All Episodes
Previous Next
March 29, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:04
March 29, 2012, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, it's all over now, folks, except for the voting at the Supreme Court, which could be as soon as tomorrow.
The healthcare decision could be finalized tomorrow.
We won't know about it till late June, but it they already know what they're going to do.
The oral arguments rarely change anything, but we'll find out.
Great to have you back here, folks.
Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
The email address LRushball at EIBNet.com.
For all intents and purposes, the Supreme Court's going to vote tomorrow or soon on whether to strike down Obamacare, whether to strike down the mandate or to uphold it as constitutional.
There won't be much discussion of the vote, as I have learned.
They don't debate.
They don't discuss cases with each other.
They write.
They circulate their opinions.
To whatever extent those are persuasive, the justices might change their minds, but it rarely happens.
In fact, throughout the media today, you'll find constant references to Kennedy and maybe one of the conservatives changing his mind.
You never read about the liberal justices being forced to or being asked to rise above it and change their minds.
But it has been an incredible week.
This has been just an amazing week, folks.
I was reading a blog post today at Powerline, Stephen Hayward, who has written some books on Reagan.
We've interviewed Stephen Hayward here at the program for the Limbaugh Letter, the most widely read newsletter in American politics.
And I was going through this, and one of the themes that we've had this week is what is real?
Who is really smart?
Who is it really engaged?
Who is it we are really up against?
This has been an eye-opening week for so many people.
The idea that liberal elites are smarter and run rings around other people intellectually was exposed as an abject fraud this week.
The idea that they are open-minded, the idea that they're even aware of competing points of views, that was blown up as well.
The level of arrogance that they possess is such that there are no opposing ideas except when they are confronted with them.
But would you like to know something?
Every argument advanced by Paul Clement, who was arguing for our side at the Supreme Court, every question asked by a justice, every answer, every point about Obamacare that was made in opposition to it has been made for years.
You could read the briefs in the appellate cases.
You could have listened to this program.
You could have read any number of blogs.
It's no secret.
Conservatism is no secret.
Constitutional Americanism is no secret.
It's out there.
Anybody in the world can discover it.
I am still blown away by how utterly shocked people like Jeffrey Toobin and others in the liberal media were that it went the way it went.
They were shocked out of their clothes, folks.
They were stunned.
Just this week, Jeff Toobin was on Charlie Rose predicting a slam dunk for constitutionality.
And all it took was 90 minutes of oral arguments, and he's in a full abject panic as though he had never heard any of these objections to Obamacare.
And he's out, and he's then scaring Wolf Blitzer to death.
Poor Wolf, I think, they had to take a day off one day this week to deal with his shock over the fact that this thing has some problems.
Well, they did.
I mean, it was, Toobin was out there talking to Wolf Blitzer one day, and Wolf carried his shock and dismay into the night.
The next day, Toobin was put on with Don Limon, and Wolf wasn't anywhere to be found.
So he might be wearing a little white jacket somewhere here until he gets his equilibrium back.
Really, it's eye-opening.
They're a bunch, I really want to be serious about this.
They're a bunch of overhyped know-nothings.
Really a bunch of overhyped know-nothings who do not have an expansive view of the world.
They're in a prison that's created by their own conceit.
They're in a prison that is the result of their own arrogance.
And they live in a place where there is no reality.
And that's what hit them right between the eyes this week.
They were confronted with reality, which they regularly purposely avoid.
They have instead constructed in their minds this socialist utopian, idyllic dreamland, fantasy land, that doesn't exist, can't exist, hasn't existed, won't ever exist.
And when they are confronted with the reality of anything up against their own constructs, it is the equivalent to you and I being surprised by a bear in our backyard.
It's the last thing you expect to happen.
Now, let me go through some of Hayward's piece here to try to be illustrative what I'm talking about.
The terrible, no good, very bad month for the left.
It's typical.
I might read a whole thing.
I'll take excerpts here.
It's typical for politically engaged people to note the weaknesses and defects, the defects of their own side.
It's typical for politically engaged people to note the weaknesses and defects of their own.
No, that's what's remarkable.
They don't.
There are no weaknesses.
There are no defects until they're confronted with them.
They do not conceive them while at the same time overestimating the strength and prowess of their opponents.
That's us.
That's what we have always done.
And hopefully no more.
There's no reason to ever feel inferior to these people.
There's no reason to grant them superior or elite status in any way.
The point I made yesterday, this vermilion, is it Virilli?
Virility, Vermilly, it's Virilli.
They're dumping on this guy.
The libs are dumping on this guy, the solicitor general who argued for the government.
They're dumping on this guy, Lefton.
