All Episodes
Previous Next
May 17, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:36
May 17, 2012, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings to you, music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plane.
It's Rush Limbaugh back at it behind the golden EIB microphone.
Broadcast excellence, fast as three hours and media and all that.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program is 800-282-2882, the email address, Ilrushbow at EIBNet.com.
Yes, the Republicans via the politico floated an idea late yesterday afternoon.
What to do in case the Supreme Court does in fact find the mandate in health care unconstitutional, or in fact if they throw the whole law out.
The Republicans are working on a contingency set of plans.
I don't think you're going to like hearing some of what the Republicans plan on doing.
I could be wrong.
I'll run it by you in mere moments, but first the unemployment numbers.
You remember last week.
You may not, but I do.
And I'm here to tell you and to remind you.
Last week there were headlines trumpeting that jobless claims were down 1,000.
And the unemployment rate fell from 8.2 to 8.1%.
They were honest and said it's not because new jobs are being created, it's because people are leaving the workforce.
And there's a smaller universe of people working and jobs available against which to compare the unemployed and get your percentage.
Jobless claims down 1,000.
Big news.
The trend continues, but like always, it turns out to have been untrue.
Fact of the matter is, those claims had to be revised upward.
New U.S. claims or unemployment benefits unchanged last week, according to government data on Thursday that'll do little to ease concerns about a recent slowdown in jobs growth.
Initial claims for state unemployment benefits held steady at a seasonally adjusted 370,000, the prior weeks figure was revised up to 370 from the reported 367.
So there was not a 1,000 claim decrease.
There was a 3,000 increase in unemployment claims.
Jobless claims did not fall by a thousand last week, as originally reported.
They were up.
And today's number, next Thursday, will be revised up again.
That's how you know it's Thursday.
The jobless claims are always up.
Last week's AP headline.
U.S. applications for unemployment a dip to three hundred and sixty-seven thousand.
Reuters, jobless claims fall, trade gap widens.
So essentially we had a net increase of two thousand claims for unemployment.
They said we were down a thousand, had to revise it up three.
So we had a net increase of two thousand new claims for unemployment.
New people signing up for unemployment.
Two thousand new people.
From one week to the next, a lie.
Totally exposed.
So there was no good news last week.
And remember how everybody reacted to it last week.
It went both ways.
Those who wanted to be happy that the number went from eight two to eight one were, but then cold water was thrown on that when it was it had to be reported that the number went down because there are fewer people in the labor force, not because any jobs were being created.
The AP story today, U.S. unemployment aid applications stay at 370,000.
No, no, no, no.
No, AP is lying.
Last week's AP report had them at 367,000.
For AP to be honest with their original reporting, this headline would say U.S. unemployment aid applications increased by 2,000.
The number of people seeking unemployment benefits unchanged last week, suggesting steady gains in the job market.
It suggests no such thing.
It's an out and out lie.
The number of people seeking unemployment benefits was unchanged last week, suggesting steady gains and the job steady gains.
The applications for unemployment insurance went up last week, not down.
And it wasn't just last week.
The numbers have been revised up 17 weeks in a row.
They have been revised up 62 out of the last 63 weeks.
That's how you know it's Thursday.
Unemployment claims will be revised upwards.
House Republican leaders quietly hatching a plan as they await the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare.
If the law is upheld, if the law is upheld by the Supreme Court, Republicans will take to the floor to try to tear out its most controversial pieces, such as the individual mandate and requirements that employers provide insurance or face fines.
Okay, so far, so good.
If the job, if the unemployment, I'm sorry, if the health care bill is left intact, the Republicans say they're going to take to the floor and try to take out the individual mandate and the uh requirement that employers provide insurance or face fines.
Now, they're not gonna have the votes to get that done, but they're gonna put on the show.
But now listen.
If the Supreme Court partially or fully overturns Obamacare, the Republicans have quietly hatched a plan to draw up bills to keep the popular consumer-friendly portions of Obamacare in place,
such as allowing adult children to remain on their parents' health care plans until 26, and forcing insurance companies to provide coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.
Ripping those provisions from the law is too politically risky, the Republicans say.
The post-Supreme Court plan, and a ruling is expected in June, has long been whispered about inside House leadership circles and among the House's elected physicians, but is now being discussed with a larger group of lawmakers showing that Republicans are aggressively preparing for a big-time health care debate in the heat of an election year summer.
On Tuesday, the major options were discussed during a small closed meeting of the House Republican leaders.
Then yesterday, Speaker Boehner gave the entire House Republican conference a preview of where they're heading.
His message?
When the court rules, we will be ready.
