting in the midterms in 2010, that's the constitutional awakening.
The election was a constitutional awakening.
The fact that we hang by a thread here in the Supreme Court is not a constitutional awakening.
What this is, and this is my point of the whole show so far.
This oral argument, these hearings, whatever you want to call them, is evidence of the deterioration of the rule of law in this country.
We are hanging by a thread.
We got more than likely the vote of one man, one Supreme Court judge.
I don't care if it's Kennedy or whoever.
The fact that one person out of 311 million...
That's not a constitutional awakening.
This is evidence of how far we have sunk.
If you ask me.
No, I'm still.
I'm glad it happened.
Don't misunderstand.
I'm just.
I am still in a state of shock.
We have gotten here.
I'm I'm still in a state of utter disbelief that we have arrived at this point.
But we have, and we are here.
And so it must be dealt with accordingly, but still.
And we're back.
Great to have you with us, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network, the Limbo Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
It's the fastest three hours and medium.
Zooming by here today.
Fear not, ladies and gentlemen.
We have one exciting broadcast hour to go.
And we'll get to it.
We've got more audio sound bites.
I've barely scratched the surface there.
And a lot more of your phone calls are coming up.
Plus some other things in the news, too, besides what's going on at Supreme Court.
And we'll delve into some of those.
▲
Export Selection