He is from Columbia University Law Review.
That equals, in their world, Einstein.
That equals, just like Obama was Harvard Law Review, this guy, Columbia University Law Review, that's Einstein.
That's Mensa.
That's as smart as you can be.
And we see that he's not anywhere near as smart as you can be.
They're dumping on him for a very simple reason.
They refuse to admit that he had nothing to defend.
He was trying to defend the indefensible.
He's trying to defend a piece of legislation.
Look at what Scalia said yesterday.
Antonin Scalia asked the associate solicitor general, do you really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?
You really expect the court to do that?
You expect us to give this function to our law clerks?
They do.
This is exactly who the left is.
They've got a 2,700-page health care bill, and they expect the court to go through it and determine what's okay and what isn't to give it its final imprimatur.
And they know they count on Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Breyer, and who's Sotomayor, Ginsburg.
Oh, Kagan, who ought to have recused herself.
That's another thing we discussed, but she shouldn't even be there because she helped put together the arguments that were made yesterday and this week by Verilli.
Yeah.
She shouldn't be there in an ethical, sane world.
She shouldn't even be there.
So they get 2,700 pages.
And Scalia, do you expect us, the court, to go through these 2,700 pages?
Well, folks, here's the reality.
Somebody's going to have to.
If it ever is fully implemented, somebody's going to have to go through those 2,700 pages.
Every time you go to the doctor, somebody is going to have to consult those 2,700 pages.
And you know who it isn't going to be?
It isn't going to be your doctor.
And it isn't going to be your insurance company.
It's going to be people like those who argued for the government at the Supreme Court, incompetence on parade.
Nameless bureaucrats who thrive on power over average people.
They're the ones that are going to be going through those 2,700 pages.
If this is declared fully constitutional, somebody's going to have to go through them.
It's an outrage.
It's a boondoggle.
It is an absolute disaster.
Kennedy expressed surprising skepticism that the court was competent to make health policy.
He said, I don't understand your position.
He was talking to Edwin Neeler, who was the associate solicitor general.
I don't understand your position.
Are you saying we have the expertise here on the court to decide which provisions should stay in and which should be thrown out if the mandate's overturned?
It seems to me, Kennedy said, it can be argued at least to be a more extreme exercise of judicial power to keep the rest of the law intact than striking the whole thing.
I just don't accept your premise.
He said, you mean we have the expertise to decide which provisions in these 2,700 pages should stay in and which should be thrown out if we get rid of the mandate.
It seems to me that it can be argued at least to be, that's a more extreme exercise of judicial power than just getting rid of the whole thing.
And he's right, stop and think what the regime asked them to do.
And it's quite telling.
They wanted the Supreme Court to go through this thing page by page and rubber stamp it.
Separation of powers, anyone.
But these justices, it's not their job.
They're not the experts here.
And the point is that if this thing is fully implemented, not one expert will be going through those 2,700 pages.
Bureaucrats will.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, or some nameless, faceless bureaucrat, not your doctor, not your nurse, not your surgeon, not even your evil insurance company, is going to be going through those 2,700 pages.
Somebody's going to be going through them.
And Scalia said, I don't want to do it, and I'm not going to let you make my clerks do it.
And Kennedy said, I'm not taking that much power away from the Congress.
And the regime lawyers are shocked because they can't believe that government officials, judges, would reject this kind of opportunity to exercise power.
Because to them, that's what this is all about.
The immense power in those 2,700 pages.
And here we had judges that, I don't want that power.
And they're shocked.
Somebody's going to have it if this thing survives.
Somebody is going to be going through those 2,700 pages.
And it isn't going to be you.
It isn't going to be your doctor.
It's not going to be your nurse.
It's not going to be anybody responsible for your treatment.
It's going to be a bureaucrat deciding whether or not you are worth it.
Some utopia.
A couple things here, folks.
I had so many people, and I really need to thank you so much.
I had so many people telling me how much they enjoyed the program yesterday.
Some people's the best program ever, which is a stretch.
I mean, we've been here over 23 years, but a lot of people say it's the best program they ever heard.
So what I've decided to do, we've posted free, normally on our website, rushlimbaugh.com, the DittoCam is reserved for subscribers.
But because of the overwhelming praise for yesterday's first hour, actually the whole program, what we've done is post the first hour DittoCam video at rushlimbaugh.com free.
We're also going to tweet it and put it on our Facebook page.
It's also going to be made available that way for people who, well, you don't want to have it, heard it, want to hear it again, or if you missed it, want to revisit it for the first time or visit it for the first time and expose yourself to it because it's getting a lot of praise.
It's difficult for me to say.
