All Episodes
Previous Next
March 31, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:48
March 31, 2014, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And here we are back at it by French Rush Limboy, your guiding light, the most talked about radio talk show in the country, most talked about host in the country and the most listened to radio talk show in the country and a program that meets and surpasses all audience expectations every day.
So, as I mentioned earlier, we got this brand new United Nations climate change, global warming scare report out, and nobody is safe.
Nobody will go unscathed.
Nobody will escape.
It's going to wipe everybody out in the next hundred years, when none of us are alive anyway to see whether or not they're correct.
Now, I I want to emphasize uh two things.
Again, that we had a caller just a moment ago, and he was, by the way, folks, the reason I was laughing about it was that our call he was trying to give me a really supreme compliment, and I understood this.
He was trying to tell me that I am so smart that I know exactly the right answer to everything, even when I don't know what I'm talking about, is the way he put it.
And what he meant was look, you're not trained in the sciences.
You're not a geologist, you're not a climatologist, you're not a meteorologist, and yet you know this stuff.
That's what he was trying to say.
It's like even when I'm right, or when I think I'm wrong, I'm right.
And I tell jokes about the left, the jokes come true.
And he was he was trying to pay me a uh a supreme compliment.
And for that I was grateful.
And he he mentioned two things that I had said, and one of the average normal temperature.
You know, for this for this global warming scare stuff to be relevant, the temperatures today and 15 years ago have to be what is normal since the beginning of time.
And there is simply no way we note that.
Because we don't have accurate record keeping for thousands and thousands and bullions and billions of years ago, which it's a wild guess.
You go back and, you know, you can ice cores and tree trunk rings and all this, but we don't know.
The point is, they, these climate scientists try to tell you they do know.
But if if you can just try to get your mind around this one concept, how do we know that what it is when we happen to be alive is what is normal for all time?
Because if it if i these deviations are only relevant if what is happening now is normal.
Well, let's say, for example, that the warming they claim, let's just play a little hypothetical.
Let's say it is warming, even though it isn't.
Let's say it's warming and we're headed for the devastation that these people say is waiting for us a hundred years from now.
Well, what if that's what normal is?
What if where we're going is what normal is?
How do we know?
Do you understand the vanity of these liberals to assume that when they are alive, when they are scientists, when they are studying that this is what is normal, that when they are alive is when the evil capitalist destroyers happen to exist.
And these evil capitalist destroyers using fossil fuels are going to destroy the planet when no external outside force yet has destroyed this planet.
All of a sudden, when they happen to be alive, the planet is subject to destruction.
I just think that's absurd.
We do not know that the temperatures, the climate of today is what is normal.
And by the way, what is normal?
Is it what God intended?
Is it an average of what's always been?
We just don't know.
This is such folly.
We just do not know what's normal.
That is why God made us adaptive.
Because there's no normal, every living thing, regardless its intelligence, has to be able to adapt, or it's up the creek.
We are not, despite what anybody says, we are not built to live outside.
We human beings require shelter.
And sometimes that shelter requires heat.
For the longest time, we didn't have air conditioning.
That wasn't invented until Mr. Carrier did it in the 40s.
That's how recent it is.
We adapt.
As our knowledge base increases and as our entrepreneurial freedom is allowed, and as our creative inventive juices get flowing, we adapt.
If we live in a floodplain, we get flooded out, we adapt, we move, or we make a bet that we can still live there, and it's not going to happen for a hundred years.
We adapt.
Because it isn't constant.
Birds migrate.
Bears hibernate.
It's called adaptation.
And if you can't do it, then you are going to be extinct as a species.
And that's just the way it is.
These people want to tell you, one act like we can't adapt, that this stuff's all going to kill us unless we do what they say.
What is it they say we should do?
Big governments, ever-growing big governments, less and less individual freedom and liberty, higher taxes.
Isn't it amazing?
That's always the solution to every crisis that they come up with.
The second thing, which I think is important as a scientific matter, is that all of these predictions.
