All Episodes
Previous Next
May 8, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:38
May 8, 2012, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 247 Podcast.
Okay, let's see now.
Only the government can make you lose weight.
You cannot do it on your own.
Losing weight is not a matter of personal responsibility anymore.
Can't do it.
Only government can do that.
No more bake sales.
Bake sales are being outlawed all over the country because of the obesity problem.
People shouldn't be eating baked goods even if the primary beneficiaries are wasteful liberal causes.
And I warned you people about this in 2008.
And we're going to go back to the audio soundbite archive roster.
I'm going to bring you something I said back in 2000 when California banned them.
This is not the first.
Gay marriage all over the place.
It's on the ballot in North Carolina today.
It's a constitutional amendment.
It will be banned.
Gay marriage, let's put it this way.
There'll be a constitutional amendment, North Carolina, it will pass that that says marriage is that between a man and a woman.
It's already the law there, but they're worried about rogue judges overturning it, so they're going the constitutional amendment route.
The media is acting like outrageous this is.
How dare this?
There are already 31 states that have done this.
But we'll give you the uh the other details uh on this.
And uh sunscreen could be giving you skin cancer.
Yes, sunscreen could be giving you skin cancer.
It's all about how the ingredients in the sunscreen break down with the sun, start interacting with the cells, and it creates something out there called uh increases a chance of melanoma, but it it creates unstable or releases unstable molecules called free radicals that could end up giving you melanoma.
Who now, how many of you people have been using sunscreen all of these years thinking that you are preventing melanoma?
And now we find through the research of a couple scientists that sunscreen could lead to uh to skin cancer.
Well, uh uh the free radicals are are they they're molecular, they're cellular, the political ideology of the free radicals that are released when the sunscreen interacts with your own cells.
It's been undetermined yet.
Well, no, no, no.
These radicals have not been to school.
You're confused.
No, no, no, they're not Bill Ayers and Bernard Eden Torres.
They're they're the scientific things, molecules, really tiny atoms and and uh quantum physics stuff.
What's the very important question, Ms. Snerdley?
What is it?
Mm-hmm.
Well, I don't know.
I can't tell you if dark skin pigmentation even requires sunscreen and if the sunscreen interacts with dark pigmentation different ways.
The story does not get into that kind of detail.
White Hispanics do have something to worry about, according to the story.
Which is from Gawker.
Greetings, folks, great to have you here.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Everything I said and more.
In addition, Romney was out making a personal appearance just as some woman asked him a question in the middle of her question.
The woman said, the guy ought to be tried for treason, then went on with her question.
Romney answered the question, did not react to her saying that Obama should be tried for treason.
The media and the regime are all over Romney for not defending Obama's honor and not chastising a woman and essentially saying to her, you idiot, how can you say that our beloved young courageous president should be impeached or is a traitor?
Oh, Romney didn't say that.
They think he should have said that.
Romney under fire for what was said.
Meanwhile, everybody recalls James Hoffa Jr. standing next to Obama talking about Republicans, saying, quote, we gotta take the some bitches out, and Obama did not defend the honor of the some bitches.
Uh, and let Jimmy Hoffa get away with it.
So it's always with the left, it's a two-way street.
But let's I tell you what, let's start with Indiana today and the Republican primary there.
There's a lot of teachable moments in this story.
A piece here from the Daily Caller.
Why a Murdoch win could ignite a conservative spark.
Now that's a headline, and let's leave the headline alone for a second.
I have a problem with the headline.
I don't think conservatism needs a spark.
Other people might disagree with me, but I I think conservatism is um.
I think conservatism's on fire.
I think this spark business, everybody's assuming here that the Tea Party is dormant because they didn't have a candidate in the primaries, and Romney's the nominee, and that's not Tea Party.
And so everybody thinks that's not paying attention or doesn't know what to analyze that the Tea Party's defunct, and it's not by any stretch of the imagination, just the exact opposite.
