The views expressed by the host on this program, documented to be almost always right, 99.7% of the time, the views expressed by the host on this program are that accurate because we are totally devoted and relentlessly pursue the truth.
Unstoppably so.
And we find it and we proclaim it and people go banshee.
I mean, they just go nuts.
And our guy, our caller, Will, who watched the Access Hollywood show, he was struck by how seriously they took this.
And that is the fascinating and funny thing about it.
Little skirmish with Beyoncé.
In fact, I wonder how many people know.
And I just want to remind you, after the Super Bowl, I came on this program and I was effusive in my praise for Beyoncé's halftime performance.
You all remember this.
I talked about exceptional talent, exceptional production values, that it was one of the best halftime shows in terms of production performance that I had ever seen.
I was just never-ending in my praise for Beyoncé.
Then this song comes out, and we have a little fun with it based on the feminazi connotations.
And these people in the pop culture media are treating this as seriously as anything in their lives.
Folks, it's stunning.
It is really instructive.
Even I, El Rushbow, continue to learn and to watch how seriously they take this.
And it's just a singer.
And our latest song, it matters nothing in the big scheme of things.
But our caller, Will, who is a casual listener here and a casual viewer of Access Hollywood, was blown away by how serious this segment was and how intent they were on discrediting me.
He said the most important thing he took from it was their desire to discredit me.
There's a bunch of reasons for that.
A, I've invaded their turf.
They don't like that.
But B, you know, their stars are their gods.
And here I've come along and I'm laughing at, making fun of one of their gods, and this just isn't done.
And so even Snerdley came into me today, and I asked him, so what kind of weekend did you have?
He says, he got calls.
Snerdley's a musician, by the way.
You should know this.
And he knows people in that business.
People were calling him all weekend.
Say, what is going on between Rush and Beyoncé?
And he had to tell them what it was because they were all prisoners to what they had seen reported in the pop culture media about this.
And it's, folks, I'll tell you why it's interesting to me.
We're going to have to reach these people somehow, some way, someday.
Something's going to have to happen.
These people elected Barack Obama.
And by definition, by definition, they don't know very much.
It's not a comment on their intelligence by any stretch.
It's not a comment on their ability to learn things.
They just, low information means exactly that.
They just don't know very much.
And what's even scarier is how wrong they are about the things they think they do know.
So we're going to continue our low information outreach, but a low information outreach, by the way, can happen in the drive-by media as well.
I think half of the low information populations in the U.S. media are blocked off from what half of the people in this country believe.
They're uninterested in it.
They're unaware of it.
They could not care less what half the people in this country believe.
In fact, I think that's what shakes them up.
I think one of the things that bothers everybody is that half the country, if not more, actually, in terms of population, not voting population, but the actual population.
You look at polling data.
Obama's policies are not popular.
If you look at polling data issue by issue by issue, Obama's ideas are not popular.
And now his personal approval is starting to fall.
A day lay and a dollar short.
What's anybody going to do about it?
He secured reelection.
However, the 2014 elections are important, dramatically so, I would say.
And so the effort to inform low-information voters should continue.
But I think as I study this, the vast majority of people don't like Obama's policies, don't support them.
They just don't associate them with the country's performance.
It's the Limbaugh theorem.
It's the most fascinating thing.
55 to 60% of registered likely voters in this country disagree with Obama's policies and disagree with the direction the country said.
They don't associate Obama's policies with what's happening in the country.
Then you have the drive-bys into the mainstream media and you have the low-information crowd in the pop culture media, and they are just entirely ignorant of what half this country believes and thinks, and they're scared by it.
And, you know, Obama runs around, for example, he owns like no president ever has the media.
And yet he'll run out there and complain about me and Fox News as the two remaining places where there is substantive opposition, which to somebody like Obama, opposition is not tolerable.
And the objective is to eliminate all opposition, be it a political party, be it media, what have you.
The objective is to eliminate the opposition.
Not to defeat them, not in the arena of ideas, not to outclass them, not to beat them in a debate, but to literally eliminate them from viability.
And the fact that they haven't been able to eliminate Fox or me, and you know how many times do you think they thought they had me fixed and done away with?
How many times over the course of 25 years do you think they thought they'd finally pulled it off?
And yet here we are.
It's like Chris Matthews said about a month after the election.
And no matter what we do, Limbaugh's still there.
He's still there.
And that's the same thing about Fox News.
No matter what they do, Fox News is still there.