I don't care whether it's Al Gore's movie that you watched and you might have been seduced by, I think it's a dead-on right, or any other global warming prediction that you believe, every damned one of them is nothing more than what a computer has produced.
Every global warming prediction story nightmare is the result of a computer model.
It is not the result of empirical scientific data.
It is nothing more than a prediction.
And the people that put these models together, human beings who are fallible, write the computer models, and then they put the data into them that they think they know, and they input the data based on an outcome they desire.
They're human beings.
These are people pushing global warming.
They have been shown to be plenty capable of faking it.
Making up data, eliminating data that's detrimental to their cause, that's what we learned from the emails from East Anglia University in the Great Britain.
There is no hard, fast science.
Therefore, there is no science, and it isn't settled.
And science cannot be the result of a consensus.
Science is not up for a vote.
It is or it isn't.
Just because 98% of scientists agree on something doesn't make it.
That's not at all how the scientific theory is vetted.
any scientific theory, it's all become politicized, folks.
There's not a thing in life today that is not politicized.
That's why I always say I wish people could learn ideology and understand it.
If we could pull that off, we could spare ourselves so much pain, suffering, and grief.
It's not funny.
If we could just get people to learn and understand what liberalism is and what conservatism is.
And that's been one of the quests on this program since it started.
Now, this guy that calls it, we're actually in a current ice age.
Now I imagine many people listen to Lesgues an absolute kook as hot where I am.
No, because the reason is saying it is that an ice age does not mean the planet's covered in ice.
An ice age doesn't mean there's no place for us to go.
An ice age simply means the amount of ice on the planet is above there we go back to normal again.
But we do have the polar ice caps are larger now than they've been in a while.
And very cold.
The Arctic is growing.
It is it isn't melting, and the polar bears aren't in the water, and even if they are, they can swim 60 miles.
The polar bears are made to be in water.
How many of you have been to the Central Park Zoo in July and seen their polar bears?
Have you seen what they have to do?
Those polar bears are living on slabs of ice in July.
It's the most inhumane thing in the world to take a polar bear to the Central Park Zoo in the summertime.
It's totally that's not where they're intended.
It's why there aren't any polar bears in New York.
It's too hot.
But we have in the zoos, but they've got to live on slabs of ice.
Same thing with the penguins.
Go take a look at the penguin display, Central Park Zoo.
I've been there.
It's freezing where they are.
Take a look at when the guy comes out to feed them.
Looks like Nan Nook of the North.
Anyway, I'm getting distracted.
The point is it's all computer models.
Every pre United Nations, IPCC, whatever.
It's all computer models.
There's no certainty.
They just want you to think that the models are infallible.
Do you know their economic models?
Economic computer models.
The Congressional Budget Office does them all the time.
And that's how we were told that Obamacare would cost less than a trillion dollars.
We have a computer model that assured us Obamacare is going to cost less than a trillion dollars.
And the CBO swore by the thing.
And the reason they were able to swear by it is because they only were allowed to use the data that Congress gives them.
Congress run by the Democrats at this point.
They say CBO's not biased, but it is based on the data they get.
So the magic number was a trillion dollars.
The war in Iraq costs a trillion dollars.
The war in Iraq was immoral, unjustified.
We had to get rid of it, but it was money we were spending, and Obamacare, we're not even going to be coming in less than the Iraq war car.
Oh, that's wonderful.
Well, that number was a trillion dollars.
Amazing Obamacare first projections came in under a trillion dollars, 900 billion.
Everybody thought, wow, we're saving a hundred billion dollars doing Obamacare.
How'd they do it?
They had a computer model that swore by it.
How'd they do it?
Well, it's a 10-year projection.
And it's very clever what they did.
They had 10 years of tax increases in their model, but six years of benefits.
They had 10 years of revenue coming into the government by virtue of Obamacare, but because Obamacare was being delayed full implementation to 2014.
Now that's been delayed in 2016.
We were only going to have six years of expenses associated with it.
