All Episodes
Previous Next
April 29, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
38:09
April 29, 2013, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Greetings to you music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists on across the fruited plain, Rush Limbaugh, back where I am supposed to be.
Here are the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, the renowned EIB Southern Command.
Here in the mysterious, well-fortified confines of South Florida, great to have you here, folks.
It truly is.
The telephone number is 800-282-2882.
And the email address, lrushbo at eibnet.com, Washington, D.C., Saturday night, the famed White House Correspondence Dinner.
And I was not even there.
Thank you, everybody.
How do you like my new entrance music?
Rush Limbaugh warned you about this.
Second term, baby.
I was not even there, but I was.
Opening line.
Not even there.
Opening line.
Not even in the scripted remarks.
Rush Limbaugh warned you about this baby's second term, baby.
What do you think that means, Snerdly?
You know what?
You know what that means?
Folks, I'm going to tell you right now what it means.
It means Limbaugh warned you.
He warned you.
Second term.
Look out.
No stopping me.
He warned you.
It was praised.
The President of the United States praising me for daring to say what actually is.
First words out of his mouth.
Great to have you here, folks, as I say.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882.
The email address, lrushbow at EIBNet.com.
So Tim Tebow is gone from the New York Jets.
The New York media is ecstatic because he's no longer, grab audio soundback number 25.
Number 25, Tebow's gone from the—let me ask you a question.
Two years ago, Tim Tebow was the most popular.
I mean, in a certain way, this is undeniable.
Two years ago, Tim Tebow was the most popular.
I'm not saying he's the best player.
Don't anybody misunderstand me.
The most popular, the most intriguing player in the NFL.
Two years later, poof, gone.
Who was his agent?
How in the world does something like this happen?
And now the New York media is all excited.
The New York media is all excited because the first gay player of the NBA has come out.
Hey, it's a great day, folks.
I mean, this really says great things about the United States of America.
Do you understand what an enlightened, great country we now really are?
Because an NBA player has come out gay, and it's only a matter of time now before the NFL parades its first couple of gay players out there.
And the New York media is all excited that Tebow's gone because now Tebow's not going to screw up the Jets locker room with all the Jesus talk.
And in light of that, let's go back and listen to Commissioner Roger Goodell.
This is last Thursday on ESPN Radio in the morning talking about players coming out and stuff.
A couple of different issues around the league right now.
One that certainly has a lot of attention.
Several of your players have come out and supported gay marriage.
A lot of question about what would happen and if an NFL player were to come out as gay and the expectation perhaps that would happen soon.
Sorry, NFL, the NBA beat you.
Generally speaking, Mr. Commissioner, how do you feel about NFL players taking stands on potentially divisive political issues?
Now, remember now, Tebow's gone.
Jets released him.
Turns out April 15th, he was waived bye-bye.
And the New York media is ecstatic because all that mumbo jumbo about Jesus is no longer going to pollute the Jets locker room.
And this is the commissioner on tolerance and acceptance in the NFL.
I respect and admire our players for what they do on the field, but also for what they do off the field.
They're leaders.
They're thoughtful.
And they want to make a difference in their communities, and they feel passionately about this subject.
We as the league obviously embrace this also, but would be incredibly supportive of this.
And not just to the point of tolerance, but to the point of acceptance.
And I think you're hearing that from our players, and I'm proud of them for that.
Right.
So it's just a matter of time now.
The NBA player has come out.
Who's his name?
I didn't click on it.
It is Jason Collins.
He's 34 years old.
He's a center in the NBA.
I'm black and I'm gay.
And let's see.
I don't even know the team.
I'm trying to find the team.
I can't.
I don't have time to read it.
At any rate, it's happened.
Now, the NFL will not be far behind.
By the way, speaking of this, Mr. Snerdley, for those of you who don't know, the official program observer here, Bo Snerdley, is black, African-American.
He's our official Obama criticizer.
What is it that you say you're right?
Certified slave blood, certified to criticize, right?
The slave blood is certified to criticize.
So I just want to ask if you've heard of a term.
Have you heard of the black tax in the NFL?
I hadn't either until just now.
Well, I'm going to tell you what it is.
I'm reading a story here in USA Today by Jarret Bell.
Here we go again.
Two years ago, Cam Newton was slammed by somebody for having a fake smile and setting a bad example while carrying a sense of entitlement.
I'm sorry, I forgot that it's really weird here.
When a Pro Football Weekly scouting report on West Virginia quarterback Geno Smith surfaced recently containing damning proclamations by analyst Nolan Noraki about the habits of the top-rated passer in the NFL draft, it made me shake my head.
Here we go again.
