All Episodes
Previous Next
April 3, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:20
April 3, 2012, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Here's a little news story.
Ladies and gentlemen from the Orlando Sentinel.
The headline Two arrested in brutal hammer beating in Seminole.
This is near Sanford, Florida.
I've rings a bell.
Something's recently been going on in Sanford, Florida.
Oh well, it'll come to me.
A tip.
A tip to crimeline has led to the arrests of two men in a brutal beating that occurred a week ago in the Midway community east of Sanford.
Julius Ricardo Bender, 18, and Yahazil Isaac Israel, 19, face charges of attempted first degree murder, burglary with assault, or battery and armed burglary.
The victim of 50-year-old Winter Springs man whose name hasn't been released on a life support at Orlando Regional Medical Center.
Deputies were called to the area of Lincoln Street and Beardall Avenue at 6 30 p.m. on March 26th to investigate a report of a man being beaten.
They found the victim in the woods on the north side of uh Lincoln Street.
The um see um the two teenagers here, I've got their pictures.
Uh yeah.
Yeah.
Let me do that.
I'll just it's the easiest way.
It's the easiest way.
Let me uh hang on a folks.
Let me turn the dental can off.
I'm gonna zoom in here.
And let's see.
Watch me get in trouble for this.
Okay, there are the uh two perps.
This happened March 26th in Sanford, Florida, two perps.
And the uh victim is a 50-year-old, according to uh the headline of 50-year-old white gentleman.
Um you think so?
One of the Well, I don't want to I don't I don't want to get into who might look like somebody here, Mr. Snerdley.
That's not for me to judge.
I'm not a geneticist or an extra.
I just wanted to mention the story.
It's just uh story in Sanford, Florida, and I I know something happened there.
I can't on the top of my head.
It's been the news a lot lately.
I just don't remember what it was.
All right, uh we're back 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address is Ilrushball at EIB net.com.
The president is back uh defending health care in his statements about the court yesterday.
This the AP luncheon.
He launched on the court again today, is what happened here.
The Associated Press luncheon during the American Society of News Editors.
By the way, the the uh CEO of AP stood up and just lauded Obama as one of the greatest human beings ever.
One of the greatest presidents ever, one of the greatest quotes ever, one of the greatest guys ever.
And there was a QA at the uh at the event.
Obama spoke, spoke about the economy.
And during the QA, the moderator is the chairman of the Associated Press Dean Singleton, who said, Mr. President, you said yesterday it'd be unprecedented for a Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by an elected Congress.
Yet that's exactly what the court's done during its entire existence.
If the court were to overturn the individual mandate, what would you do or propose to do for the 30 million people who wouldn't have health care after that ruling?
Now keep before we play his answer.
I want to read to you from the AP story last week.
This is the chairman of the AP.
And the uh here's the money quote from the AP article from six days ago.
Various economic studies have projected that without the mandate, 10 million to 15 million people who would have been covered instead will remain uninsured.
10 million to 15 million people would remain uninsured.
And yet today, the chairman of the associated press, if the over if the mandate's overturned, what would you do for the 30 million people who wouldn't have health care?
So the chairman of the AP can't even get the details of the story his own wire service put out last week straight.
Here is Obama's answer.
We have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on an economic issue like health care.
That I think most people would clearly consider commerce.
A law like that has not been overturned, at least since Lochner.
So we're going back to the 30s, pre-New Deal.
And the point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws.
And all of us have to respect it.
But it's precisely because of that extraordinary power that the court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress.
And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this.
Now, as I said, I I expect the Supreme Court actually to recognize that and to abide by well-established precedents out there.
I have enormous confidence that in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme Court has.
As a consequence, we're not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies.
Well, where to start?
See, now this it it involves economics, so the court shouldn't overturn it.
Yeah, they've overturned stuff, but never something on economics like this.
There is no burden in a Supreme Court case.
This isn't a jury trial.
There's no burden here.
The burden was on the government to answer their questions.
The burden was to show that it was constitutional.
The burden is constitutionality.
There's no burden here to make sure that people have health insurance.
There's no burden to make sure that people have affordable health, and there's no burden on the part of the court to make sure that people with pre-existing conditions get covered.
You know the scary thing is how many Americans do you think think that is what the purpose of the court is?