Murdoch running against Luger for the chance to seek the Republican Senate seat, or the Senate seat now held by Luger in the general election, and the most recent polling data has Murdoch up by 10 over Luger, who has been begging Democrats and independents to cross the line and vote for him, and now Luger, right, right out of the Democrat Party handbook.
I want you to listen.
Grab audio soundbite number 13, Ed.
This is a um commercial on Luger's website, Dick Luger.com.
It's an ad entitled Social Security, targeting his challenger, Richard Murdoch.
Here is the ad.
The woman in this ad is a seasoned citizen by the name of Patricia Wood.
He's not thinking, is he?
No idea of consequences what this means to people.
It can ruin people.
I mean, some can't get along without Social Security.
Every penny of it.
I guess he wants to be as opposite as he can, believing that will get him votes.
The scary thing is whether it does.
Heaven help us because Murdoch won't.
So that is a commercial run by a Republican, Dick Luger, against his conservative opponent, Richard Murdoch, claiming that Murdoch will take away Social Security from seasoned citizens.
Right out of the Democrat Party handbook.
That ad went up Thursday.
Now that you have heard it, and now that you know you want to hear it again, knowing that this is an ad bought and paid for, approved by, scripted so forth by the Dick Luger, Republican Indiana campaign.
Play it again, Ed.
He's not thinking, is he?
No idea of consequences.
What this means to people.
It can ruin people.
I mean, some can't get along without Social Security.
Every penny of it.
I guess he wants to be as opposite as he can, believing that will get him votes.
The scary thing is whether it does.
Heaven help us because Murdoch won't.
Heaven help us because Murdoch won't.
That's the incumbent.
Richard Luger trying to save his seat, running an ad approved by every Democrat consultant that he can find.
Back to the Daily Caller story.
Conventional wisdom says the Tea Party's all but over.
I've been discussing this for a week.
Why do you think?
Oh, by the way, I should point out one interesting thing.
Luger's ad that you just heard.
The claim that Murdoch wants to destroy Social Security.
The ad is based on Murdoch's support of Paul Ryan's budget.
So what you have in that ad is Dick Luger, basically, if you know the backstory, Dick Luger claiming that supporting Paul Ryan is wanting to kill Social Security.
That's what that ad essentially says.
Now, I don't know how many people in Indiana will know what that ad says, but you do now, since I'm telling you.
Because Luger is criticizing Murdoch because Murdoch supports Paul Ryan's budget.
Paul Ryan's budget's being mischaracterized.
Paul Ryan does not cut anybody Social Security.
He has made a point, the last two budgets that he has presented, of running around and making it clear to everybody that current seasoned citizen Social Security and Medicare recipients are not touched.
And yet here is a Republican senator running an ad, accusing the Tea Party candidate of wanting to take away Social Security from old people because he supports Paul Ryan's budget.
And Luger voted for Paul Ryan's budget, by the way.
Just so you know.
So this ad by Luger in a circuitous way is attacking Paul Ryan's budget for which Dick Luger voted.
Now, why is the conventional wisdom that the Tea Party is over?
Because the conventional wisdom is made up of blind people.
The Tea Party started as a protest movement.
It has moved beyond that now.
The Tea Party is not solely a protest movement.
The Tea Party does not now make its primary focus going to town halls, for example, which is how it got started.
And then it expanded beyond that to actually going to Washington to protest bill signings and so forth, such as Obamacare.
The Tea Party is alive.
It is vibrant.
The best way that I can explain the Tea Party to you is to say this.
When you were young and idealistic, what do you think politics was?
You thought it was a contest of ideas.
And whoever got the most votes won.
And the winner always won because the ideas were judged by a majority of voters to be the best.
As you grew older, cynicism steps in because you realize that ideas often have nothing to do with who wins elections.
Instead, it's about money, dirty tricks.
All the things about politics that you end up hating.
All the stuff about politics, I can't stand this, but I don't want any part of it.