Two years ago, Cam Newton was slammed by the same guy for having a fake smile and setting a bad example while carrying a sense of entitlement.
Last year, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel report, Robert Griffin III knocked by unnamed scouts for how he deals with people.
Same RG3 who'd been not any the black tax is a black quarterback who doesn't get drafted in the first round.
He gets drafted in the second round, meaning that there's so much discrimination in the NFL.
They're not going to take a black quarterback in the first round and not going to pay him first-round money.
It's in the USA today.
I'm looking at it right here.
Now another African-American quarterback has some vicious stereotypes circulating about him that people who've gotten to know Smith insist couldn't be farther from the truth.
Never mind the 42 touchdown passes behind a shaky offensive liner come the stats.
Geno Smith too has to pay a black tax.
Even in 2013, it's apparent that conditions remain in this society where analysis and opinions are seemingly clouded by racial bias.
It's easy to slap a stereotypical label on a minority from quarterbacks to the blue-collar men on the street without the benefit of a doubt.
Hopefully, NFL decision makers are beyond this.
Regardless, it's a shame that such garbage is put out there.
So apparently, there was some pre-draft scuttlebutt about Geno Smith that caused teams to delay choosing him to the second round, thereby costing him first-round money.
And because he's African-American, there's a racism, discrimination, and thus the black tax.
I know.
RG3, first round, I know.
Cam Newton, but you see, that's, I don't get this guy's point by pointing those two guys out.
Other than they both had somewhat negative comments stated about them prior to the draft.
Warren Sapp, the same thing happened to Warren Sapp.
Warren Sapp was the, now going into the Hall of Fame this year, he was a defensive tackle for the Tampa Bay Bucks.
Came out of University of Miami, and prior to the draft, the word leaked that he liked his doobies, and it cost him some draft status.
It turned out to be totally untrue.
Turned out to be totally made up.
People attach racism to this, but they forget the capitalist nature of competition.
And the thing is that just because the player is black doesn't mean he's going to be immune from the same type of psychological ploys that scouts and everybody play on other teams to try to affect who gets drafted when.
Anyway, we're never going to get past this.
As long as the assumption, well, I better be careful here.
As long as the left is going to have people continually make race allegations, racist charges, we're never going to get past this.
And I remember with the election of Obama, this stuff was supposed to end.
And I would maintain to you that it has only gotten worse.
Russian authority.
You know, now it's the Russians' fault.
The Boston marathon bombing is the Russians' fault.
That's right.
Folks, there's more going on here than the regime wants anybody to know.
I'm convinced now.
Russian authorities secretly recorded a telephone conversation in 2011 in which one of the Boston bombing suspects vaguely discussed jihad with his mother.
Officials made this public on Saturday, days after the U.S. government finally received details about the call.
In another conversation, the mother of the now-dead suspect, Tamerlin Sinaev, was recorded talking to someone in southern Russia who was under FBI investigation in an unrelated case.
The conversations are significant because had they been revealed earlier, they might have been enough evidence for the FBI to initiate a more thorough investigation of the Sunaev family.
You see, it's the Russians' fault.
We're now in the process here of shifting blame.
By the way, this is the Associated Press.
Nobody's putting the information together this way.
It looks to me like the mother, Zubaitet Sinaev, and Tamerlin were interested in international Muslim terrorism.
It appears that way.
As this piece points out, the Russians recorded a phone call between the mother and Tamerlin, as well as another call between the mother and a person whom the Russians were investigating for a supposedly unrelated terrorism case.
This mother gets around.
Now, as the article notes, mom and Tamerlin discussed the possibility of Tamerlin going to the Palestinian territories.
He told his mother he didn't speak the language there.
But an AP article over the weekend said federal officials say that Russian authorities intercepted her phone calls, including one in which she vaguely discussed jihad with her elder son.
Vaguely, vaguely discussed.
That's funny.
Vaguely.
Yeah, it just came up.
It was just sort of out there.
Vaguely discussed jihad.
It's funny how CBS News leaves out that they were talking about jihad.
It sure looks like they were talking about Tamerlin possibly doing jihad against Israel, which that's not a usual Chechen concern, one would think.
Now, the point of this is, at least to me anyway, that the mother and her son, Tamerlin, were not just angry Chechnyans.
Now, the other article here is, I got a story here from the New York Review of Books, and it's a scoop on who the mysterious Misha is.
Misha turns out to be the son of an Armenian Christian father and a Ukrainian Christian mother who came to the U.S. under asylum to escape Muslim persecution.
And yet Misha seems to have immediately converted to Islam.
The bitter irony of it all.
I don't know how hard the media tried to find Misha if they got scooped by the New York Review of Books.
I mean, how does that happen?
