All Episodes
Previous Next
April 3, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:51
April 3, 2012, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24 7 Podcast.
I got it right here, folks.
It's right here in the Washington Post.
And it fits.
Given what's ahead of us.
Here's the headline of the story in the Washington Post.
Too much happiness can make you unhappy.
According to studies, that's right, too much happiness can make you unhappy.
Therefore, we're gonna control happiness so that you don't get unhappy.
And how are we going to control happiness?
We're gonna keep the economy misery so that miserable so that you stay miserable.
This is a uh a great indication of what the Washington Post thinks is in store for all of us.
It's like during the 90s when Clinton was lying every time he opened his mouth, and there were stories.
Hey, lying is good for you.
Lying protects people's feelings.
Lying prevents people from being hurt.
His little white lies are very good.
And the better you are at it, the better our country is.
Greetings, folks, great to have you here.
We are loaded.
We've got speaking of happiness, how about those people in the General Services Administration who apparently did not get the memo that we're not supposed to get on our jets and go to Las Vegas?
They had a blast out there.
I guess they were at the Bellagio.
Well, I don't I think it was a Bellagio because when I saw a TV story about it, they had a picture of the Bellagio there, and uh which is a great place.
I either stay there or uh at one of Steve Wynn's places when I go out there, but I tell you too much happiness can make you unhappy.
Too much happiness, not a problem here at the uh EIB network, uh folks.
We strive for it.
It's right in our founding documents, the pursuit of happiness, we pursue it, we find it, we share it.
Great to have you here.
Telephone numbers 800 282-2882, email address L Rushball at EIB Net.com.
NBC still investigating.
What happened?
It turns out that the what is it, the RTNDA, the Radio Television, News Directors Association, yeah, a trade, well, no, it's actually it's a professional group, not a trade group.
The RTNDA, the head honcho has uh put a post on their website saying this was very, very bad.
Uh it's really bad what NBC did.
Obviously it wasn't bias, but it was very, very wasn't biased.
Here you have something on tape.
You had plenty of chances to edit this and get it right.
It went out the way they wanted it.
Now, if they don't think there was bias in what NBC did, then it's so institutionalized.
Bias, racial bias is so institutionalized in NBC that they don't even recognize it.
But to deny that there was bias involved in what NBC did, still investigating how in the world that uh the 9-11 tape could have been doctored.
Uh Bernie Goldberg was on O'Reilly last night, and he said, Look at you and I do this investigation, it's over in ten minutes.
We bring the guy in and say, why'd you do it?
Whatever he says, you're gone.
There's uh there's no there's no justification for this.
And guess what now?
Guess what now?
Enhanced video of George Zimmerman being led into a Florida police station appears to show possible injuries to the back of his head, lending credence to his claim that he was in a struggle with Trayvon Martin when he shot the teenager.
ABC News initially released video of Zimmerman that did not clearly show marks on his scalp, but they had the video enhanced digitally, and they released a new clip yesterday.
And the new clip appears to show a gash.
Zimmerman's father claims that his son was being beaten by the uh teenager when he shot Martin's self-defense.
Martin supporters say that Zimmerman shot the teenager after racially profiling.
There was no racial profiling.
The only reason anybody thinks that is because of what NBC did.
This is a Fox News story I'm reading from.
After racially profiling him and stalking the youth through the neighborhoods, Zimmerman's attorney, but there was no racial profiling.
Doesn't that kind of cut the legs off the entire mainstream media story on this?
There wasn't any racial profiling.
ABC's first videotape shows no injury to Zimmerman, but then all of a sudden, for some reason, they found another layer on the video, and when they enhanced it, lo and behold, right there it is, there's a gash.
Well, what other video has ABC shown us over the years that has not been enhanced?
What the what was the evidence for racial profile?
The NBC 911 tape.
The evidence for racial profiling was the NBC 9-11 tape.
The hoodie.
No, no, no, Snurley, yeah, the hoodie and all, but no, the reason why they think there's racial profiling is what NBC did with the 9-11 tape.
Martin or Zimmerman doesn't think about a hoodie.
Why do I care about the facts?