I think every program's, we try to meet and surpass audience expectations here every day.
Second thing is, I do not know how this happened.
I don't know what caused it, but there is an absolutely accurate, correct, factually, and fair story on the last month of this program in the Washington Post.
It was put up last night.
I don't know if it's in the printed version or if it's just a website piece, but I read it.
I had to read it two or three times.
I cannot believe it.
This program, me, never accorded this kind of treatment in the mainstream media.
The truth about how few advertisers have been lost, the truth about how few stations, the truth about how little damage was done to this program.
It was stunning.
It's in the Washington Post, and I just told Coco to put a link to it up at rushlimbaugh.com and the scene in the orange section, the orange bar at rushlimbaugh.com when you log in.
We'll have it up there soon.
I don't even think Coco knew about it.
When I sent him just a note here, I want you to put that link up.
I'm going to be talking about it.
He wrote, okay, I'm sure he was, what the hell is he talking about?
And we might tweet that out too, as well.
President Obama, ladies and gentlemen, wants to raise taxes on big oil.
And he wants to use the money for his failed green energy buddies.
That's coming up.
But I want to go back to this Stephen Hayward piece.
The terrible, no-good, very bad month for the left.
First came the Sandra Fluck controversy, what looked like a well-staged triumph for the left because of a rare overreach by Rush Limbaugh resulted instead in a ferocious blowback against Bill Maher.
Lewis C.K., the comedian, goes on and on to describe that.
Second, Obama's in full retreat and panic mode over gasoline prices and energy generally.
Then came the Trayvon Martin incident, but what looked like a by the numbers drill, listen to the way Hayward writes this.
What looked like a by the numbers drill for the racial grievance industry has started to collapse between certain or beneath certain inconvenient facts, such as the facts that don't fit the narrative, such as Zimmerman's ethnicity and political party registration being Democrat and so forth.
Then, of course, we have the Obamacare argument in the Supreme Court this week.
And finally, yesterday, the House voted down Obama's proposed budget for the next year by a vote of 414 to nothing.
He has details on all these.
But the point is, I went through and I read all of these incidents and reviewed them that constitute the terrible, no good, very bad month for the left.
What strikes me about every one of them is that none of what they constructed was real.
What they said about me, what they said about this program, what they said about advertisers, none of it was real.
What they have said about the Trayvon Martin case, nobody knows what's real there.
Every one of these incidents represents an opportunity for them to implement a page from their playbook, none of which is based in reality.
It's all based on stereotypes and clichés that fit the construct of the Democrat Party, which is this bunch of different constituent groups that all have to be kept happy.
But once again, reality is what crushes liberalism.
Reality is what crushes Obama.
Reality is what's crushing Obamacare.
Reality is what's crushing his energy policy.
They cannot and do not live in the real world.
They can't survive there.
Welcome back.
El Rush Ball meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis.
Ladies and gentlemen, what happened this week at the Supreme Court is profound regardless of the outcome.
It was an eye-opening experience for millions of Americans that were paying attention, maybe for the first time, to this kind of thing.
But the reason that I harp on this is, and I'm still struggling with a way to explain this to you, the reason I think it's profound, is that the next time one of these events such as Hayward just reviewed in this horrible month for the Democrats,
the next time the media and the Democrat Party get all exercised about something happening in our country or in our culture or in our media, and when they're all in unity on it, the reaction ought to be, they're lying.
They're making it up.
There's a political agenda here.
There is no real outrage.
For example, all these people supposedly calling advertisers of this pro.
There was no angry consumer outrage.
It was all trumped up.
The same thing was attempted with the Trayvon Martin case, the Trump up to create a false reality, to make it look like the country is as agitated as the left is, but it never is.
The country is never as royal and as agitated as the left is.
They can succeed in upsetting people.
But the object lesson here is to, from this point forward, just don't believe them.
Just understand with some sophistication the effort that's being made every time something seemingly falls in their laps that is on the surface made to order to get rid of one of their enemies or to get rid of opposition to an issue or piece of legislation or what have you.
They don't live in reality.
They have no moral fiber or moral core.
They are not smarter by any strength.
They're not as smart as you are.
They have shut themselves off from learning.
You and I, for example, can explain liberalism to somebody.
They can't explain conservatism.
They don't care.
They're not interested.
It doesn't matter.
It's beneath them as such.
They're not informed.
All they know is, it's like Geithner was up talking to some congressional committee about reducing the deficit.
He said, well, we don't really have a plan.
All we know is we don't like yours.
But Geithner doesn't know what our plan is.
He doesn't care what our plan is.
The fact that it's ours is enough for him to reject it.
That is arrogance.
That's conceit.