And you tune out.
Until a candidate who really excites you comes along, then you get back in temporarily.
Or until things get so bad that you have to get involved, which is what happened with Tea Party people.
They saw the country being spent into oblivion.
They saw the futures of themselves, their children or grandchildren or great-grandchildren going down the drain.
The election of Barack Obama.
And so people who had never been in politics before, people who had a distaste for it, people who didn't like what politics really was all about, decided they had to get involved.
That's the Tea Party.
They are the essence of grassroots.
They are the essence of unprofessional people, meaning untainted.
The Tea Party is comprised of people to whom the idea is the only thing that matters.
The idea, the ideas.
That's what matters.
It is sort of refreshing.
It is, I want to say, idealistic because they've been around long enough to understand the realities of the political system and their involvement in it now.
But these are people, for example, supporting Murdoch.
Two reasons.
They like what Murdoch stands for.
They oppose the Republican establishment, represented in this case by Luger.
They know the Republican establishment is embarrassed of them.
They know the Republican establishment isn't conservative.
They know the Republican establishment would rather be able to sweep the Tea Party and conservatives under the rug, except for every four years when they need them to turn out and vote.
They have become sophisticated and they have moved way beyond a protest movement.
They are now grassroots, and they're getting people like Dick Murdoch on ballots, and then they're getting people Like Dick Murdoch elected.
They did it in Utah.
A sitting senator, Robert Bennett, defeated by a Tea Party candidate.
They don't win every one, obviously.
But they by no means have gone away.
There are 46 or 47 different Tea Party organizations.
There still is not a singular titular or otherwise leader.
It's made up of just you, people just like us.
They go on websites and they find out who in their neighborhood is also Tea Party types.
They have this a website, it's called a connector website.
They can find out in every state, every neighborhood, every community who who lives closest to them is involved.
They get together.
All of this is happening under the radar.
But it's happening.
The conventional wisdom authors don't see it, so there must not be a Tea Party.
If there isn't a Tea Party, if the Tea Party is all but over, then how'd this guy Murdoch get on the ballot?
And why is he 10 points ahead in polling in Indiana?
And why is Luger running ads claiming that the Tea Party guy wants to take your Social Security away from you?
It's happening because the Tea Party's real.
The Tea Party exists.
The Democrats at Drive By Media scared to death of the Tea Party.
They created Occupy Wall Street.
They tried to make everybody think Occupy Wall Street was an effervescent bubbling up in reaction to the Tea Party when it wasn't.
It was bought, paid for, organized, and planned out of the White House.
And it is disorganized and it's not effective.
But the media doesn't report any of that.
They report the myth, the lie.
That it's just like the Tea Party, only liberals.
It isn't anything close to the Tea Party.
Now, continuing on with this story here for the Daily Caller.
Some conservatives are demoralized by Romney's status as the Republican nominee.
Others are disappointed.
Meaning freshman Republicans and so forth in the House.
But there's a reason for optimism, it says here.
Grassroots conservatives still have reason to believe the political realignment they work so hard to achieve within the GOP is still underway.
It is underway.
I know that there is some demoralization because Romney's the nominee.
We've spoken about it.
But they're working in other areas.
They're working hard.
I'll tell you one of the Tea Party's primary focuses.
Taking back the Senate.
White House, that race is going to take care of itself.
The Tea Party is actively focused on a conservative Senate holding the House, conservative Senate.
That if Obama wins is an effective break on Obama.
If Romney wins and is not straight down the line, conservative, a conservative Senate can stop that.
That's the theory anyway.
Let me take a break.
Don't go away.
We'll be back and continue here in just a moment.
Dick Luger, I'm sure the fine guy.
He's been in the Senate 197.
He's been there a long time.
Time for establishment characteristics to settle in if they had to.
He might have been that from the get-go.
It's always been a moderate Republican.
And I'll tell you, I hope, I really hope that Romney and his people are watching the uh the Indiana primary because they can learn a lot from it.