How many Americans do you think the purpose of the court is to make sure here that the uninsured have insurance?
That's the sad shocking thing.
I wonder if anybody in the AP audience fainted.
Anybody take off their underwear and throw their panties at Obama during his speech today.
Somebody needs to tell him.
I'll do it right now.
He's a constitutional scholar, but he needs to be reminded that between 1789 and 2002, the Supreme Court declared 158 acts of Congress unconstitutional.
158 acts of the Constitution unconstitutional.
The burden is on Congress to pass constitutional laws.
This this again is uh Obama threatening, not threatening, intimidating, warning, telling them what he expects, try to ladle guilt on these guys, the justices, about what they're going to be taking away from people.
And he goes back to the emotional campaign as the answer continued.
What I did emphasize yesterday is there is a human element to this that everybody has to remember.
Stop the table.
Let me tell you what the human element is in Obamacare.
Human element is telling a 100-year-old woman, sorry, here's the pain pill, you don't get the pacemaker, you're too old.
That's the human element in Obamacare.
The human element in Obamacare is the death panels.
The human element in Obamacare is the government, a bunch of bureaucrats that we'll never meet, deciding who gets treated and how extensively we get treated.
And they'll make their decisions based on a bunch of factors that we'll have no control over.
If you're 73 and you come in with a case that has cancer, well, I don't know if we should spend the money to treat a 73-year-old.
I mean, we could better spend the money on a young person who's got something wrong with them.
That's the Obama death panels.
There's your human element.
Mr. President, here's the rest of the bite.
An abstract exercise.
I get letters every day from people who are affected by the health care law right now, even though it's not fully implemented.
Young people who are 24, 25 who say, you know what, I just got diagnosed with a tumor.
First of all, I would have not gone to get a checkup if I hadn't had health insurance.
Second of all, I wouldn't have been able to afford to get it treated had I not been on my parents' plan.
Thank you and thank Congress for getting this done.
I get letters from folks who have just lost their job, their cobra's running out, they're in the middle of treatment for colon cancer or breast cancer, and they're worried when their COBOR runs out, if they're still sick, what are they going to be able to do?
Because they were not going to be able to get health insurance.
None of this matters.
None of this is relevant.
None of this is germane.
Mr. Lumbo, you're sounding very, very heartless when you say that none of this matters to the Supreme Court.
Mr. New Castradi, it may pain the individuals on the court, the circumstance exists, but it's not germane to what they are deciding.
Individual circumstances.
This is not the role of the Supreme Court.
It's clear what's going on now.
Clear as a bill.
Obama ladling guilt on these people.
Here's what you're going to be taking away.
Look at these letters people are writing.
Thank you, Mr. President, for helping me get cured with cancer with a tumor that was discovered because of your health care bill.
Give me a break.
This is the epitome of childish egoism and arrogance.
So the court better do the right thing.
is people are writing Obama letters.
If it hadn't been for Obama, these people would die.
Okay.
And you people on the court better remember it.
As you make up your mind on this.
And that's the message.
How many human elements have been killed by Roe v.
Wade.
What is that number?
Isn't it like uh for a while there, wasn't it?
Over a million human elements a year that were killed by uh Roe vs.
Wade since uh 1973.
Yeah, yeah, that's right, the human element of abortion.
And you know what I wouldn't be surprised by?
Snerdley, do you remember the school lunch fiasco back in 1995?
Folks, if you weren't with us then, if you're new to the program, the budget fight in 1995, the uh Democrats accused the Republicans of starving children by cutting the school lunch program.
Now there were no cuts in the school lunch program budget.
There was a reduction in the rate of increase, but the aggregate spending in that budget for school lunches was going to go up, and it did go up.
But because it didn't go up as much as was budgeted, I think it was budgeted to go up 10 percent and it went up seven percent.
Because it didn't go up 10 percent, the Democrats ran around and called it a budget cut, draconian budget cut, and they said that uh students are gonna starve.
Republicans are starving children, and the media picked it up.
And what happened was that schools all across the country assigned writing assignments to students, demanding they send letters to Republican congressmen, asking not to be starved, because it was very hard to learn when you're hungry.
Therefore, I won't be surprised if maybe today or tomorrow, Grade schools start assigning students to write letters to the Supreme Court begging them to save health care for people.
I wouldn't be surprised if that happens.