And what really I think animates them and frustrates them is that that represents, we, Fox News, me, talk radio, represent the thinking of half the population in this country.
And that's why they're bugged.
That they have that degree of opposition left that they haven't been able to eliminate.
And therefore, Their task, as they see it, is to discredit and to impugn and to eliminate me and Fox and anybody else they determine to be substantively opposed to them.
They can't beat us in the arena of ideas.
So that's why the pop culture guys take it so seriously.
This little fun thing, to us, this Beyoncé thing is nothing but pure fun.
We're enjoying stirring it up.
And they're in there, my goodness, frightened words.
All right.
They are fit to be tied.
And they're treating this as though one country dropped a nuke on another.
I've got the sound bites here.
I don't, the problem is, and I'm serious about this.
And I, by the way, I'm going to make a prediction to you.
They're going to think this is really wrong and totally erroneous and late and everything else.
But it wasn't that long ago.
And don't doubt me on this.
It wasn't that long ago where, in the case of the mainstream media, they really did not want the anchors and reporters to become news.
They really didn't want them to ever become part of the story or to be the story.
Today, that's out the window.
They all love it now.
It's a major change.
And my prediction to you is they're going to come to rue the day where they allowed that to happen.
And it's just a gut instinct feel.
I can't predict something solid.
I can't tell you.
And here's what's going to happen as a result of it.
Although they already are losing respect.
I'll tell you what it is.
Illustration.
I've always believed, because I'm a profound advocate of the Constitution, and the Constitution granting a role to the media is very, very important and serious.
And none of this was a game to the founders.
The founding of this country, the writing of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, none of it, the Revolutionary War, none of it was a game.
It was dead serious.
And they were about the creation and the maintenance, creating and maintaining forever a country governed by the Constitution.
And I think when the lines blur and when the media becomes no different, when the media becomes part of the establishment, when the media is the story, and when the management of media likes their journalists becoming part of the story, it actually creates a breakdown in credibility,
moral authority, believability, and similar related things.
It's always bothered me, and I'm not proficient.
I'm really not good at explaining this.
I've tried explaining it in a number of ways.
You remember there was an incident in the World Series where one of the men, Dusty Baker, his son or grandson was a ball boy, bad boy, ran out onto the field And nearly got killed.
And he had no business being too young.
And a player in the game had to forget what he was doing and scoop up the manager's five-year-old, four-year-old son away from home plate to make sure the kid wasn't killed in a play at the plate.
And everybody, oh, this is so wonderful.
Look how cute.
And I said, this is not wonderful.
The kids shouldn't have been there.
The baseball field is a stage.
And you don't let rank amateurs on the stage.
There's a reason people are in the audience and the performers are on the stage.
And you don't mix the two.
The audience is always the audience.
And once those two things mingle and mix, then the arrangement's blown to smithereens.
And this is what's happening in the, not just the media, but in almost every walk of life where all these reality shows exist because so many average people just desire fame and fortune and define their whole happiness by having fame, which is a corrupting influence.
But the I mean, I'm getting far away from the point that I really want to make with this.
The bottom line here is that the media has become the story.
And they're advocating their performers and generally in the old days, Cronkite becoming part of the story would have been a profound embarrassment, and they would have done everything they could.
CBS would have to get him out of the story.
There was a definite line of demarcation.
The media was never the story.
Now the media is the story, and people from the media end up going to government, the revolving door, and back and forth to the point now that there's no distinction between the two.
The media is no longer the media, particularly the Washington media.
They're just a branch of the Democrat Party in government.
It's had a corrupting influence and it's not good.
And it's created this low information phenomenon because they're advocates.
And they're advocates of a party and position that requires people not knowing very much, but voting all the time.
Dumbing down kids in the education systems.
They really don't know the roots and the history of this country.
They don't know how great a place that they inhabit.
They don't know what their citizenship responsibilities are to maintain this country.
They're not even subjects and even broached.
In fact, that kind of thing is laughed at and made fun of.
It's kind of square to look at the country in that way.
And it's not good.
It's ripping apart and attacking all of the traditions and institutions that have defined this country's greatness.
It's blurring them, and it's taking away, it's subtracting what was special about things.
It's turning everything's becoming average.
Nothing is remarkable.
Nothing's noteworthy.
Nothing that used to really be important and matter is.
And now stuff that is inconsequential and is worth a laugh or two at best becomes life-alteringly important.
And the real important stuff has been so watered down, so diluted and untaught that it leads to, or has led to people investing in totally inconsequential things as substance in their lives, In the country itself, country's future.
And it's led to incredible phenomena you and I have to really stop and think to understand.
Such as this phenomenon that 55 to 60 percent of the American people oppose everything Obama's doing and re-elect him because they don't associate what he's doing, his policies, with what's happening in the country.
How is that possible?
How in the world is that possible?
Well, the explanation is because he doesn't own it.
He's constantly campaigning.
He's constantly running against all these problems.
Yeah, I understand it created that impression.
But how uninformed and detached do you have to be for that to work on you?
Is my point.
Let me grab a phone call here.
Have you ever heard anybody disrespecting your house and leading to you beating them up?
How would you, if somebody disrespected your house, what would they do?
I mean, I know you don't even think this.
What the hell are you talking about?
Well, it happened to an NFL player.
He beat up a couple people because they disrespected his house.
They slammed a door that disrespected his house.
I had to get the details in a minute.
I want to grab this call, though.
This is Charles in Las Vegas.
Charles, thank you for waiting.
Great to have you here.
Hello.
Hey, Ross, thanks for taking my call.
I heard you the first time in 1989 driving from Lake City to McLean in Florida, and I fell in love with your voice, more importantly, with the contain that comes out of your mouth.
So, yeah, I was telling Mr. Snorg that you have low information borders, and you also have high disinformation borders.
Well, low information voters and high information voters.
Yeah, the highest information voters are the ones that had what the Soviets used to call disinformatia, disinformation, which is the false information that comes from the Soviets to the populations.
And that disinformation was spread out throughout the Soviet Empire.
And so this Ronald Reagan used to say that it's not that liberals are ignorant.
They know a lot of things, but they know a lot of things that are not so.
So all this stuff about global warming, about how the Democrats twist the truth is what Leon Trotsky used to call me.
Charles, let me, I'm having a real, it's almost impossible.
It's not your fault.
It's my hearing.
I'm having trouble deciphering what you're saying because of my hearing loss.
Your phone sounds very distorted, and I'm just not making out your words.
But Snerdley has up here that you wanted to talk about.
You have a mixture of low-information voters and high-disinformation voters who get the wrong information on stories from the media, right?
That's basically your point.
So what is your point after that?
Well, the point is you have these two classes of voters.
The one that you say that doctors, well-lectured, well-educated, those are the highest information voters.
They have a lot of information, but the information they have about the Republicans, about what you say, is not a lot of information.
It's information that we falsify, you know?
It's what Leon Trotsky used to call the Stalinist School of Falsification.
And In socialism, it's a crime against the money, but I'm loaded.
I highly recommend that.
All right.
Charles, I hope the audience understood because I didn't.
It's not your fault.
It's my.
Okay, folks.
You know, I sit here.
I never want to be in a situation where I don't understand what somebody's saying because of my hearing.
And that's where I was with the last caller.
So I have asked staff who had no trouble understanding his words what he was saying.
And here's the consensus.
And the opinions here run the gamut, but we have a consensus.
His point was, in addition to the low-information voters, we have an added element to the problem.
We have otherwise thought to be intelligent, so-called high-information voters, smart people, who are disseminating BS to people, to the low-information voter.
And so the low-information voter is not simply low-information because the person's low information.
He's low information because of what he's being fed by the high-information people who are spreading a bunch of BS.
And his example after Trotsky and Stalin was the global warming crowd.
So you have a bunch of people who are otherwise, well, they're scientists.
They're thought to be, and this is part of the game, by the way, brilliant science uncorrupted by politics.
That's what everybody thinks, and it's not true, but they think it is.
So these people in their white coats, they run around, they talk about all this so-called science and global warming.
The low information people lap it up without questioning it because they don't question the credibility of the so-called high-information people who are simply engaging in a massive disinformation campaign.
Economists do it.
Now, this assumes that the high-information people know they're lying.
Or the high-information people, like the global warming crowd, like the true believers science global warming crowd.
It's a good question.
Do they really believe this stuff or are they knowingly engaged in a disinformation campaign?
Like the professor at Penn State, Michael Mann, famous for the hockey stick graph, which everybody accepted as incontrovertible proof of warming since the Middle Ages.
Or explain the Middle Ages warming period and warming sense.
So the question is, is this guy knowingly full of it and is simply motivated by politics, or does he believe his own stuff?
And that is the same with economists, you know, the anti-capitalist economies.
Do they really believe?