But Boehner warned that they will re-legislate the issue in smaller bite sizes rather than putting together an unwieldy new health care bill.
So, you should know.
Let me rephrase this.
I don't know if they're floating a trial balloon here to gauge your reaction to this, which is entirely possible.
By the way, it's not new.
I've heard it before said that the Republicans think holding on to the kids on your policy till they're 26 and the pre-existing conditions, that we don't want to get rid of that.
No, no, no.
People like that, so we've got to find a way to keep that.
You know, that's been whispered about ever since Obamacare was signed into law.
And it has been a point of contention with conservative Republican voters who want this whole thing thrown out.
If the court throws it out, don't put some of it back.
they have This goes to the whole point.
They set the premise, and then we end up reacting to it.
So the premise is we got to have major health care bill.
All right, so we have to have major health care bill.
Okay, so whoa, Republicans will do one, but it'll be smarter and it'll be better and it'll be smaller.
And that's the way these things go.
So I'm just going to put it to you.
Supreme Court overturns all of health care.
This is hypothetical.
Do you want the Republicans leaving in?
Better no, no.
Wrong way to rephrase it.
Do you want the Republicans writing a new piece of legislation that would contain provisions for letting your kids stay on your policy till he or she's 26, and forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions.
And I must tell you, when you force insurance companies to cover X, you don't have insurance anymore.
Thank you.
Well, the the the 26-year thing before Obamacare kids were on their kids' parents' policies, long as they were in college.
That's another argument for not going to college.
So as long as the kid was in college.
Yeah, theoretically they weren't working.
Well, they're not going to be working when they get out of college either.
The theory was the kid could stay on the parents' policy until he's 26 while in college.
That was supposedly a proviso even before Obamacare.
The Republicans, they're floating it.
They want to keep that, even if the court overturns all of Obamacare, and they want to keep the proviso that forces insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions.
I look, I live in Realville.
I'm the mayor.
You force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, and we're not talking insurance anymore.
We're talking welfare.
It's not insurance.
People don't want to hear this, I know.
A lot of people don't want to.
What are the Republicans afraid of?
I think the Republicans are afraid of what the Democrats are going to say if the whole thing's overturned.
And it's very predictable.
Obama and the Democrat, and I'll bet you the ads are already done.
Five white people on the Supreme Court took your health insurance away from you.
Five white people, or five people, five white guys, well, four white guys and a traitorous black took your health coverage away from you.
Took your health care away from you.
They still have theirs.
They still have theirs, but they just took yours away.
You know that's what the campaign's going to be.
In fact, there's a part of me that believes Obama actually wouldn't mind that.
Since he's totally focused on getting re-elected right now.
I mean, without that, all the rest of what he wants to do is academic.
And some of the ridiculous stuff that he's doing now oriented toward getting re-elected, it's not a stretch to believe that he wouldn't have a problem with this thing being found unconstitutional, because boy, what an opportunity they would think that is.
The Republican judges on the court is what they would say.
The Republican judges on the court just took away your health care.
That we worked for a hundred years to get you.
Over Republican objections, every congressional term.
Republicans have always opposed you having health care.
Free health care, affordable health care, all those words will be thrown in.
And five Republican judges just took it away from.
That's what the Republicans are afraid of.
So if it's overturned and that campaign starts, what the Republicans' Congress want to do.
No, no, no.
We like some provisions of this.
That's why they're floating this.
I guarantee.
Well, I can't guarantee you.
I think they're floating this to gauge reaction to it.
So I thought I'd put it out there and let you react.
However, which way you will.
Okay, it's uh time to go to the phones.
Well, we went to the phones.
We already went to the phone.
We're gonna go back to the phones, and this is Doug in Rochester, New York.
Great to have you, sir.
Thank you for calling.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
It is a profound honor to speak with you.
And I just want to let you know that I started listening to you in March of 1991.
We had a horrible ice storm here, and my radio was the only thing I had.
Started listening to you and I haven't stopped.
So twenty one years later, I'm talking to you on the phone.
I just you've been such an encouragement to me through the year.
Just to be the voice that uh of truth to to speak what I agree with, and and you are uh you have the platform to be able to do that.
I just really appreciate it all the encouragement through the years.
Well, look, I really appreciate that.
You you what you're doing here is illustrating that uh what really has happened on this program is uh a lot of people have had their opinions validated.
Critics of this program have always said that people like you are just a bunch of mind-numb robots, and I'm some Sven Gali, and I am putting these poisonous ideas in your head.
Fact of the matter is you thought what you thought all along, but you never heard it reflected in the media.
And I came along, 1988-91 in your case, and you heard it, and it gave you some confidence.
And so you built on it, and I appreciate it.