Well, naturally, if you had a 10-year program, but only six of those ten years are going to be spending any money, but ten years are going to be collecting, it's going to be easy to get whatever number you want.
And they did, and it was a computer model.
It did it.
Everybody swore by it.
And now look, it's worthless.
It was worthless then.
It's worthless now.
as worthless as a climate change model is.
It ought not be this hard to educate people, but I know what we're up against.
We're We're talking fact here, and we're up against emotion.
And we're up against the polar bears are dying.
No, we're up against, we're killing the polar bears with our cars.
Remember that stupid car commercial during the Super Bowl two years ago?
Polar bear is walking through a neighborhood.
And it's examining all the cars it sees in various driveways.
And finally it comes across an electric car, and it tries to find the owner and hug the owner.
And the polar bears were thanking us for saving the planet by creating this car.
A, if a polar bear ever ended up in your neighborhood, you'd have to call animal control, have to tranquilize it or shoot it or kill it because it would kill you.
It would break into your house.
It would get your your peanut butter and jelly or whatever else it could find in there.
And you wouldn't want to be anywhere near where this thing was because they are predators.
It wouldn't hug you.
It would strangle you.
It would squeeze you to death and then Go for your carotid artery and kill you.
It doesn't know from global warming to global cooling.
It doesn't know an electric car.
But little kiddies, impressionable young children, this is how they end up getting indoctrinated.
So they go watch Gore's movie.
They see a polar bear on three square feet of ice, and they're led to believe that that's all the ice that's left.
It's because of us, and they go home and they start complaining and griping to their parents about how their parents are destroying the planet.
The parents want their kids to love them, and so they go out and buy a different car to keep little Johnny quiet, make little Johnny love them.
This is how this whole thing happens.
And it's all bogus.
Now, from Acuweather, researchers find five previously undetected greenhouse gases.
Well, wait a minute.
I thought the science was settled.
Two new scientific research efforts have uncovered five.
Brand new, never before seen man-made greenhouse gases that may play a role in climate change and ozone depletion.
Oh, it's even worse than we thought, folks.
We always knew that CO2 was out there destroying everything in methane, but now there are five other poisonous gases that we are creating.
Increasing greenhouse gases trap additional heat in lower atmosphere.
Tell people that in the upper Midwest, that any heat is being captured anywhere.
But I digress.
Increasing greenhouse gases trap additional heat in a lower atmosphere, which results in higher surface temperatures, says the AcuWeather.com guy.
Climate models certainly account for the increase in greenhouse gases.
That's bullshit.
Folks, these models are absolute flat-out bullcrap.
And here's an climate models certainly account for the increase.
Of course they do because you've programmed it into the models.
A model, a computer model.
So the computer knows and we I I don't know.
I'm reacting because I just can't stand my intelligence being insulted this way.
Anyway, the increase in greenhouse gases may be causing more extremes in global weather over the long term, such as heat waves, drought, and heavy precipitation events.
So you see, everything that is not normal is now climate change, the model say so.
However, it's very difficult to blame any particular extreme event on climate change.
We have to take them all together.
The discovery of three chlorofluorocarbons and one hydrochlorofluorocarbon were reported online March 9th of this year in the journal Natural Geoscience by researchers from the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, France, and the Netherlands, and what I want to know is who paid them and how much.
We were certainly surprised to find so many previously undetected gases out there, and we keep finding more, said Johan C. Laub of the University of East Anglia, which has got no credibility left.
This is the place where the fake emails were discovered.
We were certainly surprised to find so many previously undetected gas.
Well, how smart are you people?
We got all these destructive gases out there and you're only now learning about them.
And they're just now going to able to be a pile these on to all the others and folks.
It'll be amazing if anybody's alive by the end of the year.
What?
No, I was not making that up.
I don't make anything up.
Well, so I'm joking with people, but even somebody asking me if I made up.
Even the fact that I would make something up is an insulting question.
I did not make up the fact that large screen cell phones exist at first because the people that make them needed big batteries to give people a decent day's worth of use.
It's absolutely true.