Now, all of the mainstream media coverage about the problems that Luger is encountering in his re-election.
All the mainstream media coverage say that uh Luger's having problems because um he's running a poor campaign and and he sat on all of his money instead of running ads early and often in the process.
See, it never occurs to anybody in the news media that the Republicans in Indiana might just want a more conservative senator.
As far as the media is concerned, there is no ideological factor in this primary.
It's always just a matter of strategy.
When a media favorite has problems, when the candidate to media wants to win, and what does that tell you?
The media behind Dick Luger, what does that tell you all?
We know the media doesn't like conservatives, and they don't like Republicans, but they want Luger.
And when their favored candidate in any race is losing, notice it's never about issues.
It's never about ideas.
It's always about the losing candidate employing a stupid, dumb strategy, which is what they're saying about Luger.
He was too confident.
He sat on his money for too long.
He didn't take his opponents seriously.
It's not anything to do with the fact that Murdoch has ideas that a majority of Indiana Republicans agree with and like.
Brief time out again, folks.
Time marches on faster here than anywhere else.
So we'll see.
We'll see what happens in Indiana today.
I can make a couple of very easy predictions.
If Murdoch wins, the Republican establishment is going to be torn.
They're going to think they are going to lose.
To them, a conservative nominee for any seat, president, Senate, whatever, is going to go the way of Barry Goldwater, not Ronald Reagan.
And it's it's the most amazing thing, folks.
There are two electoral examples of conservatism prominently on a ballot.
One's Goldwater and a landslide loss, and there's Reagan with two landslide victories.
The Republican establishment, and I'm not exaggerating this.
I'm not making it up.
The Republican establishment, for whatever reasons, and we've discussed most of them, genuinely believe that hardcore conservatives, and by that I mean unwavering.
I'm not extreme, it's just solid conservatives, equal electoral landslide defeat.
And they're more interested in as many people in the Senate with a capital R by their name, as opposed to the kind of ideological makeup in the Senate.
They want control of the committees, they want control of the money, they want to be able to write the regulations.
It's all about sharing power.
With the Tea Party, it's about ideas.
What people thought politics always was about ideas.
The best ideas.
Winning.
That's what the Tea Party is about.
Tea Party not made up of career politicians.
And it seems to have a distrust.
The Tea Party seems to have a distrust of career politicians.
And there's a lot to be said for that.
I think in large part we are in the trouble we're in today because of career politicians.
Peggy Noonan, who people have a tremendous amount of respect for, wrote a column last Friday or Saturday, I forget which day it runs, Wall Street Journal, in which she advocated the re-election of Dick Luger because we need adults in Washington right now, because it's really bad.
Well, that's an interesting point of view.
But you could also say that Dick Luger has been of the political class that ran up all this debt, that voted for it all these years, that participated in the expansion of government.
Any number of ways to look at this.
I mean, Luger's not known for opposing big spending.
He's not known for wanting to downsize government.
He's not known as that kind of Republican.
And if you had any doubts about it, this commercial that he's running now with a woman who barely sounds like she's able to breathe, saying that Richard Murdoch wants to take away old people's social security.
That to me is unconscionable.
For Republican to say that about another, it's obviously desperate.
Okay, moving on.
Lots of stuff to get to today.
Here is another one.
And I see this story, and then I realize we got a lot of new listeners here.
Tremendous number of new listeners.
We officially know this now.
It's beyond common sense supposition.
We now, because of accurate records, we know.
That's as much as I can legally say, but we know.
We know it's huge, the new listener number.
Well, I have a story here that if everybody in the audience was up to speed and in total context with how things happen in this program, I would approach it in a certain way.
But I got people startly, we have people here who are maybe listening for their first day, their first week, first month.
So I want to approach this a little differently.
I want to read to you a headline in a story today, the New York Daily News.
Are you ready?