I I really appreciate your kind words.
And I'll tell you what, I I want to now encourage you by letting you know that I'm a science teacher.
I teach seventh grade science in upstate New York, and I am teaching my students to reject science by consensus.
I'm I'm trying to teach them to be conscientious consumers of science.
I'm trying to get them to understand that science is about inquiry, it's about asking questions, even things that have been uh the books have been closed, even those truths can be questioned and can be asked about.
I I tell them that just because everyone agrees that global warming is occurring, including all of the teachers they've had leading up to them arriving in my class, they're probably nice people and they mean well, but they only teach what they think is true, and they never go back and verify the fact.
It it's similar to teachers teaching that blood in veins is blue and blood in arteries is red.
The fact is that blood in your body is never blue, and and yet teachers who teach that they're not bad people, they just don't bother to verify the facts.
And so I want to encourage you by telling you that I'm trying to do your work of other public schools, and it's uh it's a battle, it's kind of a voice crying in the wilderness, but I would uh it's worth it.
We're starting to lose your cell connection.
I I I really appreciate uh comments, two reactions.
I uh I I'm I know I don't have kids, that's probably the reason.
I have never heard before just now that anybody is taught that there's blue blood in the human body.
You've gotta be kidding me.
You too were taught that there's blue blood, and that's why veins are blue, because the blood in there is blue.
You actually what course?
What class taught you?
Science taught you this.
Brian, were you paying attention?
Inside were you taught that there's blue blood?
Uh not not the characteristics and attitudes of I wasn't either.
Never thought that blue blood.
Okay, did you go to high school in Pittsburgh?
Florida.
You where'd you go to in New York?
Okay, well, that's a new one.
I I've I've not heard that.
They don't teach that anymore, do they?
They don't no, they do teach.
They they no, they indoctrinate, but um can't never heard that.
I I this is this is the first.
The second thing is, and I realize here what old Doug was doing.
Doug was trying to sound reasonable when he said the people teaching that blood's blue, then nice people that got the best of intentions.
That's where I kind of Draw a line.
I think some of the people teaching gunk in science do not have good intentions.
They I don't even this good intentions business is a is a is a vicious cycle and a bottomless pit.
It's a sewer.
I was told a story once.
I've I guess I'm never going to forget this.
It's always going to be an example, I cite.
Teacher here, South Florida.
History teacher.
Did not teach history.
Just did current events analysis in class every day, did nothing but promote liberalism in the Democrat Party beat up on George Bush every day.
When it came time for a test, she gave the students the answers to the test.
The questions had never been discussed.
The course had never been about history.
The students got great grades.
Who knew?
Everybody thought the teacher doing a bang up job.
The only reason I know about this is because one of the parents' kids came home and told her, but the parent didn't do anything about it because might run the risk of creating friction causing damage or harm grade wise to the kid, to the to the to the child.
So let it go and try to correct it at home.
I don't believe there are good intentions behind this.
I think that there are evil intentions behind doing this kind of thing.
Certainly in education.
These global warming people, these these are not people sweet, pure as the wind driven snow.
These are driven activists who have no tolerance for anything other than the propaganda that they're teaching.
Anyway, gotta take a break.
Be back.
What did you just say to me, Mr. S don't tell me that Snergley's trying to make me believe that today is the first day that he learned that there isn't any blue blood?
Oh, you're still maintaining that it is blue.
Because that's what you oh you don't know.
Now you're confused.
You're taught there was blue blood, and you're looking and you see a you see a blue vein.
Do you know why the vein is blue?
You want to know why?
Well, I'll give you a little hint.
It's not because the blood is.
The veins are whiter than arteries.
They're whitish in color.
But because blood is dark and skin diffuses light, the veins look blue.
It's have you ever looked at the ocean?
Mr. Snurdley, what color is the ocean?
What what color is the water?
Blue?
Green.
Right.
Okay.
The color of the ocean in Florida can be blue or green, uh various different shades.
Right?
So that's the color of the water.
Right?
Okay, if you want you to do so next time you're at the ocean, I want you to take a glass with you.
And then I want you to dip the glass into the ocean and fill the glass with water from the ocean.
And I want you to walk to the beach and make sure it's a clear glass.
And I want you to tell me what color the water is in the glass.
And I will guarantee you the water will not be blue or green unless there are organisms in it.
The water is clear.
Why is the have you ever noticed that on an overcast day the ocean looks sort of a slate gray, a dark gray?
Wonder why that is.
Have you ever noticed that on a clear day with lots of blue sky and the sun up there, that the ocean looks blue or various shades of blue?
And the darker or the deeper the ocean, the darker the blue.