Don't make me mention any brand names.
All of those Android phones that had four-inch screens, three and a half four-inch screens, which all phones did at one point.
You couldn't get six hours out of them.
They had to go to big screens in order to use bigger batteries that they could get a full day's use out of a single charge.
That's what drove the move to large screen cell phones.
It wasn't a marketing brilliance.
Hey, let's do a bigger screen that people can actually see.
And it was it was simply because they couldn't provide all day use on one charge at a four-inch screen.
They didn't know they weren't adept at power management.
So they just needed a bigger battery.
They need a battery twice as powerful as an iPhone's battery to charge it the same length of give it the same length of use as an iPhone got.
Simply because an Android system just sucks the juice.
That's all.
I didn't make it up.
Why would I make that up?
Back to the phones.
This is Ted in Tampa.
Ted, uh, great to have you.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Hello.
Yes, sir.
Thank you for taking my call.
I just had an interesting thought.
I know over the years you said you don't have insurance.
You pay as you go, like in that incident in Hawaii a few years ago, but now as a private citizen, like the rest of us, you are required to either get coverage or pay a fine, which I believe is a percentage of your income.
So based on that, uh I would like to know if you could comment on your thoughts or your financial peers as to the you know potential political, economical, or moral conflict and having to pay so much money, or just get a bare bones policy.
Well to comply with the law.
Uh well, you comply with the law by paying the fine.
I mean, you are essentially if you pay the fine, you are complying with the law.
The law accommodates uh both.
Here's the thing on the fine.
As I understand it, the fine is one percent of your income or a formula.
However, the maximum fine, no matter your income, the maximum fine is the cost of the highest gold-plated whatever plan there is out there.
It now uh percent of uh of my income would be far more than that.
So I don't think I've got to pay really one percent of my income.
I think the most that I've got to pay in the form of a fine is whatever the most expensive policy is.
But I have my accountant looking into it.
But you know what we're gonna do?
We're probably just gonna dump uh an amount of money into what we're gonna call the Obamacare Fund just so we can tell the IRS, nope, we've we've we've paid into it.
It's gonna be a preventive measure.
Now, what that amount's gonna be, don't know yet.
But I do not want to get an insurance policy because my choices are gonna be so limited after I do that.
I I don't want to limit my choices.
By that I mean the hospital I want to go to might not be in a network based on the policy I'm able to get.
Or the doctor might not be.
I want to be able to go wherever they'll take me, and if I as long as I pay them.
Here it is, the maximum penalty cannot exceed the national average yearly premium for a bronze plan.
Oh, okay.
So you see, it's not punitive in that sense.
You were thinking one for use of me and my financial peers.
You're you're thinking I was looking at 400 grand, right?
At least, yeah.
No.
It's uh uh it wouldn't be.
It would be the uh the maximum penalty cannot exceed the national average yearly premium for a bronze plan.
And that is from Obamacare's individual mandate.
That's that's so um and the bronze plan is the cheapest.
I was wrong, it's not the most expensive that that is the max.
The bronze plan is the cheapest, but I'm reading it for Obamacare.
However, they might change that rule when they find out it's me, just like the governor of New York.
So you still may have a point before it's all said and done, Ted.
The rules desure.
Yeah.
Uh exactly.
The rules of the day, however they make them and want them to be.
Uh, that clears it up.
I appreciate that.
Thank you so much, sir.
Keep up the good work.
Thank you, sir.
Appreciate it.
Well, uh, let's see.
I've got a health care stack.
I told people I was gonna get to it.
And it's the March 31st deadline.
You know, big whoop, yep, yep, yep, yep, yahoo.
It isn't.
Let's say, what do I have here up first?
Oh, in New York Times story.
Repercussions and reprieves at health insurance enrollment deadline.
Hmm, what's this?
America's health insurance marketplace closes on Monday night.
Bullshit.
Sorry.
It doesn't.
The first sentence in this thing is America's health insurance marketplace closes Monday night, the deadline for most people to obtain coverage or face a penalty.