And that's who they are.
They're bullies.
They don't know half what they think they know.
And when they are confronted with hard cold reality, as they were before the Supreme Court this week, they're media members, they're lawyers, they're bureaucrats, when they're confronted with reality, they're lost.
They can't explain themselves.
They can't justify their issues.
They're never able to do that.
I'll give you a little illustration here, a couple of examples.
There's a story here in the UK Daily Mail.
This is the British media.
Sarasota murder, Sean Tyson, 17, found guilty of killing two British tourists in Florida.
A sneering teenager nicknamed Savage was today found guilty in the shooting deaths of two British tourists after days of damning evidence.
Sean Tyson, 17, charged with two counts of first-degree murder for killing James Cooper and James Cusares on April something, whatever the date in 2011, he was sentenced to life in prison.
The Sarasota, Florida jury of eight women and four men only deliberated for two hours before coming to the guilty sentence for Tyson.
The story is that these two Brits came over here to Disney World, have vacation, and this guy tried to rob them.
They didn't have any money, and so he just killed them.
They're white, he's black.
You're not hearing about this in the U.S. media because this will not fit with what they're trying to make you believe in the Trayvon Martin case.
Now, the important thing about the Trayvon Martin case, and we don't know yet who is it that's jumped the gun on them, who is it that's trying to make that story fit into their template?
It's them.
Who is it that's waiting to see what really happened?
Let justice take its course.
It's us.
Now, this shooter is also 17 years old.
The victim in the Trayvon Martin case, 17 years old.
In one instance, our president calls the media together and says, you know what, Trayvon Martin, if I had a son, that's who he'd look like.
You will not hear him say of 17-year-old Sean Tyson, you know what, if I had a son, that's who he looks like.
Won't hear him say that.
And the answer, the reason why, is because when you boil it all down, Obama saying that if he had a son, it'd look like Trayvon Martin, is simply a way to advance the liberal agenda, that there is blatant racial discrimination, that this country has not advanced beyond the days of slavery,
that we are still immoral, unjust, and need to be transformed.
And I am repulsed.
I have had it, folks.
I love this country.
And as I told you earlier this week, I am scared that we are losing it.
And we are on the precipice because of incidents like this.
A reality exists.
If it doesn't fit the political objective of the left and the media, the reality doesn't matter.
A false reality must be created in which the country is to blame, in which the affluent are to blame, in which people, members of majorities, be it racial or ethnic or financial, economic, whatever, are to blame.
All for the express purpose of ripping this country apart.
And I am just asking you, the next time one of these incidents happen, I'm going to tell you what it is.
They're easy as heck to spot.
I'll tell you.
And you hopefully will be able to notice it yourself.
You just don't believe them.
Just reject it.
Don't get caught up in it.
If you do, you're living in a place where reality doesn't exist.
A couple of other examples.
Headline from an opinion piece of the Politico today: Moment of truth for Justice Roberts.
Roberts has a chance to rise above politics on the Supreme Court with the healthcare case.
Roberts.
Notice you never read about any of the liberals being asked to rise above the politics.
Because you see, there is no higher calling than being a liberal.
You can't be any better.
You can't be any more proper.
You can't be any smarter than be a liberal.
So it's not possible to rise any higher.
But it's a different matter entirely with low-down, dirty conservatives.
So rise above politics.
Mr. Roberts, Justice Robert, time to rise above politics here and forget the reality that just happened this week and side with the president anyway.
New York Times already selecting a scapegoat in case the court strikes down Obamacare.
And it's not Varilli.
New York Times headline and lead from this morning, Jonathan Gruber, healthcare's Mr. Mandate, Jonathan Gruber, professor at MIT, helped persuade the regime that everybody should be required to get health insurance.
See, it's Grubert's fault now.
They tried blaming Varilli.
It didn't work.
Why didn't blaming Varilli work?
I mean, the entire left-wing blogosphere, half of the Democrat Party and the media, tried to blame what happened this week on the government lawyer.
Why didn't it stick?
Because he had something that is indefensible to defend.
The left will never admit the deficiency of their ideas.
They will not admit that they set him up there with an impossible job to defend the indefensible.
How many years have they had to defend it?
How many, folks, they have had decades to plan a defense for their idea of Obamacare.
Because Obamacare is not really Obamacare.
Obamacare is the utopian dream of American leftists for 50 or more years.
They know and have known for five decades what they want to do with the American health care system.
You would think in those 50 years that they would be able, when questioned by anybody, to defend it after 50 years of desire, 50 years of tasting it, dreaming, 2,700 pages written and passed by Congress, and they can't defend it.
What does that tell you about it?