Wonder why that is.
I want you to go.
I want you to hire a scuba diver.
And I want you to tell him to take a glass down to 300 feet and get some water from 300 feet.
Bring it back up to you and show you see what color it is.
Well, let me ask what color is the sky at night?
Is it blue?
It's dark black.
Exactly right.
So have you seen pictures of the sky from the International Space Station?
I mean, the sky is everything up there, right?
The sky is the universe.
In the daytime, what we see is blue if there aren't any clouds.
But then the the sky at sunrise and at sunset, there are parts of the sky that look orange.
Wonder why that is.
Yeah, no, the next they're asking me, is the grass green?
The grass is green because of chloroform.
Okay.
Uh what was that question?
Is Obama black?
Um, I would rather answer the question, is Romney's blood blue than try to answer, is Elizabeth Warren Cherokee?
And if not, why not?
You really believe that blood was blue.
I cannot back to the phones.
Scott in Atlanta.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Uh hello, Russ.
It's great to talk to you.
Uh regarding the uh the Huffington Post article you were discussing in the first hour.
There's something I don't understand and never have understood uh regarding these predictions like the one they made that we're going to be out of our resources and need another Earth in 18 years.
It seems to me that if the left hates our lifestyles and hates the way we live and wants us to change, they would be thrilled and overjoyed that we were going to be out of resources in 18 years because then we would be living the lifestyle that they want us to live.
So I don't understand why they don't welcome this uh depletion of resources.
Well, you know, it's an excellent point.
By the same token.
Why aren't they happy if the earth is getting warmer?
What's the problem?
Even if it's if what what goes wrong if the earth is getting warmer?
You know, I really don't know.
I I don't even if the earth is going to get warmer, it's gonna get warmer, and there's nothing we can do about it.
Well, you make an excellent point because they do want to take us back to the Stone Age.
I mean, they really do.
This is what they folks, the environmental nutcases that he's talking about, the Huffington Puffington Post, the world wildlife fund these people, they really do believe, and I I know it's tough for you to get your arms around this.
They really do believe that the primary problem the planet has is us, humanity.
The rest of all life forms on this planet are all natural.
They are perfectly justified in being.
They are unassailable in what they do and how they live, from a tree to a snail darter to a lizard to a shark to a lion to a tiger.
They are the essence of perfection.
Every you will never ever hear the environmentalist wackos criticize what lions do.
Or criticize what parakeets are.
You pick an animal.
They really believe that the singular problem, the threat, the only threat this planet has is us.
And therefore, there needs to be fewer of us in order to save the planet.
I mean, it's it's the most cockeyed illogical, stupid way of thinking.
We are every bit uh a part of nature, as is anything else.
And everything on this planet Has to adapt.
And that's the one thing they cannot come to grips with.
They don't believe in adaptation.
They don't think it.
They don't consider it.
They don't think it possible.
Or at least when we do adapt by inventing air conditioning.
They're offended.
Somehow that is an assault on the planet.
It's not natural.
Anything that wasn't here before we came along, anything that we've invented, created, is unnatural and assault on the planet.
The vanity of these people is striking.
For example, in the global warming movement, one of my favorite questions to ask is, because it illustrates the vanity.
You take take a look at the timeline of humanity.
And there are many different opinions here on how long human beings have walked the earth or crawled the earth.
But whatever the length of time, be it thousands of years or millions, whatever the length of time, and I'm not trying to start an argument about that.
My point is the lifestyle of the American male is just north of 80.
Right now, the 80 years is a speck of dust.
Even if it's that large, 80 years is a speck of dust in the timeline of eternity.
And yet, the vanity of these environmentalists wackos try to tell us that the speck of dust that represents us perfection and normal and what has always been and therefore what should be maintained.
My point is, we are just a speck of dust on the timeline.
And yet the temperature goes up a degree Celsius in a hundred years, it's a crisis, it's a problem.
How in the world can anybody know that climatological or meteorological or any other circumstances on this planet at this point in time are quote unquote normal.
And therefore are the benchmark for what needs to be maintained.
Who's to say that the way it was 300 years ago isn't normal?
And what's normal in the who gets to define that?
The vanity of these people combined, it's it's it's it's interesting thing.
They have this vanity, they're all powerful, we're all powerful, we can destroy the planet.
We single-handedly with our automobiles' inventions can destroy the planet.
And then on the other hand, we're no different than mice or rats.
We're just inconsequential.
At the same time, we are these all-powerful, destructive beings.
But it goes right along along with my theory that everybody's historical perspective begins with the date of their birth.
Everybody alive thinks that the time they are alive is the most important on Earth, the most important time in the world.