I know it's a failing of mine.
It's a failing of mine.
That's the thing is.
I am the mayor of Realville, or Literalville.
And I am.
I'm I'm stuck.
I'm I'm I'm uh mired in logic, the quicksand of logic.
And I'm sinking.
Yeah, Snurder said, why do you care about the facts?
Why don't you get the story right?
It's a good story, Rush.
Why are you messing it up with the facts?
You're right.
It is a failing of mine.
The story's out there, and but it's not the story.
But I just, what other video has ABC not enhanced?
What other layers are there on other any on any story, not just this one, that ABC might uh discover.
Now, Zimmerman uh Zimmerman called in dozens of times to the cops.
This is a cop wannabe.
George Zimmerman wants to be a cop, which, by the way, Richard Jewell did too.
The uh guy falsely accused in Atlanta at the Olympics.
If Zimmerman was profiling, we would have heard about it by now.
This information would have been leaked.
By the way, folks, Realville is not a gated community.
You can come in.
We here in Littoreville are wide open.
There are no gates.
Anybody can move here.
There are no gates to keep people out, and there are no gates to keep people in.
Yep, ABC had to enhance the video to correct the he wasn't injured template.
So, what did we have?
We had an NBC 9-11 audio that made it look like Zimmerman was profiling Trayvon Martin.
Turns out that wasn't true.
Then we had an ABC video, which showed that Zimmerman wasn't injured.
Now all of a sudden, we've been told that NBC doctored the audio on the 9-11 tape, and ABC found a new layer when they enhanced their video.
News reports say that paramedics treated Zimmerman at the scene, but ABC says in the first report he wasn't injured.
So did the paramedics lie?
I mean, this this is so, you know, it's it's all breaking down.
The Trayvon Martin story is falling up, but that's why they're going back to other things now.
War on women.
They're trying to revive and regain the momentum on that, but we're not going to help them here.
Where that's concerned.
Okay, Obama and his attack on the Supreme Court yesterday.
It happened toward the end of the program in the last half hour, and uh it was happening on the fly.
I didn't really have enough time to listen in detail to what Obama said, and thus I didn't have a chance to in detail reply.
I've now listened to what Obama said.
I've got three sound bites here.
And I got home, uh I well, yes, I forget about six o'clock last night.
I got a um I got a flash encrypted message from a friend.
You don't somebody in the court leaked it to Obama.
That's why he went out there and did this today.
Somebody called him.
He lost the vote, the preliminary vote on Friday, he lost it and somebody leaked it.
And that became a uh an active theory that began to be bandied about amongst a lot of people that I know.
Because people were saying, why go out as Obama did yesterday.
It was in the form of a question.
We must remember that he was asked a question about this.
He didn't launch into this on his own.
But once he got the question, it was Katie Bardador, and he was off to the races.
And the question everybody was asking, why do this?
Why attack the court?
Why intimidate them?
Why threaten them?
If they had voted to uphold the mandate.
And I have an answer for that.
See, I know these people.
I know liberals.
I don't want that statement, you people who are new, listeners to the program.
That's not a braggadocious statement.
It's not bombastic.
It's not uh outrage or uh any attempt to shock.
I just know them.
And so when somebody asks me why would Obama say that if he didn't have to.
If he had been told that the preliminary vote on Friday was in his favor, why take the attitude that he took?
There is an answer to that.
I don't know if it's right, but there is an answer.
He's a thug.
And again, I'm not trying to be provocative when I say this.
I'm just quoting Bill Clinton, folks.
Bill Clinton referred to Barack Obama as a Chicago thug during the 2008 presidential campaign.
This after Clinton, some years earlier had told Juanita Broderick uh put some ice on that lip after she said he raped her.
I mentioned that for this war on women that supposedly the Republicans are waging.
But there's every possibility that Obama feeling his oats.
Being told that uh the vote went his way, would still go out because he knows there are more votes to come.
I'm not predicting it.
I'm just saying I could understand it.
It's easier to understand that somebody leaked to him that the preliminary vote went against him, and that the mandate fell by whatever the preliminary vote was, and that explains his attitude yesterday.