They can't defend it.
And the truth is, they can't defend anything that they've done.
They can't defend Social Security.
They can't defend Medicare.
All they can do is act as tyrants and say, we don't have to explain ourselves.
You look at our intentions.
You don't examine our results.
We tried.
At least we have big hearts.
At least we care.
You don't.
You're racist, bigot, sexist, homophobes, but we care.
Look at our good intentions.
Well, I'm sorry, their good intentions don't matter a whit to me, just like the fact that the first black president's historic thing was a one-day deal for me, and then I started caring about his policies.
Is that what's matter?
What matters to me?
I said early this week: Obama's not black to me.
He's a far-left neo-socialist, whatever, intent on transforming this country in a way I don't want to live in.
That's what he is to me.
Michelle Obama is not a black woman.
She is a far-left Democrat activist who wants to take control over every aspect of our lives.
That's who she is to me.
And it's the same with every other liberal opponent I have out there.
I don't care what they look like.
I don't care where they go to the bathroom and how.
None of that matters to me.
What's in their souls?
What's in their minds?
That's what matters to me.
They've had 50 years to defend this, and they can't.
And if you don't like the 50-year analogy, they've had two years, two years since this thing was passed into law.
They knew it was going to be challenged.
There have been arguments at the circuit and appellate court levels.
They still can't defend it.
So they try to come up with a scapegoat.
It's Verilli's fault.
That lousy judge, lousy law review guy, lousy government lawyer.
Look at that.
Stuttering, drinking water.
What an embarrassment.
He had something impossible to defend.
So now the New York Times, it's Gruber's fault.
John Gruber at MIT, he came up with the mandate.
It's his fault.
The left will throw people away.
The left will trample on people, their own people.
They'll throw them overboard.
They'll throw them under the bus.
Whatever is necessary to save their morally corrupt ideas.
They'll destroy anybody or anything in order to protect their moral and corrupt idea because they can't sell it.
They can't win in a representative republic where people are free.
Their ideas will never win.
They have to be implemented with the use of force, governing against the will of the people.
That's why I'm afraid for the country.
We're hanging on a thread here, and we're waiting on basically the decision of one man.
Don't care who it is.
The fact that we're waiting on the decision of one man in a nation of 311 million, where only 15 million don't have health insurance, and those 15 million don't want it.
We're doing this for all of that.
And one man hangs in the balance.
How'd we ever get here?
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
All right, folks, indulge me here.
I want just a few more minutes on this, and we'll get on to the other things.
But this has been an amazing week, a very uplifting week, and I want to review some of the things here.
How amazing is the U.S. Constitution?
How amazing is it?
Thought out, written, worded designs so well that 236 years later, it still can protect us from an attempted tyrannical takeover.
Stunning.
And of course, the left hates it for that very reason.
It's a living, breathing document.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg says, no, don't use the U.S. Constitution to Egyptian students when drafting their own.
No, no, no.
It's a brilliant, blessed document.
Look how long and hard the left socialists who have been trying to overthrow this Constitution, and it triumphs.
It's still rocking.
It's still there.
We still have the bounty on George Zimmerman in Florida.
That is so stunningly shocking.
I still can't get my mind around it.
The utter silence from anybody in authority in the media, the White House, law enforcement compounds.
My anger over this.
Spike Lee finally has apologized, I think, for his tweet.
We have Elena Kagan.
We know through emails that she cheered the enactment of Obamacare as a regime political appointee.
She was personally assigned top deputy in the Justice Department to defend the law in federal court.
There's no way She should be sitting as a justice on the Supreme Court.
Yet she is hearing arguments.
She's given no indication that she would recuse.
Of course, she's not going to recuse herself.
But I talked to a judge last night.
Well, I never talk to anybody, folks.
I email people because I hate the phone.
I can't hear them if I despise the phone.
So, when I say I talk to somebody, I'm chatting with them via electronic communication.
I chatted with a judge last night who set me straight on the issue of severability and what it really means and what the rule really is.
And I dare say I misunderstood it because of the way it's been explained, and I think a lot of people do.
Sadly, I'm out of precious broadcast moments at this time.
It's a brief time out.
This is what we call on the business as a tease.
He says, I wasn't teasing you.
I didn't intend to tease you.
I intended to explain it.
I just ran out of time here because of diarrhea of the mouth.
It's more bad news for President Obama.
Breaking news in the AP, the U.S. Senate, which he controls, the Democrats control the Senate, have defeated the oil subsidies bill despite Obama's call for Congress to pass it.
His own Democrat Senate defeated the oil subsidies bill, meaning take away the so-called tax breaks that big oil gets.
▲
Export Selection