Even that's not true.
Anyone can claim a hardship.
This is the we had this two weeks ago.
Anybody can claim a hardship in dealing with healthcare.gov.
The hardship does not have to be economic.
The hardship is I can't work the website.
It isn't working for me.
Or I don't have time to go to the website.
Folks, there is no deadline.
There's all kinds of ways out of it.
And it's because whatever it takes to not make you mad is what Obamacare is this year.
As best they can make it.
Because it's an election year.
So they're going to delay anything that would really make you mad until after October or November.
And this article even points this out later on.
This first sentence is such BS.
The article goes on to point out that anybody can claim a hardship in dealing with the website and get an extension.
There's no proof required when you claim a hardship.
Just have to, I don't have time.
It's too hard for me.
Just claim it.
You have to prove it.
And you're granted the waiver this year, because they don't want you mad.
The Times article says the uh the confusion and uncertainty in the last six months appeared likely to continue as consumers begin using new policies for the first time.
Here are answers to some frequently asked questions.
And this article, it's gotten a lot of attention from the rest of the drive-bys, even though it doesn't have anything new in it except for a detail that the drive-bys are not bothering to mention.
And it's buried at the bottom of this piece in the Times, and this is it.
With all the exceptions and adjustments, an insurance executives said open enrollment could go on for the rest of the year.
Oh, open enrollment, meaning on demand whenever you have time, whenever you want to sign up, there is no deadline.
Open enrollment could go on for the rest of the year.
In other words, there is no sign-up deadline for Obamacare this year, which means you can wait until you need insurance before signing up.
Just as we always said would be the case.
Let me go to audio soundbites here just for a second.
F. Chuck Todd on the Today Show today.
F. Chuck totally in the tank for Obama.
He's all happy today.
Matt Wauer said, hey, Chuck, let's start with a simple question.
Are they cooking the books with these numbers?
Six million enrollees?
When you talk to people in neutral corners of Washington, what are they telling you?
No, nobody's saying that they're cooking the books here.
I mean, the six million is pretty real.
Getting to where they got, it means the law is unrepealable, Matt.
It means that it's here to stay.
So then we've advanced to the next part of the debate is okay, then how do you fix the problems that people think are there?
So it is an open question.
They don't know how many have enrolled, and they don't know how many of those who have enrolled have actually paid.
They don't know that.
There isn't a back end on the website.
Look, I know this may be hard to believe.
And you may be thinking, well, you can just say whatever you want, which is true.
I can come here and say whatever I want, but I have no intention to mislead you, and there's nothing in it for me to do that.
And nothing ever in it for me to lie to you about anything.
I don't gain a thing doing that.
I'm telling you, they do not have.
They may have had six million people that have have gone to the website and logged in and provided them with data, but they don't have six million people that have paid.
And I'll tell you, of what they've got is a million who have paid.
And what we really know is that four out of five are subsidized.
Four out of five Obamacare policies are being paid for by neighbors and other people in the community, subsidized.
They're not it's just the transfer of wealth is what's happening.
This is not new insurance.
It's just a direct wealth transfer, is what Obamacare boils down to when you strip everything out of it.
Four out of five of these new policies are subsidized.
And of the what the latest number we had last week was that it was four million or five million that signed up, and only one million of them, 25% of the people who have enrolled were uninsured,
and that the vast majority are seasoned citizens who are being subsidized, and the people who need to sign up to pay for those subsidies are not signing up.
The youngsters out there.
But here's good old loyal F. Chuck.
Well, what it means, Matt, is it's unrepealable.
So now, Matt, we now go on to the next phase.
How do we fix it?
Once they've got six million, it's unrepealable.
Why?
We can't take something away from six million people without there being a revolution.
what does that mean?
Well, I know that the Florida midterm election at special election, uh Alex Sink lost on the notion that we don't need to repeal it, we just need to fix it.
She got skunked.
You know, here's some things.
I this is what I think F.Cuck, Todd, and the drive-by's ought to be asking about these Obamacare numbers.
