RUSH: From TheHill.com: "Two weeks after fighting for the survival of its signature health care reform law before the Supreme Court, the Obama administration will be back in court Tuesday to defend another part of the president's agenda to make Americans healthier." Do you love the way that's written at TheHill.com? Let me read this to you again. The headline: "Another Health Law Faces Court Challenge." But TheHill.com, total slaves to the Obama administration: "Two weeks after fighting for the survival of its signature health care reform law before the Supreme Court, the Obama administration will be back in court Tuesday to defend another part of the president's agenda to make Americans healthier."
So that's what it is. So that's what the Obamacare bill is all about, making us healthier. You people at The Hill, have you no shame? How stupid do you think your readers are? And the answer is "pretty stupid." That is part and parcel of being in the mainstream media, is thinking most everybody other than other journalists that read your work are idiots.
"The D.C. Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear oral arguments in a case brought by five tobacco companies challenging regulations requiring graphic warning labels on cigarette packs and advertisements starting in September. Once again, the administration is finding itself accused of overstepping its constitutional authority, this time on First Amendment grounds. 'The graphic images..." by the way. Wait a second. Before I continue with this, for you libs out there, as many of you know -- well, maybe you don't know because you're libs. Let me tell you, have you ever heard of the SCHIP program, the State Children's Health Insurance Program?
The SCHIP program is a program which funds health care for America's children. And do you know who pays for that? Cigarette smokers. What do you mean by that, Mr. Limbaugh, cigarette smokers pay for it? The taxes on the sale of tobacco products, which includes cigarettes, fund children's health programs. And not just SCHIP. There are many children's health programs that are ostensibly funded by tobacco taxes. Now, since we're so broke and nearly bankrupt, it's probably safer to say that nothing is paying for it, but the taxes levied from the sale of tobacco products are targeted to children's health care. So suppose, while this is happening, and we know it is, the government's also trying to convince people to stop smoking and they're raising the prices on cigarettes and tobacco products by raising taxes on them.
We got the health people out there saying, "Don't smoke, it'll kill you. Don't smoke, it's putting too much strain on the health care system. Don't smoke. Don't smoke." And yet while we're telling everybody not to smoke we are funding children's health programs with the sales tax revenue from tobacco products. So what happens when people start not being able to afford tobacco products 'cause it's getting too expensive? They start buying them on the black market or they start stealing 'em or whatever, 'cause they are addicted to them. And what happens when the tax revenue to pay for children's health programs starts plummeting below necessary levels? What happens then if the government makes everybody go buy tobacco products, whether they use them or not, to make sure that our very important children's health insurance programs are funded?
Do you realize, if they get the power to tell you you must buy health insurance, and if they go out and get 4,000 new IRS agents to track you down if you don't, make sure they collect your fine, if they're gonna tell you they can do that, what's to stop them from demanding that you buy tobacco products? "They would never do that, Mr. Limbaugh. Tobacco is a sick, sickly, disgusting product." Well, but if the revenue, Mr. New Castrati, is not there to fund children's health programs and they can mandate..." What if they're unhappy with the sales figures from the Chevrolet Volt, and what if they just demand that everybody within a certain income level go buy one? "Mr. Limbaugh, you are getting absurd, this would never happen." How do you know it would never happen? Who woulda ever thought five years ago that a government would demand everybody, would require everybody to have health insurance?
All of you libs out there who are just preparing to be happy because people like me may not like the Supreme Court ruling, understand, it affects you, too. And if you're gonna be forced to buy health insurance whether you want it or not and you could pay a fine or maybe go to jail if you don't buy it -- (interruption) Well, who is "they"? Snerdley's yelling at me, "But this is what they want." Who is "they"? I maintain that there are many different levels, strata, if you will, of liberals. You've got the leaders and then as you go lower and lower you've got the dupes, and somewhere in these various layers, not all of these people want to be forced to go buy health insurance.
A lot of them are so idiotic they think they're gonna be given it by virtue of everybody else buying it for them. Anyway, I'm just trying to tell all of you libs out there who are designing things so that your happiness depends on whether people like me are disappointed, it's gonna impact you, too. And you need to be thankful for people like me trying to safeguard and protect your freedom when you're so cavalier about it. Anyway, the regime is in court because the tobacco companies, five of them, are challenging Obama administration regulations requiring graphic warning labels on cigarette packs and advertisements starting in September.
Federal Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled in February: "The graphic images … were neither designed to protect the consumer from confusion or deception, nor to increase consumer awareness of smoking risks; rather, they were crafted to evoke a strong emotional response calculated to provoke the viewer to quit or never start smoking."
Now, the judge's critics "argue that his litmus test for what constitutes permissible federal limitations on free speech should not apply to commercial speech, which is not as widely protected as political, religious or artistic expression. They also argue that the government has a compelling interest in protecting public health through the regulations."
And The Hill says here that "While some conservatives are eagerly anticipating another blow against the Democrats' agenda, congressional Republicans have been largely silent on the matter after many of them voted for the law that made the regulations possible." Of course they did, the scaredy cat go along to get along Republicans who don't want to make any waves.
But, again, I'm just gonna take you back to a hard, cold reality. Tobacco sales tax revenue is funding children's health care, numerous programs all across the country. Doesn't that logically mean that we would want as many people buying tobacco products as possible? If the revenue from the sales of tobacco products is protecting our children and their health care, don't we want people buying tobacco products? "No, Mr. Limbaugh, we don't because tobacco kills, and it prolongs people in a disease that wipes 'em out and requires extensive health care." Then why are we funding children's health care programs with the sales tax revenue of a product that we're trying to get people to stop using? What sense is there in that?
I've said it before, I'll say it again: I think cigarette smokers deserve a medal. They're single-handedly taking all this abuse. They're being forced outside to all of the extremes of weather to engage in their addiction, their habit. Furthermore, they are funding children's health care programs, and yet they are targeted as the absolute most despicable people in our culture. But without them and their purchases of tobacco products there wouldn't be the money to fund children's health care programs, and I don't care how that makes you feel, that is an irrefutable reality.