It's the most dangerous.
It's the riskiest.
It's the worst of everything.
The best of everything.
However they think.
And you know, Where's the mathematical equation to tell us that conditions, circumstances now are the ones etched in stone that must be maintained.
Who is to say that maybe right now we're a little cooler in the world than we ought to be for optimal potential.
Who's to say?
They don't know.
We're just a bunch of stewards here.
If that, we're just a bunch of inhabitants.
We happen to be the most intelligent, therefore we have the greatest ability to adapt.
Anyway, I got to take a break here.
I I um I get I get so frustrated talking about this stuff because as the mayor of Rioville, and none of these people live there, and none of them understand the concept, They're trying to manufacture all of these phony plastic banana good time rock and roller circumstances they want people to believe that they can't document, can't support, can't prove.
And really, it's all for the purpose of advancing their political beliefs.
All of this is political.
They just want a bigger government.
They want more power over you.
They want to be able to tell you how to live.
They want dibs on your money.
That's all this is.
This stuff is nothing more than an avenue for their political dreams being realized.
Pure and simple.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Rush limbo emitting vocal vibrations.
Coast to coast, resonating and reverberating pure unadulterated common sense.
Which is oftentimes so simple it's hard to understand.
Jerry in Central California, welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Good morning.
Good to be here.
Thank you, sir.
Nice to have you here with us.
Thank you.
I would like to bring up something that Obama's done that most people don't realize, and that is he has helped privatize the Social Security.
That 2% tax that used to be going to Social Security that now I get to keep.
I'm putting it in my 401k.
And that's exactly what George Bush had in mind when he tried to partially privatize it.
Well, you know, it's pretty close.
It's pretty close.
What?
How much are you socking away every month on your 401k?
Oh, I don't know, six or eight percent, something like that.
But wait, wait, wait.
Six or eight percent of what?
My wages.
Okay.
So you but but you're calculating what your FICA deduction would be without these the Social Security or the payroll tax cut, right?
Well, correct.
When they uh quit withholding that 2%, I just transferred that and increased my uh 401k by that two.
Right.
So you're you're taking the uh the payroll tax cut and basically doing your own private privatized social security account alongside your government account.
And you're exactly what Bush wanted to do.
Correct.
Everybody raised holy heck about.
Yeah, we have to do this because the less money you put into Social Security, especially when you're pushing 60, the less you get back.
So he's cutting our benefits by cutting that tax.
See, that's the dirty little secret that nobody's talking about.
Let me let me again, mayor of Realville.
Things are so simple they're impossible to understand.
That's our town motto.
Things are so simple, it's hard to understand.
Okay, Obama is touting everybody in government, tied a payroll tax cut, big whoop, yip, yep, yep, yep, yahoo.
We want you to have more money in your pocket.
We care about you.
And they argue about it every time that it's about to expire.
Got to extend it, payroll tax cut, two things.
There is only one way that the Social Security Trust Fund is funded, and that's with the payroll tax.
Pure and simple.
Now, this is uh not counting whatever money is printed or borrowed to pay benefits for which there actually isn't money in the bank.
We have reached that point now with Social Security, or we're very close.
But the point is, here's Obama and the Democrats touting the payroll tax cut.
But I thought all of my life it was the Republicans who wanted to cut your Social Security.
Because with this payroll tax cut, Obama is cutting Social Security.
So is everybody signs on to it.
Every Republican, every Democrat that signs on to the payroll tax cut is cutting Social Security.
Now, my entire adult life, I have heard every election a Democrats say uh Republicans want to kick old people out of their houses, uh, reduce their benefits, cut their social security.
You've heard the old stories have to eat dog food, whatever.
Well, now it's actually happening.
Because as you grow older, you are putting less money into the Social Security system because of the payroll tax cut.
And old Jair here is right.
When you reach your retirement age, and it's time for you to start collecting benefits, guess what?
The government isn't going to have to pay you as much because you haven't been paying as much in.
And this is a dirty little secret that nobody's talking about.
Social Security's in heap big trouble.
Little Elizabeth Warren lingo there.
Heap big trouble.
And it has been for a long time.
You remember all the times we've had to save it, quote unquote.
Well, the payroll tax cut with the with the uh current day benefit politicians claiming they're giving you a tax cut is a big plus for them.
But down the road, what they've actually been figuring on is a way for Social Security to have to pay out less when people retire, and this is how they're doing it.
Because old Jair here is exactly right.
The less is taken from you, the less is deducted because of the payroll tax cut, the smaller your social security is going to be when your retirement age hits.
You have been warned.
And we're back, but not for long.
Just enough to say one hour remains here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
▲
Export Selection