The National Education Association, big time union supporters of Obama could do this on their own, and they could do it with no fingerprints of Obama's.
They could make this look like it happened spontaneously because everybody was so moved by the president talking about the letters that he's received from people who didn't die because of him, uh, and who have health insurance because of him, and now these meanies at the Supreme Court might take health insurance away from people.
And so a letter writing campaign Supreme Court, dear justices, please don't take away my mommy's health care.
My mommy just got health care because of Obamacare, and she was just diagnosed with stage 19 breast cancer.
And if it weren't for Barack Obama, my mommy would die, and I don't want my mommy to die.
I want my mommy to you please, please do not cancel Obama and send the letters off.
And of course the press will hear about it.
Oh, how cute.
And look at how wonderful the spread of democracy and why young children are now learning about the American system of democracy.
Might already be happening, folks.
Wouldn't put it past them, wouldn't be surprised if a letter writing campaign to the Supreme Court is underway, being talked about.
And we will get pictures of the sacks of mail arriving at the Supreme Court, begging them to save Obamacare.
Begging the judges, the justices to save my mommy.
Mr. Limboy, you are so cynical.
How dare you make fun of such a wonderful plan if it were to happen?
That would be great democracy enacted.
How dare you make money?
Make fun of it.
Be a pure phony fake astro-terf campaign.
I'll bet Exelrod's working on it even as we speak.
Just keep a sharp eye, folks.
Wouldn't put it past the Washington Post, the happier you are, the better, right?
Nope, nope, not necessarily.
Studies show that there's a darker side to feeling good.
Did you know that?
There's a darker side to feeling good.
The pursuit of happiness can sometimes make you less happy.
Too much cheerfulness can make you gullible, selfish, and less successful.
And that's only the tip of the iceberg.
I kid you not.
Ladies and gentlemen, we live in the most beautiful country on earth.
We live in the greatest country on earth.
We luxuriate in freedoms that many people die to have.
We have conveniences beyond conveniences brought to us by a free market.
We have the concept of the pursuit of happiness, which is simply another way of expressing freedom and liberty and the essence of the human spirit, enshrined in our declaration of independence.
The pursuit of happiness simply is a way of saying what free people do.
But the standard of living, the overwhelming economic advances, technological advances, the overwhelming degree of individual success that has been realized in this country has made some of us unhappy.
And now President Obama and his gang are working to take away our freedoms and our happiness to give us the sad, desperate existence of totalitarian type command and control central economies.
Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, Communist China, Detroit, the endless list of failed governments.
And this is a Study that the Washington Post has published four pages on.
And it's an entire guilt trip.
It's designed to make us think that we are selfish in our natural pursuit of happiness.
This story is designed to strip away from the reader the desire to strive to be happy just to be content with what the government gives us.
Be content with what the government deems that we need.
How absolutely frightening, offensive, and scary is this opening paragraph.
The happier you are the better, right?
Nope, not necessarily.
Studies show there's a darker side to feeling good, and the pursuit of happiness can sometimes make you less happy.
Too much cheerfulness can make you gullible, selfish, and less successful, and that's only the tip of the iceberg.
Happiness does have benefits, they say, beyond feeling good, of course.
It can protect us from stroke and from the common cold.
Happiness makes us more resistant to pain.
It can even prolong our lives.
Yet June Gruber, a professor of psychology at Yale, who has studied happiness, warns that it's important to experience positive moods in moderation.
She compares happiness to food.
Now, isn't it odd that that's the exact same thing Michelle Obama's trying to ruin for us all?
She compares happiness to food, although necessary and beneficial.
Too much food can cause problems.
Likewise, happiness can lead to bad outcomes.
Research indicates that very high levels of positive feelings predict risk-taking behaviors.
Excess alcohol and drug consumption, binge eating may lead us to neglect threats.
Don't strive to be happy, folks.
It'll make you miserable.
No, I don't think this is coincidental at all.
We get a long story in the Washington Post about happiness causing misery.
All the problems associated with happiness right in the middle of the misery index being at Jimmy Carter levels here under the Obama regime.
In the midst of a country that is uh unsettled, unease, nervous, scared to death about the future because of the indebtedness to spending, the impending loss of freedom, and all of a sudden here comes the stories.
Hey, that's the way you're supposed to feel.
That's the way everybody else in the world feels.
Who do you think you are expecting to be happy?
So here comes this big long story, and it w I'll just give you some pool quotes here.
Happy people are more prone to stereotypic stereotypical thinking.
Anybody who has committed a crime should hope that the jury that tries him is happy.
Feeling good makes people more selfish.
The happiest of us are also less creative than those who describe themselves as just happy enough.
Even striving to feel cheerful might make us less happy.
Jonathan Schooler, a professor of psychology at University of California, Santa Barbara, and his colleagues asked a group of 120 people to listen to Stravinsky's Rites of Spring, a complex composition that's not easy on the ear.
He discovered that those who listen to the music with a specific intent to make themselves happy are constantly monitored how much they were enjoying themselves, ended up enjoying themselves less than those who just focused on the experience.
According to psychologist Iris Moss, the more somebody pursues happiness, the more he or she will probably end up feeling disappointed.
Man, if this isn't liberalism on parade.
I don't know what is.
They are not happy.
And now they've codified it in scientific research.
Just every day, folks, the assault on the natural existence of the human spirit, which is what liberalism is.
It's an assault on the natural yearning of the human spirit.
Strive for excellence, strive for happiness, strive to accomplish something.
No, no, no.
That will only lead to disappointment because you won't end up being happy and you'll just be worse off than before.
No, you're not going to get that big job.
You're not going to be successful.
It's just going to make you more unhappy when you realize that you're not good enough to do that.
That's the thinking.
It's the same kind of thinking.
It says when you're depressed, sit in it.
When you're depressed, soak it up.
Don't try to artificially get out of depression, because you won't, and you're going to realize you'll be even worse when you realize that you're really depressed.
So just sit in it.
Let it leave you naturally.
Don't artificially try to tell yourself that you've got reasons to be happy or feel good when you're miserable.
Stay in the misery.
This is the theory.
Stay in the misery and let it dissipate on its own.
If you artificially do this, you're going to be worse off than you were.
You're going to be worse off than you were.
Who in the world wants to sign on to something like that?
From the UK Daily Mail, Lee Aronson, the co-creator of the CBS Comedy Two and a Half Men's A little Hot Water for saying female-oriented comedies have reached the point of saturation.
Speaking with the Hollywood reporter at the Toronto screenwriting conference, Lee Aronson said, Enough, ladies, I get it.
You have periods.
He complained of the latest batch of comedy shows targeted toward women, including two broke girls and Whitney.
He added, but we're approaching peak vagina on TV, the point of labia saturation.
He didn't stop there.
He said that the show focuses on damaged men.
What makes men damaged?
Sorry, it's women.
I never get my heart broken by a man.
The show has portrayed women in a less than flattering light from its inception, led for eight seasons by Charlie Sheen.
So just as just as we're coming down off the off this phony fake war on women, we get a Hollywood guy blasting women on TV, and he's forced to back off.
He's been forced to apologize.
He's been forced to take it back.
Yeah, yeah, stupid joke.
I'm sorry.
And his comments have been deleted.
But before they made him delete the comments, we're approaching peak, which all he's talking about here is the chicken of his business.
He writes sitcoms, comedy writers as the women have taken over.
It's all vagina all the time.
We get it.
Okay, women, let us alone.
Recovery threatened by runaway student loan debt.
The federal student loan program seemed like a great idea back in 1965.
Borrow to go to college now, pay it back later when you have a gig.
You know, folks, have you done a lot of ideas from 1965 seem not to have worked out?
Now the student loan program is threatening the recovery because of all the debt.
Now, what do we have in 1965?
We had a Great Society.
We had the war on poverty.
All this LBJ stuff, and the Civil Rights Act, all this stuff, 1965.
How is it working out for us?
But poor old Obama, if you read the story further, you'll find out that this is really bad for Obama.
Seems like everything's threatening his re-election.
I mean, it's recovery.
Student loans, which by the way, he now directly controls.
The Obama administration took over that program.
There are no, well, there are very few places you can go in the private sector to get a student loan.
Government has most of that.
Yeah, Medicare Medicaid enacted in 1965.
What a great year.
Look at all of the rot gut that happened in 1965, and how has it worked out?
All these social programs.
The article says in passing here, lifting student debt higher and higher is the escalating cost of attending school.
You think so?
What else would make Student debt high.