The New York Review of Books scoops the drive-by media in finding out who this Misha person is.
Anyway, what we're being told is that there's just a couple of young kids that are very American.
I mean, if you look at what these guys were doing, they were going to school.
They were going to high school.
They were sending notes to other students.
You've seen on TV over the weekend where the friends of the terrorists were talking what great guys they were.
I mean, everything is being done here to create the impression that this is a, like Biden said, he says, knockoff jihadis.
This is just really a one-off kind of incident.
There was nothing, not part of any plan here.
There was not part of any grand jihad.
They are not part of a worldwide jihad aimed at America and Western societies or Western cultures.
Just a couple of kids, you know, out for a prank weekend.
But that doesn't wash with me.
And too many of these things that have been happening, you have the Times Square bomber, you're the shoe bomber, you've had Nadal Sassoon, whatever his name is at the Fort Hood Army Base.
And all these, nothing to see here.
There's a lot going on here.
And everybody involved trying to say, it wasn't our fault, the Russians.
Russians didn't tell us this.
The FBI knew, but they didn't know.
And they weren't allowed to know.
And the CIA didn't know what the FBI knew.
And the FBI wasn't allowed to.
I thought we got rid of all these walls.
After 9-11, I thought this ability to connect the dots was done.
Apparently not.
We're not able to connect the dots still on any of this.
I got to take a quick time out just looking at the broadcast clock.
We got more, as we always do at this point in the program.
Sit tight.
Back with it after this.
Hi, great to have you.
Welcome back, Rushland Boy and the EIB Network.
Folks, over the weekend, I came across a very lengthy piece in the New York Times, and I was directed to it because I don't read the New York Times.
I was directed to somebody, sent me a note about it.
You really need to check this out.
The only way I ever see anything in the New York Times, if somebody says, check it out.
Anyway, it was a story about a social psychologist, sociologist, famed clinical sociologist.
His name is Diedrich Stoppel.
It's S-T-A-P-E-L.
Diederich Stoppel.
He's a Dutch social scientist.
He was renowned for his surveys, his research, his clinical data.
And it turns out that everything he did was a lie.
Every research project, every published result was a fraud.
The guy had a set of desires that he wanted people to think about society, about race, about the way people interact with each other.
And he set about creating false studies that never happened, publishing the results within his peer group.
He was well known, highly respected, and the guy is a total fraud.
I never heard of him before this.
The story was written by somebody who writes for Science magazine.
And they were devastated by this guy.
And they were worried about what it means for the entire field of social psychology.
55 different studies and research papers and all of it 100% of it was lies generated by his political preferences.
He literally made things up from scratch and reported that exhaustive hours of clinical research, interviews of thousands of people took place when he never talked to a single person.
And my guess is that this guy is the tip of the iceberg in this kind of stuff.
I'll have some details for you when we get back right after this.
And we're back.
Great to have you.
Rush Lynn Boy, as usual, I have my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Folks, stick with me on this.
This is, well, it's fascinating, but it's also fundamentally, crucially important.
I want to go back to November 4th of 2011 on this program.
Back then, I, your host, as a descriptive tool created for your visualizing the four corners of deceit in our culture that all together combined suffice to lie to students and the American people.
The four corners of deceit are government, academia, science, and the media.
One of the things that I pointed out back on this program on November 4th of 2011, a year and a half ago, is that one of the things the left in this country attempts to do is to codify elements of their ideology as science.
Liberalism is science.
And therefore it's irrefutable.
Science is what is.
Science allows for no disagreement.
Once science says something, then that something is.
And you can't refute it and you can't disagree with it.
You can, but you would be a kook.
And this is one of the techniques that the left has.
Global warming is nothing more than the left's political ideology.
It's nothing more than one of the planks of their grand design, but they codify it as science, so it's indisputable.
I'm talking about the way that they interact and impose things on the low information crowd.
Global warming, many other things are attempted and achieved this way.
Codify liberalism as science, therefore making it irrefutable, making it inarguable.
But in the case of global warming, it's failed.
Everybody knows it's a hoax.
Well, not everybody, but a growing number do.
Now, up until the global warming hoax, science had almost total credibility.
If somebody was a scientist and said something, it was automatically believed.
Just the way, by the way, journalists used to be believed.
Make no mistake, there's a very important major story that we touched on back in November of 2011.
And it was this Dutch professor, Dutch professor faked data for years, a prominent Dutch social psychologist who once claimed to have shown that the very act of thinking about eating meat makes people behave more selfishly, has been found to have faked data throughout much of his career.
We had this story a year and a half ago on this fake Dutch social psychologist.
His name is Diederik Stapel.
And he did a study, not making this up.