And if if for some reason, if somehow this were a Republican idea, these would be questions like this would be asked.
Republican would never do this.
I understand that, but just speaking hypothetically.
First question that F. Chuck ought to be asking the authorities, how many of the six million are for insurance and not Medicaid?
How many people who bought actual insurance got subsidies from their taxpayer friends and neighbors?
How many of the people who actually bought insurance have made a payment?
Seems to me to be fundamental.
How many of these people did not have insurance previously?
If any decent website of any achievement at all in this day and age would be able to tell you that within seconds, it would be in the database.
How many people lost their insurance because of Obamacare?
Why didn't F. Chuck run around and ask that question?
Or any of these?
The White House is now claiming six and a half million signups, which means how many would have, I don't know.
I don't know how many would have had to sign up in the last two weeks because what they say the number of signups was it was, yeah, was this two million or so?
So some we've we had something four million would have had to sign up in the last two weeks.
Well, I don't know who that's the point.
Why should anybody believe it?
Why can't the government prove it?
Instead just running around and asserting it and then having some sycophant media member repeat it.
That is the real question is when have they not lied about Obamacare?
I gotta take a brief time out, my friends.
Sit tight.
More to come after this.
I actually think what we're dealing with here is a tiny number.
When you strip everything away, follow me on this now.
The grand total of people who did not sign up for Medicaid, I mean, actually signed up for Obamacare, non Medicaid.
I'm talking about these six million people they think they've got.
Let's let's how about how many of them did not sign up for Medicaid?
how many of them did not have insurance previously, uninsured, and who are not getting any taxpayer subsidies and actually going to make their payments.
I'll bet you we're talking less than half a million people that have actually signed up and are going to be making payments to Obamacare.
I'll bet you it's less than less than half a million.
And even if it's all six, think of how small the number is, and they say that's beyond repeal now.
Yay.
It is such a tiny number.
I'm telling you, the number of people have actually signed up, who are actually signing up for Obamacare with an actual Obamacare policy and actually making the payments, not being subsidized.
I'll bet you that number is less than a million.
Me, June 20th, last year.
Now, the investors business daily editorial written by Betsy McCoy details what the health care exchanges in Obamacare really are about.
And she focuses on California because they're getting 90 million dollars to set up the exchanges in California.
It turns out these exchanges are just being used for Democrat Party outreach.
The NAACP is getting 600,000 from the California Exchange.
The AFL CIO is getting one million.
The Service Employees International Union is getting two million.
And for what?
To go door to door to register voters, to show up at community centers and make presentations on the Democrat Party and sell the Democrat Party agenda.
Right here it is from the ABC San Diego San Diego affiliate, KGTV, local couple upset after receiving pre-marked voter registration card from Covered California.
Bingo.
Exactly what we warned people was going to happen.
A local couple called San Diego 10 News concerned after they received an envelope from the state's Obamacare website, Covered California inside was a letter discussing voter registration and a registration card pre-marked with an X in the box next to the Democrat Party.
The couple received the letter and voter registration card from their health insurance provider.
Covered California, the California exchange that implements Obamacare.
You can you could you just imagine how mad Obama's gonna be when he finds out about this?
When Obama finds out that his navigators at Obamacare are actually using this to register Democratic, well they know what most people well, how did what's Obama gonna do when he finds out?
He's not gonna be happy.
Like Obama doesn't know any of this stuff going on.
But there you have it.
So, and if this just one couple, I mean, how many do you think there are who have gotten their pre-registered voter registration card sent to them after signing up for Obamacare in California?
Cleveland Clinic CEO, Toby Cosgrove, told Maria Barcherromo, Fox uh Fox News on Sunday morning.
Three quarters of Obamacare signups have premiums that cost them more than what they were paying.
75% are seeing premium increases.
Not surprising.
We knew it.
I just remember the days, the salad days when we were told 30 million uninsured would sign up, and how great it was gonna be.
And it's nowhere close.
All right, my friends, we'll be back tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection