All Episodes
Previous Next
April 9, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:04
April 9, 2013, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host of this program, documented to be almost always right, 99.7% of the time, hey, I may as well do a full-fledged gay community update on this infertility business.
May as well go all in, all the way.
We'll get to Mitch McConnell's office being bugged by the Democrats here in just a second, folks.
But first, a gay community update.
What's going on with this is it's a genuine story at Front Page Magazine.
It's by Daniel Greenfield.
And he is heard rumblings of this and is writing about it and is effectively predicting it.
He said, now that we've decided gay marriage is a real thing, biology be damned, gay infertility must also be a real thing, and you must also pay for it.
Should health insurers be legally required to offer infertility treatment for gay couples?
Yes, according to a bill filed in the California legislature by Assemblyman Tom Amiano, Democrat San Francisco.
So it's already a proposed piece of legislation.
In fact, refusing to offer infertility treatment for gay couples should be a crime according to this bill.
Current California law requires group health plans to offer coverage for infertility treatments with the exception of in vitro fertilization.
If such coverage is purchased, benefits must be paid whenever a demonstrated condition recognized by a licensed doctor and surgeon as a cause for infertility has been diagnosed or upon the inability to conceive a pregnancy or to carry a pregnancy to a live birth after a year of regular sexual relations without conception.
So the bill says that if two people engage in sexual relations, two people, not two heterosexual couples, if two people engage in regular sexual relations and after a year there is no contraception, that couple's entitled to infertility compensation.
And since gay couples will be married and will engage in sexual relations and will not conceive, then they will be entitled to infertility compensation and California taxpayers will pay for it.
According to the fact sheet supporting this bill, the trouble is that some insurance companies are not complying with current law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.
So you see, whether the couple is gay or not is irrelevant if after a year there is no conception.
Hello, insurance.
Now, as Daniel Greenfield writes, but why stop there?
Once we've determined that 70-year-olds and gay men are equally entitled to infertility treatments, not to mention people paralyzed from the waist down and three-year-olds, it's time to extend the civil right to a medical treatment meant to help biologically compatible couples to people trying to impregnate anything else.
If we're going to treat biology as though it isn't biology, why stop at the human species line?
And this sort of melds with what the actor Jeremy Irons was asking as a libertarian.
He says, wait a minute now.
What's to stop a father from marrying a son so as to escape estate taxes on the death of the father?
I mean, what's to stop that?
Who is to say a father can't marry a son?
And somebody said, well, that would be incest, and there are laws against incest.
Jeremy Irons said, no, no, there wouldn't be any incest here because there isn't any procreation.
A father-and-son marriage will not produce kids, but it will get infertility coverage.
And a father-and-son marriage would be a pretty clever way of avoiding estate tax on the death of the father.
And who's to say that the father and son should be denied the love that they obviously have for one another?
Is it wrong to love another man?
I have been asked this frequently in the golf course after sinking a long putt and saving a hole.
Is it wrong to love another man?
Of course not.
It's not.
And is it wrong to love your son?
Marry your son to avoid paying taxes.
Of course, the people that would probably do this are people on the left who want everybody to pay more taxes, but that's just a slight contradiction.
We'll deal with that later.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, his reelection campaign has asked the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office today to investigate how Mother Jones magazine obtained a recording of a strategy session in McConnell's office in February.
Senator McConnell's campaign is working with the FBI.
He's notified a local U.S. attorney in Lu, per FBI request, about these reportings.
Apparently, or I should say obviously, a recording device of some kind was placed in McConnell's campaign orifice without consent.
What it was, they recorded a strategy meeting of McConnell staffers talking about opposition research they could use against the actress Ashley Judd, who was thinking of running against McConnell in a 2014 Senate race.
Now, Judd recently announced that she was not going to run precisely because of all the things that she have said that they turned up that would make it very, very difficult for her to explain some of these things on the campaign trail.
Like, she's from Tennessee, but she's running.
But this woman is a militant pro-abortionist as well.
Not quite Kentucky's cup of tea.
She's really, really, really, I mean, really way out there on the left.
And she even once admitted, I think I'm pretty sure, but I'm not right about this.
She once admitted that she had to go to some kind of therapy to deal with overwhelming control issues, particularly in relationships that she had.
She was Very domineering, maniacally so, poisoning relationships with her control mechanism that she even admitted to and had to go deal with.
Anyway, that's the kind of stuff that's out there.
So she's decided not to run.
But nevertheless, Mother Jones Magazine somehow got a recording device into McConnell's office.
Think Watergate.
Think Watergate here.
And, well, I don't know if you think, what did you say, second-term big event?
Oh, well, I don't think this is, Snerdley says, hey, this could be an event that you're talking about that nobody thought could happen or nobody expected.
Well, I know everybody thought Watergate was in a penny-anty thing when it happened and it got ballooned and we got out of control.
But the problem here is the media isn't going to have a problem with McConnell's office being bugged.
This isn't big enough, Snerdley.
This isn't big enough to cause people to start doubting Obama.
And Ashley Judd didn't have enough base of support for people to feel like they're being shortchanged.
If anything, I just want to prepare you.
If anything, what's going to happen here?
By the time you turn on TMZ, what we're going to hear is how mean these guys in McConnell's office were in talking about Ashley Judd, who everybody loves.
She's a great actress.
She's very cute.
She married the race car driver, and these mean white Republicans, look at what they were planning for her.
That's what's going to end up here.
This isn't, and the fact that the recording device was there will be overlooked and maybe, in fact, applauded so that we could find out just how mean and rotten to the core of the McConnell staff is.
If you don't understand how this is going to play out, you have not been listening to me.
You do not know where our culture is.
You do not know what the media is.
You think that a recording device that enabled Mother Jones to overhear and find out what McConnell staffers were doing involving Ashley Judd is going to benefit McConnell?
You think a recording is highly illegal?
Nothing is illegal in entrapping Republicans.
Nothing is illegal in exposing Republicans.
Nothing is illegal in exposing conservatives for who and what they really are.
Nothing is illegal when you can find out how sexist and misogynist the McConnell staff is.
Nothing's illegal.
This is going to end up being portrayed as a great service.
Unfortunate, unfortunate, and not something we recommend, but and it might even serve as a launch pad to get her to come back in the race.
And if you, Snerdley, you can't possibly think that in the current media climate that this is going to hurt Democrats.
You can't possibly, I'm not talking about with the people.
I'm not talking about people that listen to this program.
I'm not talking about people who watch Fox News.
I'm talking about with the media and the low-information crowd, the TMZ bunch, e-entertainment tonight.
Wait till you just, I bet you tonight the sympathetic figure in this story is going to be Ashley Judd and the kind of mean spirited sexism that the McConnell campaign was planning against her.
And it just shows this Republican war on women.
You watch.
You watch.
I will pledge to buy you an iPhone 6 if I'm wrong.
If you're right, you buy me.
No.
If you're right, you find a way to get my car fixed.
Back after this.
Don't go away.
Okay, we're back.
I have a question, a quite about gay infertility.
If the treatments work, how do we deal with gay abortions?
Can there be gay abortions if there's no gee, I'm not confused.
Would we pay for abortions if they change their mind?
Gay couples.
I'm sorry, I've now lost the ability to follow my own train of thought.
Stabbing reported on Texas College campus.
Eight victims, one arrest.
Stabbing?
Eight victims in a stabbing?
Wait a minute.
You're taking me now from whether or not we're going to cover gay abortions in the infertility case to eight victims in a stabbing on a Texas college campus.
No, I know there's no magazine and there's no clip.
But well, I guess we're making it harder to gun down our kids.
Okay, Ryan in Cokeville, Wyoming.
Let's grab a phone call here before it's too late.
Ryan, welcome to the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Thank you, Rush.
It was a pleasure to be on hold during your obscene profit break.
Hey, the real issue with this gay infertility is that the human anatomy is a bigot.
That's the real issue.
Yeah, I can see that.
The human anatomy is the bigot.
Yes, the human anatomy is a bigot.
We're born and we discriminate by the very definition of the human anatomy.