But I can see him saying what he said if the vote went in his favor as well.
As a means of further intimidation, making sure they don't change their minds or whatever.
Now you might think, well, how would that work?
Now wouldn't that just kind of make them um be more resistant?
The reason this is all a um a crock in the first place is that, and we'll go through this as we play the Obama sound bites.
It is obvious that to the left, this is an entirely political process.
Nothing judicial going on here.
There's nothing legal.
This isn't even really about the Constitution.
This is about politics, pure and simple, and Barack Obama's re-election.
That's all it is.
But he says things in these sound bites which you'll hear coming up, and they're chilling to me.
The court has to understand.
The court must understand is one of his sound bites.
No, the court must not, does not, have to listen to you.
What is this?
The court must understand.
That is a threat.
How many of you think it possible that Obama will make a trip to the Supreme Court before the vote, before the final vote?
Can you see it happening?
I can.
Not predicting it.
You're shaking your head.
You don't think it would ever happen?
Uh why would it be why would why would Obama visiting the Supreme Court between now and June be any more unconscionable of what he did yesterday?
It's a visual.
No, he's going up and say hi to Kagan.
He's going to say hi to Kagan, so do my or just see how they're doing.
Uh you know.
Call them out of the State of the Union right to their face.
Remember that with uh Justice Alito.
Anyway, let me take a break.
We'll come back and we'll get into some of these sound bites, and I will tear this down.
Sometimes line by the Mike, be prepared when I say stop.
There might be some frequent stops and starts as we go through this.
Okay, back we are Rush Limbaugh, the cutting edge of societal evolution.
The Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Now let's see now, this.
Yeah, there's a Reuters was just excited as they could be over what Obama did.
Obama takes a shot at the Supreme Court over health care.
President Obama took an opening shot at conservative justices on the Supreme Court on Monday, warning that a rejection of his sweeping health care law would be an act of judicial activism that Republicans say they abhor.
Warning.
Warning and Reuters is happy that's right.
You take it to these conservatives.
Judicial activism, does this you know the debate is constantly had or held.
Does he really this ignorant or naive, or is this just strategic?
Everybody knows that judicial activism is not what Obama is explaining it to be.
Judicial activism is the court making law.
Judicial activism is the court writing law.
What Obama is trying to say here is that the court will be engaging in judicial activism if it judges the law according to the Constitution.
That's not what judicial activism is.
And I think I know exactly what they're doing.
They're trying to take this term and they're trying to redefine it publicly to fit their needs and redefine the language as they constantly are.
But folks, I'm going to tell you something.
It is preposterous.
And it's even a little scary to hear such abject ignorance from a supposed constitutional scholar saying, This is a man, Barack Obama, who was once paid to teach law, constitutional law.
And he doesn't even know the meaning of the term judicial activism.
No one ever accuses any judges of judicial activism for following the Constitution.
Judges are accused of judicial activism for not following the Constitution, for legislating from the bench, for writing their own law.
It's a basic knowledge.
And maybe this is why we've never seen Obama's grade transcripts, if he really doesn't know the difference.
But I suspect that he does know the difference.
And I suspect that he's trying to redefine terms here to fit because this has become a template argument for the left.
You remember Jeffrey Tubin?
You talk about a guy who's done a 180 here, turned on a dime.
During the week of oral arguments, Jeff Tubin, CNN legal analyst, was in an abject panic.
These people on the left, and again, ladies and gentlemen, this is the solid truth.
They do not expose themselves to any ideological thinking other than their own.
They have assumed that conservatism is racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, all of these cliches they attach to it.
And they're not interested in talking to anybody that they think is a conservative.
They really are not familiar.
They don't speak the language.
We, of course, can speak liberalism as well as they do.
We understand it.
How could we not?
We're exposed to it from the time we're born.
They shield themselves, their families, their friends from conservatism as much as possible.
Liberalism is a gated community.
Not only is liberalism a gated community, there's a moat before you get to the gate.
They simply don't understand it.
And so Jeff Tubin literally was having a cow when he heard the justices on the court question the government lawyer from a conservative constitutional point of view, and he was shocked.