I have your attention, and I want you to pay very, very close attention to this.
Research published yesterday in a magazine called Current Biology suggests that large dinosaurs, belched, and expelled gas to such an extent that it may have contributed to global warming and their extension.
Now, what I want to do is ask you to stop for a moment and really think about that.
You know that there's all kinds of arguments going on about global warming.
And you've heard probably, I'm speaking to you people that are new in the audience, and you've heard all the claims that it's the cars that we drive, that's the greenhouse gases.
And it seems like every day there's a new claim, something humanity is doing to destroying the planet.
Yet we've also learned that it's a total hoax.
If you're new to the program, I don't have time to go back and repeat years of programming, but emails leaked from the University of East Anglia in the UK conclusively show how data was altered and faked to produce results that showed man was responsible for global warming when it wasn't.
He wasn't.
Stuff was made up.
We know that they have tried every scare tactic in the world to convince people that they are responsible for the climate being destroyed or the world to be warming up.
Now we know that the reason for this is they're trying to capitalize on people's emptiness in their lives.
Most people think their lives don't mean anything, and they want to have meaning in their lives.
So the left very cleverly comes along and says, you know what?
You can save the planet.
Whoa, wow, now my life is gonna have meaning.
Oh, I'm I'm a sign me up.
Yeah, well, you have to admit that you have been the problem.
All the gasoline that you've used and all the coal that you've burned or electricity, you've contributed, but there's atonement for you.
If you buy little cars that we tell you to buy, if you go along with raising taxes, if you if you have more government control, if you forget about all the traditional forms of energy, let's go windmills and solar panels, and we'll fine.
And people say, oh, good, okay, I'll buy a Prius or I'll buy an electric car, and then think they're saving the planet.
And that's how it happens.
Now I just want to ask you, just to use as much common sense as you can muster.
I want you to ask, I want to ask you to seriously consider.
Don't just accept it knee-jerk because science, quote unquote, says it.
Please understand that science has been corrupted by politics like most everything politics touches, has been corrupted.
And science is politics.
And another thing, if you're new to the program, if you ever hear the word consensus in a discussion about science being fact, understand that it's not possible.
Consensus equals majority thought.
Science is not subject to opinion.
Scientific fact is fact.
The earth is flat not because a consensus of scientists think it is.
I'm sorry, the earth is round, not because a consensus of scientists think it is, but because it's round.
I want you to actually stop and consider this report, serious as it can be in the New York Daily News, that dinosaur farts and burps have contributed to global warming and their own extension.
And I want to ask you if you really believe that.
Thank you.
I want you to stop.
I want you to very seriously consider the proposition that there aren't any dinosaurs because their own flatulence wiped them out.
They farted themselves to death, and in the process, they destroyed the planet, their own habitat.
They caused global warming by burping and expelling gas so much they destroy their own habitat.
I want to ask you, does this pass the smell test?
I just want you to use your common sense.
I could do an environmentalist wacko update here, where I could do the usual make fun of it, but then I might distract from the actual point being made.
For those of you not up to context here, no not to speed in context with how things we do things on this program.
Because see, the point is, this is ridiculous.
This is literally insane.
It's ridiculous, it's absurd.
It is one of the most stupid assertions I have encountered in twenty-five plus years of deep study of the environmentalist wacko movement.
Does it pass the smell test?
The dinosaurs farted themselves to death.
And at the same time burped themselves to death, and then after all that caused global warming, which is really what did them in.
And then I want you to ask yourself this.
Why is it that it has not yet been asserted that we humans are farting ourselves to death?
Talent on lawn from God.
Rush Limbaugh, half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
This story in the New York Daily News about dinosaur flatulence, in addition to being absurd, it's very weird.
Claims that dinosaur methane emissions 200 million years ago are at the same level as methane emissions from livestock and industry today.
And of course, methane from livestock and industry is causing global warming today.
And if the dinosaurs, that many of them, were expelling that much gas back then, why?