I can't find any fault with that, folks.
I really can't.
In the spirit of fairness, Rush, I've got a solution here.
And the solution is that we need to push some federal legislation mandating that the human anatomy come from the womb gender neutral.
And this will make everything fair.
This will make the anatomy so that it's not a bigot anymore.
And to get the rhinos on board, we just need a grandfather clause so that those of us born before this legislation passes can keep our gender.
Yeah, that's a key element here.
If you don't grandfather this in, a lot of us would be really confused.
Yeah, exactly.
That's an excellent point.
So we need human anatomy must come from the womb gender neutral.
Yes, that solves the whole thing.
Now, for the people of Rio Linda, could you explain that?
Well, I guess it's kind of difficult to explain, but the primary purpose is so that there's no more bigotry from the human anatomy.
Yeah, but but what's a gender-neutral anatomy?
Well, if you're not born male or female and this anatomy can procreate, then it doesn't matter if you're a day straight or whatever.
Everyone can procreate and there's no bigotry and all is well.
Okay, so all we got to do is to figure out how to give birth to a gender-neutral anatomy.
Yes, and we'll mandate that federally so that it'll just happen.
Yeah.
Good, good idea.
Good idea.
No wonder.
Jealous I didn't think of this.
On the cutting edge, L. Rushball and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
And the latest I've heard now is 14 total victims in the stabbing on the Texas College campus, 12 people taken to hospitals.
14 total.
I don't know how many stabbers.
I don't know if it's multiple stabbers.
I don't know if it's multiple knives.
I don't know if the NKA has released a statement, the National Knife Association waiting on that.
But we do know that 14 victims, 12 people taken to hospital on a Texas college campus in Houston, multiple stabbings, but that's it.
I don't yet know.
We're still digging deep here to find out how many stabbers, knifers.
What do you call them?
Perps?
Here's Lauren in Morgan Hills, California.
Laura, I'm glad you called.
Thanks for waiting.
You're on the EIB network.
Hello.
Well, Mega Ditto's Maharashi.
Thank you very much.
Good work.
Thanks so much for everything you do.
I learn something new every day.
First time caller.
This Tom Yamiano proposal for the California Assembly is really outrageous.
It's an insult.
Infertility insurance coverage for days.
So let me tell you, we are a mixed-race couple.
I'm Chinese American, and my husband is American Mutt.
It took us about eight and a half years to find out.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
You just want to make sure I'm hearing this right.
You are Chinese American.
Your husband's American Mutt.
Right.
He's Irish, Italian.
He's getting in there, you know.
Right.
He's a white guy.
There's a little bit of everything in there.
Right.
We did not know for some time that we were both infertile.
And our internist, we saw the same one.
She said, well, I am seeing a specialist, and I recommend him highly.
Come to find out, both of us required infertility treatment, and the odds were probably 4% that we would ever conceive naturally.
Well, we're devastated.
We hadn't planned for this.
You know, we didn't think that.
You know, we're healthy.
We're in the middle of our 30s.
So we went to this great specialist, and he gave us a lot of money.
Yeah, but did you have infertility coverage?
We did not.
I worked for an evil corporation.
My husband worked for an evil corporation.
We both, I had an FSA program, an account, and we utilized that in our savings to cover the cost of, there's testing.
There's a lot of blood testing.
Okay, so let me guess.
Let me guess.
You and your husband have tried very hard.
You've not been able to have babies.
You found out you're infertile.
It's been an arduous thing to endure, to deal with, to pay for, and so.
And you're insulted here that your circumstance can be just automatically blanket applied.
Ended completely.
And it's a mockery to those of us who have gone through fertility treatment.
There's a huge range.
You cannot imagine, Rush, what can be done, even when the odds are minuscule, like the way we did.
So my husband was on.
He was on a prescription.
I was on a prescription.
Our home.
I know.
I totally, I totally, you have a real problem.
You have a real, genuine problem.
You and your husband, who, by the way, when you said American mutt, I was worried for a moment you'd married your dog.
But now I know that it's not the case.
You and your, well, American Mutt.
But yeah, I know.
Not yet.
But you and your husband have this real, genuine problem that is emotionally draining and so forth.
And now all of a sudden, just because some people want some money, we are going to there's a bill before the California legislature of the Assembly to treat any couple who's failed to conceive after one year of sex to grant them access to infertility coverage, treatment.
I'd be offended if I were you, too.
It's trivializing your real-life circumstance in exchange for a money grab.
So I know exactly how you feel, and I want you to know that.
We feel for you, and we all here wish you the best, Lauren.
Thanks much.
Trent in Houston.
I'm glad you called your next in the EIB network.
Hi.
Hello, Rush.
Longtime caller, first-time listener.
How are you doing, sir?
Very well, sir.
Thank you.
You're doing great.
Glad to hear it.
There are eight words I have always wanted to say to you.
Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Limbaugh, you can't say that.
And now do you feel better?
A little bit, no.
But, you know, I've got to tell you, you know, I'm a 24-7 subscriber.
I haven't really had the courage to listen to you lately, really since the election.
I've just been kind of struggling with post-election blues and everything.
If you'd asked me beforehand, I would have bet you a million dollars that Governor Romney would have won that election.
And it just, it kind of felt like, you know, you're the mayor of Rielville.
I didn't think you were going to have any kind of anything positive to say about this, any kind of good news for us.
But kind of pitching a Hail Mary today or throwing a Hail Mary, between this, the Supreme Court likely, you know, hosing us over on issues related to gay marriage.
I mean, do you have any words of encouragement or a hope or anything?
You know, I actually do.
Oh.
I actually do.
I want you to listen very carefully.
In fact, just before I took your call, you were on hold.
While you were on hold, I got in the email A release, if you will, from the office of Senator Ted Cruz.
And what it is, Senator Cruz releases inaugural report on Obama administration's unprecedented attempts to expand federal power.
And what this release from Senator Cruz is an explanation how the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected Obama administration arguments six times since January of 2012.
Six things that the Obama administration sought, which would have granted unchecked executive power, were turned back by the Supreme Court.
Now, let me read it to you.
Senator Cruz's report highlights the six cases that the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected since January of 2012.
Had Obama's Department of Justice been successful in its cases, which they were not, but had Obama succeeded at the Supreme Court, the federal government would have the power to do the following six things.
Attach GPS to a citizen's car to monitor his movements without having any cause to believe that the person has committed a crime.
Obama lost that.
The federal government would have had the power to deprive landowners of the right to challenge potential government fines as high as $75,000 a day and take away their ability to have a hearing to challenge fines.
This was an EPA case that the regime lost.
Had Obama won at the court, the federal government would have the power to interfere with a church's selection of its own ministers.
This was a Lutheran church and school versus the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
And this was a case where the government was demanding the right to select the ministers at a church.
They lost.
The next issue the government would have had the power to do had the court not turned them down was to override state law, whatever the president desires.
This was Arizona versus United States.
This was, in part, the Arizona immigration law.
They wrote their own law to mirror federal immigration law because Obama wasn't enforcing it.
The Supreme Court ruled in such a way, denied the federal government the ability to override state law.
Big victory there.
All of these are victories.
The federal government, the Obama administration, turned back in all of these.
The next one, the federal government would have had the power to dramatically extend statutes of limitation to impose penalties for acts committed decades ago.
This was Gabelli versus the SEC.
So had the regime not lost that, they could have extended statutes of limitations in order to impose penalties for crimes committed decades ago on a whim, whenever they wanted to apply an end to the statute of limitations.
They could have done it.
Supreme Court said no.
And the last one, had Obama's Department of Justice been successful, the federal government would have had the power to destroy private property without paying just compensation.
Arkansas Fishing Game Commission versus United States.
So Ted Cruz has put out this release.
There are six cases here where the Supreme Court in the last 16 months has beat back the Obama administration in various power grabs.
So you ask for some good news, and there is some.
And we will link to this report at rushlimbaugh.com.
It's cruiseforsenate.gov/slash record.