There's never yet been a successful socialist economy.
And yet there are gobs and gobs of socialist economists who are constantly singing its praises.
And they are singing these praises to low-information voters who are just eating it all up without questioning it because they don't question the credibility of these economists or scientists.
So his point is you have a lot of accredited high-information people who may not be.
I mean, a global warming advocate is as wrong as anybody could be about anything, folks.
It's a hoax.
There is no man-made global warming.
It has been thoroughly debunked.
The fact that it's a hoax has been proven by them.
Emails that were uncovered at East Anglia University in Great Britain show that they worked together to perpetuate the hoax, that they lied about data, that they eliminate data that contradicted their political belief.
So you'd have to assume from that that they are political advocates disguised as scientists who are purposely engaging in misinformation.
I think that was his point.
I think that was the point he was trying to convey.
And it would be easy for me to sit here and say, I'm sorry, you figure it out.
I couldn't understand it.
Well, but I know my problem, see, I'm a man of pure context, and I was trying to understand him within the room.
Okay, something happened on the program today that's made him call.
What is it?
I'm trying to, when I can't understand what he's saying, something has inspired him.
What was said earlier that he's reacting to?
And that's what I couldn't figure out.
So I was asking while I'm trying to listen to him, is this guy just calling off the wall, bouncing off nothing, or is he bouncing off something said earlier?
So I was unable to attach a context to what he was saying.
When you had written up there in the description of the call, you have low information, high information.
I thought that meant he was going to talk about the kind of people listening to this program, which is not what he was talking about at all.
He was talking about the kind of people there are in the world.
So I was all off base trying to attach a context.
This is what people can't hear have to do.
When you can't understand what somebody's saying, you try to any number of ways to translate it to yourself.
And that's what I was having trouble.
I just could not relate what he was saying to anything that had happened.
So then he was off the wall.
And if it was, I had to do my own inquiry in the break as, okay, what was he talking about?
I think now, having asked some people, that was basically it.
And it's a good point, by the way.
And it's not just the low-information people that are the challenge.
It's also the so-called by we call them high information by virtue of reputation.
But in truth, are they high information?
Are they simply disinformation specialists?
And that's he was right.
I mean, the Soviets and other communist countries are absolutely specialists at this.
But I guess he was distinguishing between uninformed people versus deliberate liars.
And a lot that passes for low information is actually disinformation.
He was basically saying our work is doubly cut out for us because it's not just that we're dealing with people that aren't able to understand things.
It's that they're also being lied to by people who they think have automatic credibility.
Now, the NFL player is the running back for the Cleveland Browns, Trent Richardson.
And he's a rookie.
Last year was a rookie.
According to the Cleveland plane dealer, two women filed a lawsuit on Friday claiming that Richardson and his girlfriend and his brother verbally and physically assaulted them at his home after a game last season.
The incident occurred after the Browns beat the Chiefs in Cleveland on the 9th of December.
They had a party at Trent Richardson House, and it lasted into the early morning hours of Monday, December 10th.
The two women that were beat up were invited by Trent Richardson's girlfriend.
The women claim that Trent Richardson, at one point, it's all in the Cleveland newspaper.
For you low-information media people, this is one of your papers I'm reading this from.
The player, Trent Richardson, at one point asked them to leave, and while in the driveway, he verbally accosted them, shouting and cursing that the women had disrespected his house.
How did they disrespect his house?
Folks, the only reason I'm telling you this is because it is, again, an object lesson into various cultural realities that you and I may be entirely unaware of and totally strangers to.
For example, I would no more – somebody slams – one thing, I would never even think in terms of somebody dissing my house.
I just – don't think that way.
It would never, somebody could break my window.
I wouldn't think they're dissing my house.
They broke the window, damn it.
If they did it on purpose, then they broke the window on purpose.
Dissing, diss, disrespecting my house.
If you can disrespect a guy's house, you can really get in trouble by disrespecting him, I would think.
So anyway, these two women got beat up for slamming a door.
That's the essence of the newspaper story because they were disrespecting his house by slamming a door.
A player then allegedly slammed a fist into the hood of one of the two women's cars, causing damage in excess of $1,500.
The women claim it as they tried to leave.
The player stood behind the car and told his girlfriend to come out and attack him.
The girlfriend then opened the driver's door and began attacking the two women that she had invited to come to the celebration party.
And then two more unnamed women joined the fray, beating up these two women at the urging of the player, all because his house had been disrespected.