He was unfamiliar with it.
Now you may find it hard to believe, but Rush, These guys are in the news media and they talk about conservatives all day long.
They really are strangers to our core beliefs, folks.
So after the shock of being exposed to it wore off, then Tubin and the rest of them, including Obama, had to come up with a way to feel right about everything again.
They had to come up with a pacifier.
And so what they have done is construct this notion of judicial activism to throw it right back in our faces.
And now their definition of judicial activism would be the court throwing out something that the United States Congress did, because as far as they're concerned, if the Congress did it, and the Congress was Democrats, it's constitutional.
No questions asked, no argument possible.
That's it.
And if a court throws that that's judicial activism.
Judicial activism cannot possibly exist if the court is following the Constitution.
This is really a teachable moment here.
Boom boom.
Yeah.
Yep, yep, yep, yep.
Audio sound bites are coming up if Obama just said.
I'm just going to set the table here because I like to have a foundation established when we start the audio sound bites.
And I'll tell you, it is hilarious to hear Obama arguing, threatening, warning justices of the Supreme Court, that the individual mandate is constitutional.
It isn't.
There is no permission for the federal government to order Americans to sign contracts with anybody, to buy something, or to not buy something.
There is no provision for this in the Constitution.
In a cut and drive, right down the middle way, sane world.
This thing doesn't get out of Congress because somebody there realizes it's unconstitutional.
Remember, Obama argued against the mandate in 2008.
Now he didn't say it was unconstitutional in 2008, but he implied it.
Because he said it would mean that the government would have unlimited power to mandate anything.
And he chided Hillary, his primary opponent.
I mean, if a mandate was a solution, we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody by a house.
So he knows.
He knows full well.
He also warned and threatened the justices that the mandate exists so everybody has skin in the game, make sure that everybody's paying for his health care bill.
But he also, as you'll hear, blatantly rewrites the history of Obamacare legislatively.
He claims, you'll hear him say it, Obamacare was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.
There was no, in reality, there was no strong majority in support of Obamacare.
In fact, there was strong bipartisan support against it.
34 Democrats in the House voted against Obamacare.
No Republicans voted for it.
It was passed in the Senate on Christmas Eve, 2009 by a vote of 60 to 39.
They used budget reconciliation any number of tricks.
But he's just up there blatantly rewriting the history of this.
He's rewriting the public support for this.
Just blatantly making it all up.
That's why people think he got a leak.
And as a friend of mine said, why wouldn't Kagan call him?
Who, if your friend, Mr. Limboy, you'll keep talking about well, I'm not going to tell you that, Mr. New Castradi.
None of your business.
But it's not just my friends thinking this, it's all over the place.
That somebody must have called Obama.
And the logical guess, if it happened, would be Kagan, because she was in the administration.
She was the solicitor general.
And these people are playing for keeps.
And it's obvious what Obama did yesterday that Traditional rules and standards of decorum and propriety don't matter.
So let's go.
Here's the first bite in total.
This runs a minute 45.
I doubt we're going to get it in that quickly.
Because I doubt I'm going to be able to restrain myself and not tell the broadcast engineer to stop it.
So here we go.
This is yesterday afternoon.
He's with the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the Mexican President Felipe Calderon.
They had a joint news conference about NAFTA type stuff.
And an unidentified reporter with an obviously to me anyway, planted question, because Obama wants this.
Mr. President, Mr. President, after last week's arguments at the Supreme Court, many experts believe that there could be a majority of five-member majority to strike down the individual mandate.
And if that were to happen, if it were to be ruled unconstitutional, how would you still guarantee health?
There's no question in my mind, this is a planted question.
And if that were to happen, Mr. President, how would you still guarantee health care to the uninsured and those Americans who've become insured as a result of the law?
The question is just wonderful.
Here's the answer.
With respect to health care, I'm actually continue to be confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law.
And the reason is because in accordance with precedent out there, it's constitutional.
Stop, Tip.
What precedent?
There's no precedent on this.
There's no precedent.
There's no legislation that required us to go buy something, enter into a contract.