Same thing would be happening back then.
But then at the end of the article, we're told that the very idea that dinosaur emissions could cause global warming and even their own extinction is absurd.
the story actually says that.
The writer of the story assesses the study himself.
After reporting the study seriously, this This is about as sensible as that group Center for Science of the Public Interest, succeeding in getting coconut oil banned in movie theaters simply because they didn't like it.
The author of that study is claiming that it's now being taken out of context of the never claimed dinosaur emissions caused global warming or their own extinction.
He says their emissions were a minor factor, but he is still claiming their methane emissions equal those that are produced today.
So apparently the reaction to the study has been one of, are you kidding me?
So the guy said it's hey, I didn't say what that's being reported is being said.
Point is in the environmentalist wacko movement.
They're people that believe this stuff, this kind of stuff.
They make bets on it.
And it's as ridiculous as most other claims they're making about man-made global warming.
Now let's go across street New York Post.
Ready for this?
New York City Health Department inspector slapped a Brooklyn bagel shop with $1,600 in fines because sesame and poppy seeds fell to the floor while the bagels were being made during working hours.
The owner of BB Empire Bagel Cafe appealed the violations and lost at two separate hearings.
Said the inspectors must have holes in their heads.
It's impossible to clean up after each and every bagel.
Alex Gormach is the owner, he's 59.
I know you're a wait, wait, wait, Rush, you need to tell us more.
There isn't anymore.
This guy got fined because sesame and poppy seeds fell to the floor.
I guess this violates health standards during the making of these bagels.
Because they have been cited for this before, the owner and his son have invested close to $900,000 in larger stainless steel preparation tables in hopes of containing seed fallout.
And an expensive water filter vacuum to suck up the seeds from the floor.
It's still not profitable, but it's close, according to Gormach, who moved his family from Russia in 1995 and opened his store last June.
If you want to work, you have to pay.
In Russia, they call it corruption.
And here they call it something else, but either way, you have to pay.
Now, this is the sort of regulation that's killing small business.
Rush, wait a minute.
There's something you're leaving out.
This doesn't make sense.
A guy gets fined $1,600 because poppy seeds, sesame seeds end up on the floor when he's making bagels.
What's wrong with that?
You ever seen my kitchen rush when I'm baking a cake?
You ever see what ends up on the floor?
Yeah, and let some city food inspector see it, and who knows what happens to you.
You're asking that, but Rush, do they reach down and pick up those seeds from the floor and put them in the bagel?
No, they don't.
They sweep them up, they throw them away.
Okay, then what's the problem?
I'm sorry, I can't tell you.
I don't know.
Folks, all I know is this is bureaucratic power, run amuck.
It's a clear example and illustration of the kind of oppressive regulations that exist simply because some bureaucrat has the power to enforce it.
The only reason the regulation exists is so some power mad little bureaucrat can enforce it.
Go out and find somebody.
You wait until this kind of thing happens countless times a day at the federal level once Obamacare is fully implemented.
Because this nothing compared to what's coming.
They wonder why startups are at an all-time low.
We just had that news last week.
Entrepreneurial startups, business startups are at a record low.
Census IRS numbers, since records on this have been kept.
Again, the two people that own this thing had to go out and invest almost a million dollars in stainless steel preparation tables.
Bigger tables to keep the seeds from hitting the floor.
And even after doing that, they got fined sixteen hundred dollars.
Because a health department inspector saw the seeds on the floor of their bagel shop.
It's impossible for the seeds, some seeds not to end up on the floor.
So these two guys are violating regulations.
They're Clas D criminals.
In the course of making bagels in Brooklyn.
I understand that the seeds can attract vermin in the bagel store, but they don't leave them there.
They clean them up.
Anyway, anyway, my folks, uh my friends, uh fastest three hours in media.
First one's already gone, and in truth, we have barely scratched the surface.
No bake sales, obesity, not your problem anymore.
▲
Export Selection