All Episodes
Previous Next
March 29, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:58
March 29, 2012, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, I told the broadcast engineer before the program started that we're going to start with audio sound bites uh 21, 22, 23.
And it's a third hour.
I think we better get to them.
This sh this program is improv.
And let me let me again say to those of you who are regular, have been here for the whole 23 years or 10 years, 15, whatever.
I really appreciate your tolerance and patience.
We we we've the the the size of the audience the last month uh in many cities has doubled, and there are people here listening for the first time.
So I've I've got I don't know, I don't maybe I could say got my my professor hat on here.
I'm going back and explaining things that you all heard 20 years ago.
But it never hurts to repeat this stuff because these are the fundamentals, and it and I'm trying to relate them to current events.
So it really isn't old stuff.
It's uh but uh uh if any of it is boring to you, I I beg your indulgence as as uh because we got an opportunity here with all these new ears that are out there tuning in, trying to find out what all the controversy's about.
So if you just continue to bear with me on this, I'd be profoundly uh appreciate.
And that's why I didn't get to the sound bites in the first hour, because it I I wasn't through making uh crucial points about the arguments before the Supreme Court this week on Obamacare.
But it is time to move on to other items in the news out there, and one of the um one of the items is that the president was at the White House this morning.
He uh he he kicked up his community organizing again, this time against big oil.
And this is something he does two or three times a year, trying to get a mob together to distract from the Keystone Pipeline and what's happening with gasoline prices and his moratoriums on drilling and his refusal to permit new drilling.
He's trying to shift the blame for the gasoline prices where the left always takes it, and that's the big oil.
Now, for those of you new to the program, the Democrat Party, the left, however you want to think of them, they cannot triumph arguing their ideas.
They lose.
Their ideas are rejected and always have been by a majority of the American people.
They are a minority.
They represent 20%, 25% of the thinking of this country, but because they have the media and movies and books, newspapers and so on, it's made to look like they are liberalism is the dominant media culture, the dominant cultural uh way of thinking, uh dominant every and it isn't.
It's dominant in the classroom.
It's dominant on the movie screens, but in real life, the people who make this country work are not liberal.
Liberals uh liberalism is is not the backbone of America.
It's not what makes the country work, it's what's trying to tear the country down.
And for liberals to triumph, for them to win elections, for them to uh persuade you, they can't sell their ideas.
They have to demonize their opponents.
And in this case, Barack Obama needs an enemy.
And if you pay attention, they've got an enemy's list.
And virtually every major private sector industrial sector is an enemy.
Big oil, big pharmaceutical, big retail, i.e., Walmart.
They are all enemies.
They're out to screw the little guy.
And the liberals set themselves up as the guardians and the saviors.
So Obama needs enemies, and those enemies must be discredited, must be impugned, and if necessary, Obama and the Democrats, whoever will lie about their enemies, knowing full well that they're gonna have the support of the mainstream media to perpetuate and Amplify the lies.
In this case, Obama has to shift the blame for high gasoline prices, high unemployment, lousy economic activity, no economic recovery.
There is not one element of Barack Obama's presidency that he can point to as he runs for re-election and say, You want more of that?
Vote for me.
Because nobody wants more of what Obama has.
Nobody wants more of what Obama's done.
Nobody wants higher gas prices.
Nobody wants more joblessness.
Nobody wants more economic stagnation.
We don't want any more foreclosures.
We don't want the president being obstacle to drilling for more oil.
Nobody wants more of what Obama is.
Obama's only hope is to make you think that his opponents are worse.
And so now, after taking a huge hit on the chin this week at the Supreme Court, after virtually no ground was made in the Trayvon Martin case.
Now condemning the Reverend Zach and uh Al Sharpton.
You've got the father of Mr. Zimmerman saying, I've never, I never thought.
Well, here, listen, grab somebody one.
This is the father of George Zimmerman.
Can you imagine how this case would be different?
If George Zimmerman were simply called Jorge Zimmerman.
To show you how tied, Victor Davis Hansen makes this point today, by the way, at National Review.
How tied to identity the left isdentity is what defines you, not who you are, but your skin color, your name, your sexual orientation, whether or not you're a victim of the 1%.
But if this guy's name were Jorge Zimmerman, we this story would be entirely different, the way it's played.
If he had kept, I think his mother's maiden name is Hispanic.
If he hadn't taken his father's name, if he were Jorge Gutierrez, well, you imagine what a different story we'd have.
The left wouldn't care.
The only way they could make this a story is to make this guy out to be white.
And the New York Times did, white Hispanic.
For the first, well, the fifth time in their history, according to our research.
They use that term white Hispanic.
So Robert Zimmerman, the father of George Zimmerman, was on Orlando television last night.
Fox 35 Eyeball News.
The correspondent was Valerie Bowie.
She said, What's your reaction to what you hear people say?
George Zimmerman should have never shot Trey Von Martin.
It's obviously racial.
What do you say, Mr. Zimmerman?
I never foresaw so much hate coming from the president, the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP, every organization imaginable, is trying to get notoriety or profitfulness in some way.
But there's so much hate that I've never been involved in in hate George has and uh it's really unbelievable.
I must point out what it is like these guys are these people are Democrats, folks.
The Zimmermans are Democrats.
Well, I don't know about Mr. Zimmerman here, but George Zimmerman, the uh the shooter, is a Democrat.
I assume his parents are, don't know.
But look at regardless, look how shocked they are when they discover the reality.
And he's right.
There is a national hate for his son that has been ginned up.
And he thinks that the president has participated in it by virtue of what he said.
So he wasn't through.
He continued.
We got one more bite here.
After nearly a minute of being beaten, George was trying to get his head off of the concrete, trying to move with Trayvon on him into the grass.
In doing so, his firearm was shown.
Trayvon Martin said something to the effect of you're gonna die now or you're gonna die tonight, something to that effect.
He continued to beat George.
And at some point, George pulled his pistol, did what he did.
Now, if you are a member of the civil rights coalition, if you're Democrat, if you're in the mainstream media, you have to accuse this man of lying.
If you want to keep the story going, if you want this story to continue to unfold and remain on the top fold above the fold and the front pages, you've got to say this man's lying.
You can't keep this story going if you accept what Mr. Zimmerman here says.
Because this is counter to everything that they have attempted to construct about this story.
You got a white Hispanic Democrat here, George Zimmerman, who they're trying to paint as a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
That's what they're trying to do here.
Here comes Mr. Zimmer.
I've never seen such hate.
So, in one sense, the Reverends Sharpton and Jackson have failed.
They have not been able to make this case into what they wanted it to be.
And they gave it everything they had.
And they failed at the Duke Lacrosse case.
And what I was trying to tell you in the first hour, any time something like this happens, the next ducler cross, the next time that you hear, everywhere you look, not in just one or two places, but if you hear it or see it everywhere you look, that four lacrosse players raped and nearly killed a black uh uh party dancer, what you have got to doubt it.
You have got to consider it's manufactured and made up for the advancement of a political.
You've got to become ideological if you want to understand how this stuff happens.
You've got to start looking at things through the prism of conservatism versus liberalism.
Not Republican or Democrat, not black or white.
You have got to see these people for who they are if you want to understand it and not get trapped and not get caught in it.
And thus not be lied to.
So it's starting to unravel here.
Even though we don't know the facts yet.
The story that Obama and the Sharptons and Jacksons and so forth wanted to portray has not taken hold.
What?
Has the part of the story that what?
Yes.
Yeah, that that's what it yeah, the fact that George Zimmerman mentored black children has it.
It's mentioned in a in a sporadic way.
It's not part of the daily narrative, but it's been it, I've seen it reported.
But the point is that they failed to construct this case.
They got away with it for a week or so, but then it and and they let it lie dormant for three weeks before they even tried to bring it to life.
So there's reasons to be uh optimistic here.
Not over the fact that a young kid was shot to death, but what they tried to take this and turn into has uh has failed.
Just like they ultimately failed at Duke.
But the problem is they destroy people's lives in the process.
And they don't care about that.
They'll destroy anybody's reputation character like that, if it'll advance their agenda.
Okay, timeout for a break here at obscene profit timeout.
We'll be back.
We'll continue with more right after this.
Oh, yeah.
Um, Obama needing enemies, big oil.
Let's get to these sound bites.
Because the president told the nation this morning that the oil companies are greedy and undertaxed.
The oil companies are the problem, not his policy.
So to solve the problem of high gasoline prices, Barack Obama said the oil companies must take on higher costs.
More overhead, they need a larger tax bill.
Gas prices have doubled since Obama took office, and he wants them to double again, and it's the oil company's fault.
Now, somebody explained to me how increasing the costs on the oil companies is going to reduce gasoline prices.
Answer, it won't.
Here's Obama this morning, and this is what Liberals want and believe.
They j uh what uh sorry, sorry.
That's Bloomberg.
That's a different bite.
Bloomberg, he wants everybody to pay higher taxes, not just the oil companies.
This is um this is Obama, nothing's work, so now he's going back.
The old Democrat playbook, big oil is the enemy.
This is in the White House Rose Garden.
Members of Congress have a simple choice to make.
They can stand with the big oil companies, or they can stand with the American people.
Right now, the biggest oil companies are raking in record profits.
Profits that go up every time folks pull up into a gas station.
But on top of these record profits, oil companies are also getting billions a year in taxpayer subsidies.
A subsidy that they've enjoyed year after year for the last century.
American oil is booming.
The oil industry is doing just fine with record profits and rising production.
I'm not worried about the big oil companies.
But note they still must be punished.
You must hate them.
You must be suspicious of them because they're earning too much profit, which is none of his business.
They're earning profits on what they're selling, what people are buying.
The free flow of oil at market prices is the fuel of the engine of freedom.
He doesn't like they're making too much money.
Their profits are too big.
He's not worried about them.
So they have to be punished.
By the way, they don't get subsidized.
Folks, this is another blatant lie.
It is a blatant lie about tax subsidies.
The Democrat the big oil does not get subsidized.
They have tax breaks like many other industries do, just like you have a home mortgage interest deduction.
And the tax breaks they have are to incentivize their production and exploration for oil.
Their tax breaks are not to cause you to pay higher gases.
Their tax breaks are there to facilitate more supply and thus cheaper prices.
Oil companies pay about 40 cents in tax for every dollar they earn.
Apple pays 20 cents in taxes on every dollar they earn.
Congress gave them those tax breaks.
Big oil didn't steal them.
The law of the land.
Anyway, the point, the Democrats rejected Obama's plan today.
The U.S. Senate defeated the oil subsidies bill despite Obama's call for conquest.
This actually illustrating something here.
These all these Obama soundbites happened before the Senate voted.
After he made this big plea for the Senate to get rid of these oil tax breaks, the Senate, Democrat-controlled Senate, rejected Obama.
And the subsidies or the taxes tax breaks for the oil companies survive.
The Democrats in the Senate ignored him.
Here's the second soundbite.
Instead of taxpayer giveaways to an industry that's never been more profitable, we should be using that money to double down on investments in clean energy technologies that have never been more promising.
Investments in wind power and solar power and biofuels, fuel-efficient cars and trucks, and energy efficient homes and buildings.
That's the future.
This is all BS.
He has invested your money in all of those industries that don't really exist.
There is no wind energy per se.
There is no green energy.
There is no solar industry per se.
And 99% of the companies he's invested your tax dollars in have gone bankrupt.
And this this is the important bite, this next one.
That's the choice that's facing Congress today.
They can either vote to spend billions of dollars more in oil subsidies that keep us trapped in the past, or they can vote to end these taxpayer subsidies that aren't needed to boost oil production.
Okay, stop the weekend.
Oil trapped in the past.
Oil is not the past.
Oil is the present and it's the future.
There's nothing to replace it.
There's no fuel that'll get a jet airplane off the ground.
But oil doesn't exist.
There is no fuel that will power a big ocean liner or tanker taking cargo.
It doesn't exist.
Oil is it.
It's as organic and natural as algae or as anything else that you find on this planet.
There's nothing wrong.
Oil is miraculous what we have learned to do with it.
And we will be back.
On the cutting edge of societal evolution, Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man.
America's real truth detector, America's real doctor of democracy.
As usual, talent on loan from God.
And I'm all combined here, one harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
Here's John in Las Vegas.
Thank you for waiting, sir.
You're up next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, Russ.
Been listening to you since 92.
By the way, thank you.
I I have to say, again, on Obama and oil, the the Senate Democrats have decided to stand with big oil on this.
They voted Obama down today.
I just I need to make that clear.
Senate Democrats stood with big oil.
Okay, John, thanks again for the call.
Okay, about Trayvon Martin.
I just want to point out that I don't think it's unraveling because it was exactly six years ago that the team got suspended in Duke lacrosse.
Team got suspended, and it didn't unravel.
I mean, they didn't get justice until after the election.
I know what you mean.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Um you're right.
I'm looking at the net result.
But there you're right, there was all kinds of destruction of family reputation dreams that took place before the net.
I don't think they're gonna let it go.
They don't care what the truth is.
No, that's absolutely right.
And they won the 2006 election.
But they won't they even got labor vote local.
Well, they didn't win the 2006 election because of Duke Lacrosse.
They won the 2006 election because of Mark Foley.
No, seriously, I don't mean not they they they that that election was won not on political issue.
They made an issue out of a non-existent Mark Foley story.
Another lie.
Foley didn't do anything but send emails.
He didn't touch anybody.
But that's that's what happened.
They saved that for um a month or three weeks before the election.
And and don't forget, there were a lot of Republicans back then fed up with uh the big spending ways of the Republicans at that time anyway.
But the Duke Lacrosse case did not secure that election for him.
In what I mean by this thing unraveling is that Sharpton and Jackson aren't there every day now, and and and you've got NAACP, former NAACP people uh telling them to back off and get away and bringing up Tawana Brawley.
Martin Luther King's niece is telling them to get away.
The media has dropped intense daily coverage of this.
Now there's the bounty's still out there, and they're still trying to to to to uh have have uh they they want something very bad to happen to George Zimmerman.
But I mean as a political story that advances the Obama administration, a political story that harms Republicans, which is what this was intended to do.
That that it's not it's not gonna do that.
This is not helping them get the independent vote, Josh.
This is this is the or John, this is uh uh another aspect of this to understand.
The independence of this country, they don't want to hear about bounties.
They're not gonna support a party that won't condemn bounties.
The regime, they're botching This big time.
And again, it's their conceit and arrogance in assuming that everybody can be made to think what they think or intimidated into not speaking out against it.
Those are the two characteristics of every one of these plans implemented by these people.
Intimidate the opposition into shutting up and not saying anything.
And then make it look like the whole country agrees with them.
But the Duke players.
You could argue that that uh did they get their reputations back, or will they forever be stained by that, even though everybody knows it's like the old adage a lie spreads around the world instantly.
It it takes the truth sometimes years to catch up.
That's what they know.
You're right.
You're right.
They don't care about the truth.
They're gonna get the labor vote no matter what.
And they're gonna get the African American vote no matter what.
If patterns hold.
But all this outrageous behavior, independents don't want any part of this.
And we don't hear any calls for civility from Obama.
People notice this.
The magic of 2008 has gone.
It's not there.
Mark in Fort Worth.
Thank you for calling.
Appreciate your waiting as well.
Hi.
Hello, Rush.
Uh Ditto's from the Lone Star State.
Thank you.
I wanted to touch on the uh Obamacare Supreme Court uh discussions of the last week uh again on the severability issue.
Yeah.
I think it's very revealing that the Democrat-controlled Congress intentionally, I think, intentionally left out the severability clause, because I think they are daring the court to throw out the entire law.
I think that they know that if they had put severability in the act, they would have struck down the mandate, but may have left the rest of it.
But I think they are their arrogance to say I I think they are daring the court throw it all out.
I'm not sure I understand you.
You think did you say you think that they want the court to throw out the whole thing?
No, no, I I apologize for for not making that clear.
I obviously I think they want the I think they want it to pass.
I think they wanted to make it a a complete up or down vote on the entire act in the and intimidating the court into not being willing to vote down the entire act.
I think they were arrogant enough to put that in front of the court and say, here, if you think you've got the intestinal fortitude to vote this down, then you go right ahead.
But we don't think you'll do it.
So that's why they took the severability clause out.
Exactly.
And so your thinking is that the court is gonna say we don't want to be the ones who throw out the first black president's signature legislation.
Because to me, the interesting thing about it is the severability issue uh was not the first thing uh I mean was uh you know, the the way it fell in the arguments was we had all these other arguments about the mandate and is it constitutional or is it not, the severability issue comes up, and then all of a sudden they have to stand back and say, oh, wait, if we strike this down, it looks like we may have to strike down the entire law.
And I don't know if we want to strike down the entire law.
And I think that's all by design.
All right.
So just so I understand you, you think they left out severability to make it politically impossible for the judges to toss it out.
To make it politically much more difficult for them to strike down the entire law because as your as your judge friend uh in your correspondence yesterday said, the letter of the law says if they strike down the mandate, they strike down all of it.
But if they strike down just the mandate and leave the rest of it, then the Democrats in Congress can go back and say, Well, here we've got a Supreme Court that's not even following the letter of the law.