As a court is not constitutional.
There's no precedent.
That's what this is all about.
Okay, let's uh hit it.
That's not just my opinion, by the way.
That's the opinion of legal experts across the ideological spectrum, uh, including two very conservative appellate court justices that said this wasn't even a close case.
Stop the tape again, the construction here of the straw man.
In every instance such as this.
By the way, he says, that's the opinion of legal experts across the ideological spectrum.
I don't know whether it's global warming or whether it's the stimulus gonna create jobs.
There are economists all across the spectrum.
No.
He's got two judges here.
One of them was Lawrence Silberman, who is conservative, and I'll tell you, I went on Silbermann voted that the mandate was constitutional when he ruled, I thought, whoa, I was taken aback, I'll admit that.
But there's no broad-based consensus across the ideological spectrum of experts.
That's what this is about.
Okay, keep going.
I think it's important because I I watched some of the commentary last week to remind people that this is not an abstract argument.
People's lives are affected by the lack of availability of health care, the inaffordability of health care, their inability to get health care because of pre-existing conditions.
Stop the tape.
It is precisely an abstract argument.
That's exactly what's going on here.
This is, this is my point last week.
This is a classroom discussion.
This is a bunch of people on his side sitting around theorizing on how they would make it better if they had the power, if they had the opportunity.
It is abstract.
And then everything that followed that is irrelevant.
The court is not to take into consideration who has health insurance and who doesn't.
That is not what is being argued here.
This is not before the court because some people don't have health insurance.
This is not before the court because some people have health insurance that other people are paying for.
The details of health care in America are not why this case is being argued.
This case is being argued because his administration is trying to violate the Constitution in securing the largest power grab by the federal government in the history of this country.
That's what's being argued.
Does he have the constitutional right to do it this way?
way?
All this other stuff is nothing more than tugging at our heartstrings.
All this other stuff is trying to inject politics.
All this other stuff about the uninsured and pre-existing conditions, that's an attempt to ladle guilt on the justices.
And particularly the conservative justices.
And if you find this unconstitutional, look at the pain you are causing.
Look at the heartbreak you are.
Look at the number of people who might even die because that's what he's doing here.
That's the degree of intimidation and threat that Obama is employing.
All right, let me uh find my place in a transcript here and okay, hit it.
The law that's already in place has already given 2.5 million young people health care that wouldn't otherwise have it.
Stop tape.
Irrelevant.
That doesn't mean that if the law is unconstitutional, it should let stand.
It doesn't mean.
If 10 million people have health insurance now who didn't have it because and I but don't even want to get into the argument about whether he's telling the truth here or not, because there's no way to know.
They just make these numbers up left and right like there were three million homeless, like there were 45 million uninsured.
The numbers 16, 15 or 16 million.
The numbers don't matter, which is why I'm not going to get into them.
It's irrelevant.
If 30 million uninsured all of a sudden now had health insurance, that's not germane to what's being discussed.
There are tens of thousands of adults with pre-existing conditions who have health care right now because of this law.
Uh-uh, uh-uh-uh.
No, Mr. President.
In fact, the rate of people signing up for this provision is way low.
Much lower than the government expectations.
But again, that's irrelevant.
It doesn't matter.
It's not what's being argued.
Whether or not people with preexisting conditions now have insurance isn't relevant.
Folks.
All I'm doing here is telling you what is.
I am not arguing politically.
I'm not trying to stop Obama from having a political victory.
I'm scared.
We are losing this country.
And we are going to lose big if this thing is ever fully implemented.
We have until 2014 to stop that.
And the court here is just one step in this.
I don't mean to sound in please do not infer that I don't care about people who do not have health insurance.
I do.
This is not the way to fix our problem.
Any and I'll just ask you to look at our history yourself.
We've had a war on poverty, we've had the Great Society, we've had every number of liberal created social programs to fix problems, and I ask you, is one of them fixed?
Or are they all out of control and worse?
And the answer is the latter.
This is not the way to fix the problem.
But it's not germane to what the justices are deciding in the first place.
I don't care whether Obama knows that or not.
I don't care whether he's so ignorant and ill-educated he doesn't know it.
All I know is he is using threats and intimidation and trying to ladle guilt on these justices.
Here's what you're going to be taking away from poor Americans.
If you do this.
Here, keep going.
Parents don't have to worry about their children not being able to get health care because they can't be prevented from getting health care as a consequence of a pre-existing condition.
That's part of this law.
Doesn't matter.
Millions of seniors are paying less for prescription drugs because of this law.
Stop the table.
What is he talking?
And that's irrelevant too.
If anybody's paying less for prescription drugs because of George W. Bush and Medicare Party, But again, none of this is relevant to what is being argued.
We are talking about the Constitution.
We do not have the right, we cannot.
These are people who have sworn an oath to uphold, defend, and protect the Constitution.
And there's no reason to abandon.
You cannot say, well, there are a lot of these people without health care, so the Constitution doesn't matter.
Wrong.
It's not the only way to fix this problem.
Keep going.
Americans all across the country have greater rights and protections with respect to their insurance companies and are getting preventive care because of this law.
So, not relevant.
That's just the part that's already been implemented.
That doesn't even speak to the 30 million people who stand to gain coverage once it's fully implemented in 2020.
30 million now?
Well, it's actually 15, but a couple of years ago it was 45 million was 52 million.
Again, none of this is germane.
Now to the to you go out and ask your average liberal, and this is all that matters.
Constitution what constitution?
I mean, what a barrier.
You mean to tell me the Constitution's preventing people from getting health care?
Well, the hell would the Constitution.
That's what people on the left think.
That's what we're up against.
But none of this is relevant.
But the message here is, Justice Kennedy, do you want to take all this away from people?
You want this on your head, Justice Kennedy.
That's the point of what he just said.
We'll be back after this.
How many people are homeless?
Shouldn't the government do something about that?
Shouldn't the government mandate that everybody buy or rent a house?
And shouldn't the Supreme Court uphold that because how can you take a house away from somebody after we force them to buy it?
This is what he's arguing here.
It's figuratively speaking here.
Obama's put a bounty out on the Supreme Court, figuratively speaking.
Since bounties are in the news lately.
This is a message to the conservative justices, Anthony Kennedy.
Look what you will be taking away if you strike down my law.
Look at the people you will be hurting if you strike down my law.
Let's go to the next bite.
It's about a minute and 19 seconds uninterrupted.
We'll see how far we get into this one.
I think the American people understand, and uh I think the justices should understand that.
Whoa, stop the tape.
I think the justices should understand.
American people understand.
I think the justice cue it back up to the top.
I think the justices should understand.
Well, it's easy to detect the attitude here.
You guys had better understand who you're dealing with here.
You guys you had better understand what you are doing here.
You better understand what your role is here.
You better understand what I am expecting out of you.
You better understand what you're supposed to do here.
Flat out intimidation.
No question about it.
All right, let's start at the top of this.
I think the American people understand, and uh I think the justices should understand that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have uh a uh mechanism to ensure that people with pre-existing conditions can actually get health care.
Stop the tape.
Yes, you can.
The only one way to do this?
By forcing everybody else to go buy health insurance to pay for those who don't.
That's the only way to do it.
Redistribution of wealth.
Coercion.
Compelled forced contracts, the only way to do it?
Justice is better understand.
I'd say what the American people understand.
They hate Obamacare.
By over 60%, some cases up to 70% every poll.
Why shouldn't the justices be afraid of the wrath of the American people instead of the wrath of Obama?
If they're supposed to pay attention to politics, if they're supposed to take attention to elections and polls, the American people don't want this.
The justices had better understand.
Boy, that is amazing.
Okay, fastest three hours in media.
And proof is the first one's complete.
Okay, we've got the rest of this soundbite, where Obama says the justices have to understand.
One more after that, and then Axarod claiming that Obama didn't declare war on the court, and a lot of other things, such as too much happiness can make you unhappy.
A long story.
It prints out the four pages in the Washington Post.
Too much happiness can make you unhappy, which means unhappiness is what they think is ahead of us.
That's what we should enjoy.
▲
Export Selection