Oh, how can I forget birth control pills?
So birth control pills and tuition are causing student debt to spiral out of control and threaten the Obama recovery.
Lifting student debt higher and higher is the escalating cost of attending school.
Who would have thought that?
Man, what genius put this together?
Tuition's increasing far faster than the rate of inflation.
Yeah, and who's in charge of this?
Liberals.
Lifting student debt higher?
Isn't the rising cost of tuition like the whole problem other than the birth control pills?
Yet there's never any criticism from Obama, the Democrats, or the news media about colleges and how greedy they are.
Oh, yeah, we got to take these subsidies away from big oil.
We gotta take these tax breaks away from.
But whenever the colleges want to increase tuition, go add 10% more.
We never hear about all the greed in big education.
We never hear about how big education wants to destroy its customer base.
We never hear about how big education is there to rip off its customers like big retail is and like big oil is.
We never hear that about big education.
Oh, all we hear about big education is you better get your butt there.
If you don't go to big education, you don't ever gonna have a chance to be a success in life.
You better get to college, and here's a loan, and you can spend the rest of your life paying us back and thanking us for giving you the chance to go there.
But by the way, when you graduate, don't pursue happiness because it'll only make you miserable.
Now here's your payment book.
By the way, folks, um I mentioned earlier that Obama was out attacking capitalism today while trying to sound or trying to say he was a capitalist.
And it's a lot of sound bites.
It's uh one, two, three, four.
I decided not to play them because we're over Obama today.
I didn't give this guy the whole show.
There's six of them here.
Now, Jake Tappert ABC has headlined the what Obama's speech was all about this way.
Obama delivers blistering partisan attack on modern Republican Party.
Now he can get away with that kind of thing in front of AP.
That's what he went out to the AP that the editors convention here and just launched.
It was the meeting with one of his super PACs.
Uh we'll have those sound bites tomorrow because they're worth getting into, but I just didn't want to do all Obama all the time here today.
Because I want to be happy.
Another solar industry bankrolled by Obama has filed for bankruptcy.
This one's Solar Trust of America, LLC.
Solar Trust of America, LLC, which holds the development rights for the world's largest solar power project.
Yesterday filed for bankruptcy protection after its majority owner began insolvency proceedings in Germany.
Largest solar power project in the world.
The Oakland-based company has held rights for the 1,000 megawatt blithe solar power project Southern California Desert, which last April won $2.1 billion conditional loan guarantees from the U.S. Department of Energy.
Just one year ago.
This was the second largest loan in the Department of Energy's now storied history.
Now the thing about this is the CEO of this company decided that he couldn't make a go of it because of the flat panel solar industry business and where it was.
There was just no business there.
He can't compete.
And he he um, even after telling the regime that he didn't want the 2.1 billion dollars, they wanted to give it to him anyway.
They just everywhere you look, every place that Obama has tried to bankroll a so-called green energy outfit.
The vast majority of them have descended into bankruptcy and closed up shop.
This place, if I'm thinking of the right place, had five employees.
Solar Trust of America.
I actually read about this last night.
One year ago, yet one year ago, this outfit got 2.1 billion dollars in taxpayer loans.
It was the um at the time the largest loan in the in the history of the Department of Energy since been surpassed.
But the news media didn't want to distract us from the Trayvon Martin shooting from last month, or the Republican war on women from last month, so they didn't talk about this.
They haven't been talking.
This story just surfaced.
It's not really uh a new one, but it's uh it's a Reuters story that actually got published yesterday.
So down the tubes.
Cylindra with solar panels, and now Solar Trust of America has filed bankruptcy.
But remember now, the way we've been doing our economy since we were founded, that doesn't work.
The last three and a half years is what works.
This business of fending for yourself and everybody's on your own.
That's never worked.
This green energy, solar energy bankruptcies under Obama.
That is what works.
Okay, let's see.
We got Cylindra, a bound solar, energy conversion devices, bright source, LSP Energy, Evergreen Solar, Ener One, Sun Power, Beacon Power, Eco Tol uh Eco Tality, A123, Unisolar, Azure Dynamics, and now Solar Trust.
They've all gone under.
Every one of those bankrolled businesses gone under.
And oil is the fuel of the past.
Oil is what's old.
See you tomorrow, folks.
▲
Export Selection