They're doing what they want to to this act.
So they win politically in two of the three options that are in front of them.
Well, see, this is this this is where I have trouble.
Because you may have a point, but I don't think they did this on person.
I think a purpose, I think it was stupid.
I think they were in a hurry, and I think they forgot it.
I don't.
This is the they're not that smart.
They are politically devious.
But I don't believe.
I'm having trouble believing that they would take that risk.
That after dreaming of this for 50 years, they would construct it in such a way that the only way it survives is by daring a court to throw it out.
Don't think that's what's going on here.
I think they were in a hurry.
I think they barely had ways to get this thing passed, and I think they just forgot it.
Because it was in a previous version.
In fact, let's go to audio sound by number 24.
This is uh this is uh Ram Emanuel's brother, Ezekiel Emmanuel, who's part of the regime, and he's one of the grandfathers of this whole thing.
He's one of the authors, he's one of the grand poopas.
Ezekiel Emmanuel is a doctor.
He's an MD, he's a PhD, and he's the ballet dancer's brother.
And he was on MSNBC this afternoon, and they had a discussion about the oral arguments and the uh individual mandate being overturned.
And he was asked this question why wasn't severability built into this?
Why didn't you guys put the severability clause in it?
That I believe was an oversight, not an intention.
And I do know that most of us wanted severability and had certainly thought that their severality in the bill, and that's the way again, all the lower courts have been understanding this issue that it is separable.
But I think whether it's severable or not, one has to take the tone.
It really isn't the place of justices to decide well, how is it best to structure the health insurance market?
Remember, Congress held, you know, over 70 days of hearings just on the house side on health care reform.
For the justices to come in and say, well, we've read a bunch of briefs, even if there's a record number of briefs, we've held six hours of hearings.
We're gonna decide how best to structure the health insurance market, what can be included, what can't.
Seems to me to be quite, you know, usurping a lot of policy making.
Which in the past has been something conservatives have decried.
Wait a second, Zeke.
That's not at all what the courts Scalia said yesterday they don't want to do this.
See what this guy's doing?
Now he's coming out and saying the court wants to take over and run this thing when it's Congress's job.
And Scalia specifically made fun of that.
You expect us to do this.
What about judicial overreach?
We don't want to be part of this.
This is hilarious.
This guy is also against judicial activism.
Now, here is a guy who wants judges writing new law, except all of a sudden he doesn't.
These people, I'm telling you, folks, they're not as smart.
Mark, they're not as smart as you're giving them credit for.
They're they're they're they're diabolical.
And and they're plenty deceitful.
But they would gladly get the camel's nose under the tent on this bill.
They'd take any aspect.
In fact, the one of the ways to look at this is to say they would love the mandate to be thrown out with the rest of the bill to survive, so they can replace the mandate with single payer right now, not ten years from now, just Medicaid for everybody and be done with it.
Or Medicare for everybody, Medicare for everybody and be done with it.
And get single payer tomorrow instead of ten years from now.
A lot of pundits are analyzing it that way.
Let's take a break.
We'll continue after this.
Don't go away.
Don't go away.
By the way, I want to make a couple points here about Obama and subsidizing big oil.
Makes a big deal.
We we shouldn't subsidize big oil.
Big oil is the enemy.
Uh keep in mind Obama, the United States is subsidizing drilling for oil in Brazil.
The United States gave Brazil loaned brill gave out 10 million dollars, $10 billion, I don't know what it was, to help Brazil drill for oil.
We are subsidizing other nations drilling for oil.
We are not allowed to do it ourselves, but Obama is subsidizing Brazil.
Obama subsidizes the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
Obama subsidizes big unions, environmental groups, his campaign workers.
What is big government?
Big government is nothing other than liberals subsidizing their friends and supporters by redistributing wealth.
That's all it is.
That's all big government is.
I can't subsidize big oil, but we'll subsidize food stamps.
We'll subsidize.
It's liberals subsidizing their buddies.
Taking your money and giving it to somebody else.
That's what big government is.
But we can't subsidize big oil.
So now they have to be made out to be the enemy.com.
Chatsworth Osborne Jr., his website, that's Tucker Carlson.
Latino organizations dismiss George Zimmerman, question his ethnicity.
That would be La Raza.
Latino organizations dismiss George Zimmerman, question his ethnicity.
What why?
Why?
▲
Export Selection