So they're not going to be dissing anybody else's house after this.
And not going to be slamming anybody else's doors as a result of this.
It's just, ladies and gentlemen, we aim here to broaden everybody's understanding of what is happening in our country.
That, if you ask, what the hell are we talking about?
Because there's this giant umbrella.
And clearly, folks, there's some things we don't understand that we need to understand.
Not that we need to agree with it or participate in it, but we need to understand it.
Now, big, big day at the Supreme Court.
Snowstorm six inches, but it has not stopped the long lines of people trying to get in to watch oral arguments at the Supreme Court on gay marriage and specifically the constitutionality of Proposition 8 in California.
And guess what?
The L.A. Times is reporting today that a lesbian who is the cousin of the Chief Justice is going to attend oral arguments.
Jean Podrowski, 48, a lesbian who wants to marry her partner, will be at tomorrow's Supreme Court hearing on Prop 8 in seating reserved for family members and guests of the Chief Justice.
Gene Podrowski said, I'm so excited.
I feel quite honored and I'm overwhelmed.
Now, the L.A. Times says John Roberts is a conservative appointed by George W. Bush in 2005.
Jean Podrowski, who is more liberal, said she rooted for his nomination to be approved by the Senate.
He's family.
He's family.
She lives in San Francisco.
She sees him now and then on family occasions.
His mother is her godmother, whom she adores.
She said Roberts knows that she's gay and introduced her along with other relatives during his confirmation hearings.
And she hopes that he will meet her partner of four years during their Washington visit.
The couple flew to Washington yesterday.
The lesbian cousin said, John's a smart man.
He's a good man.
I believe he sees where the tide is going.
I trust him.
I absolutely trust that he'll go in a good direction.
So you see, folks, the pressure is being brought to bear on these justices any way possible.
Now the Chief Justice is faced with what do I do if I rule against my cousin?
What will they think of me if I don't rule in favor of my family?
This is what I mean about the blurring of media, citizenry, and the stage.
Supreme Court, this is not the limbaugh's a democracy and the people can petition the government to work any way they possibly yes, they can, but this is not what happens Supreme Court's not democratic.
It's the law.
It should be insulated, analysis, constitutionality, what have you.
It should be insulated from all these other things.
Of course, it isn't, and it hasn't been for a long time.
I'm just going to tell you this.
Let me take a break first.
I'm going to be in trouble.
But there's a comparison here between this, gay marriage, and Roe versus Wade, in one sense.
Back in just a second.
Okay, back we are.
It's Rush Limbaugh having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
You know, we had stories last week.
I'm sure you'll recall.
There were studies.
There are actual academic scholarly studies being undertaken.
And the focus of the stories last week was the money being spent on this research, even though we find ourselves in a sequester.
And what was it?
There was $2.5 million spent to study why 75% of lesbians are obese and gay males aren't.
Homosexual men aren't.
Lesbians are obese.
75%.
Why?
2.5 mil.
And another survey or another project, a million and a half dollars To find out, what was it, why lesbians are alcoholics.
And of course, the answers to both came: well, neither of them have to, they don't have to deal with men, so they have to worry about their parents.
They're not trying to please men so they can be obese, it's no big deal.
And then alcohol, who knows?
They're having to deal with women, so they're drunk.
Who knows?
The bottom line is that if I were to now ask if any of that research is relevant in the case of the cousin of the Chief Justice, can you imagine the howls of protest I would get from people who do not know of these two studies that I would be bouncing off?
In other words, the context.
So I can't ask whether the Chief Justice's lesbian cousin is any of those things.
People would think I'm being mean.
But I'll tell you what, seriously, on this Roe versus Wade versus this gay marriage business, one of the reasons why abortion so roils our culture is that it hasn't been democratically decided.
Same Supreme Court, nine people in black robes just decided one day that abortion is in the Constitution.
And that has led to constant acrimony.
And if they do the same thing here, and if gay marriage in this country were voted on by the people, fine, okay, that's it.
But if nine guys in a black robe decide that marriage does and can be defined as two people of the same sex, we're going to have the same kind of roiling of our culture that abortion has given us.
Well, my preference would be that the court leave this alone, send it back to the people, and let the people decide it.
You know, abortion is not a big deal in the UK for this very reason.
They've decided by votes of the people.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
Of course, what we can't say is that we can't leave it up to a vote of the people because they would never approve it.
And so the court has to rule in favor of it.
The people would never do the right thing and vote for gay marriage.