We'll find the place and put it prominently at rushlimbaugh.com so you can read the release yourself.
Be right back, folks.
Sit tight to Monroe, Louisiana.
This is Lonnie.
I'm graded you called.
Great to have you, and welcome to the program.
Thank you so much, Rush.
Two things I want to say: the people like the president and Pierce Morgan, they have only two choices for those parents at Newtown and their children.
Either you wait until that gunman changes his clip and maybe your children can run out or they wait for the police.
Those are the only two choices that they are giving them.
God forbid if a janitor could have taken him out when he was busting the door down and no one would have gotten killed.
But they don't want anyone else with a gun but the gunman or the police.
It's crazy, Rush.
It is crazy.
This is what the president and Pierce Morgan and people like that i have.
Either they wait until that gunman changes his clip and maybe it'll jam or wait until the policemen get there.
That's it.
Well, I mean, you heard the president.
We're going to make it a little harder for our kids to get gunned down.
Waiting until he runs out of seven, not 50 clips to change or 100 clips, but wait until he shoots seven times.
And then time he does it.
All right, Keas, I guess they're going to have to start training the children.
When it's seven clips, you all get ready to run out.
Well, look, what you're saying is that only an armed person can stop a shooter.
Exactly.
But what they think is that a bunch of people could rush the shooter and disarm him while he's changing clips.
Right, right.
Or it jams.
What if there are no jams?
What if he changes in two seconds and no one is going to rush a gunman?
Lonnie, you understand that this bunch cannot possibly ever support the concept of additional guns.
It goes against it.
They're all about taking guns away from people.
Exactly.
But yet the president has his secret service.
I would think Piers Morgan probably has bodyguard.
Well, they're special people, Lonnie.
They're special.
They're really important people.
That's right.
So what they're telling those parents is: even though I have bodyguards, I have secret service, your little angels have nothing but waiting until he runs out of secret.
Lonnie, are you telling me that the president's life is no more important than any of these other people or Piers Morgan's life of you?
Now we're opening up another, I guess he is and Pierce Morgan.
They don't want to be down with the little people, I guess.
And these are little people in these schools.
So they can just go back to the White House, go back to their security, you understand this.
You're exactly right.
There are two sets of rules in this country.
There's one set of rules for the important people and one set of rules for the people that make the rules, one set of rules for the elites, and there's another set of rules for all the rest of us.
Well, I'm saying, Rush, they're not offering when someone, when Lapierre says maybe a janitor or a teacher of someone, if someone could have had a gun and stopped him, but they're saying, oh, no, that's all we need.
I heard statements.
That's all we need is other guns.
What do you think about this?
What do you think about eliminating the whole no-gun zone, the gun-free zone?
Take the signs down, get rid of the notion, stop telling people, hey, guess what?
There are no guns in this school.
It's an open invitation.
Well, it seems that right the cops, what are the gunmen doing?
They're picking out areas that the people have no guns.
That's my point.
Exactly.
Well, I'm glad you.
Look, I'm glad you called.
Folks, she's exactly right about that.
It isn't complicated.
10 magazine clips are never going to be banned.
And that's what most guns have, at least as I understand it.
The vast majority of handguns, including the police, use 10-bullet clips.
There was just a serial shooter in Serbia.
It killed 14 people.
Serbia has really strict gun laws, gun laws that are more strict than what any of the current Democrat proposals are.
In the Soviet Union, guns were banned too.
But the powerful elite, they all had their armed guards in their offices, in their DACAs, in their cars, and wherever they went.
But they're special people, see?
You can't say that the president shouldn't have an armed guard.
Who do you think you are?
We have to protect the president here.
I guarantee you that if the president were under fire, we wouldn't be waiting for the shooter to reload before making a move.
But in school, where your kids are, that seems to be the standard operating procedure.
Here's a headline in a, it looks like a Washington Post story.
Teacher's resignation letter.
My profession no longer exists.
I'm going to read this and I'm going to find out if this is what it looks like.
And if it is, I'll tell you about it.
And if it's not what it looks like, you're not going to hear another word about it and I'll throw it away.
▲
Export Selection