He did a study where he said that he conclusively proved, studying thousands of people, that the very act of thinking about eating meat made people behave more selfishly.
This guy during his career was lionized.
He was treated as a hero.
Quote, in one of the worst cases of scientific fraud on record in the Netherlands, a review committee has found that the University of Tilburg professor Dieterich Stoppel systematically falsified data to achieve the results he wanted, just like what happened at the University of East Anglia on climate prediction and research.
They fired Stoppel.
They planned to file fraud charges against him.
Stoppel acknowledged in a statement that all the accusations were true.
He said he manipulated study data.
He fabricated investigations.
And the story in the New York Times, it was written by a guy from Science magazine, they finally caught up to this and they're devastated because this guy was a hero.
This guy, let me give you an example.
He designed a study to test whether individuals are inclined to consume more when primed with the idea of capitalism.
Remember now, consumption, bad.
So he and his research partner developed a questionnaire that subjects would have to fill out under two subtly different conditions.
In one condition, an M ⁇ M-filled coffee mug with the word capitalism printed on it would sit on a table in front of the subject.
In the other, the mug's word would be different, a jumble of the letters in capitalism.
Although the questionnaire included questions relating to capitalism and consumption, like whether big cars are preferable to small ones, the study's key measure was the amount of M ⁇ Ms eaten by the subject while answering these questions.
Stoppel and his colleague hypothesized that subjects facing a mug printed with capitalism would end up eating more M ⁇ Ms. This guy was a socialist and he was out to prove that capitalism was inherently bad because it made people selfish.
People consumed more than their share.
So he had a student arrange to get the mugs and the M ⁇ Ms and later load them into his car along with a box of questionnaires and drove off, saying that he was going to run the study at a hassgruel in Rotterdam where a friend worked as a teacher.
But he didn't go to Rotterdam.
He dumped most of the questionnaires into a trash bin outside campus.
At home, using his own scale, he weighed a mug filled with M ⁇ Ms, sat down to simulate the experiment.
While filling out the questionnaire, he ate the M ⁇ Ms at what he believed was a reasonable rate, weighed the mug again to estimate the amount a subject could be expected to eat.
He built the rest of the data around that number, said he gave away some of the M ⁇ M stash and ate a lot of it himself.
He said, I was the only subject in these studies.
That's just one.
There were 55 of these.
There was another study where he attempted to explain racism by having black people sit in filthy neighborhoods.
This is what he said.
He had black people sit in filthy neighborhoods and people walk through it and make associations about black people and filth and this kind of stuff.
It never happened.
He never did it.
It never, ever happened.
He made it all up.
He was an academic star in the Netherlands, the author of several well-regarded studies on human attitudes and behavior.
The study I just talked about was this.
It was published in Science magazine.
He did it at the Utrecht train station.
He showed that a trash-filled environment tended to bring out racist tendencies in individuals.
He didn't do it.
It didn't happen.
A total conmad.
A total fraud.
Folks, the importance of this is that he is the tip of the iceberg is my guess.
Because I have a companion story here.
It's a Yahoo finance story.
The headline, universities getting the most government money.
The federal government gave out more than $40 billion for research and development to universities across the country in fiscal 2011.
Universities depend heavily on federal funding, i.e. tax dollars, i.e. grant money, i.e. giveaways, with many of the top programs relying on the government for more than 60% of their R ⁇ D budgets.
As a result, many research program directors fear the federal cuts promoted by the sequester will hurt future funding.
The best thing we can do is stop funding all of this because most of it is fraudulent or a good percentage of it is fraudulent.
Who is in universities?
Left-wingers, liberals.
What are they doing?
Promoting liberalism.
They're not teaching anything.
They are programming people.
They have their political conclusions.
They want certain things to be certain ways.
They have the power of science behind them.
They simply create circumstances in their minds.
They write peer-reviewed articles that indicate studied research and data and so forth.
We really need to start questioning how much of all of this clinical social psychology that we have been told is irrefutable science is nothing but fraud.
You know, I probably have said this so many times you're tired of hearing it.
I really do wish that more people were able to understand exactly who a person is when they learn that the person is liberal.
It matters.
Because to a liberal, the fact that he or she is liberal is the most important thing about them.
Not that they're Jewish, not that they're gay if they are, not that they're straight, not that they're Presbyterian, not that they're athlete.
Liberalism is first and foremost, it is an activist way of life.
It is an indoctrination way of life.
It is a way of life not open to debate or argument or discussion or any.
It's just what is, and they exist purely and simply to dominate.
And they do not care, obviously, whether they do it honestly or not.
So here is one of the rising stars, or one of them no longer, one of the biggest stars of social psychology.
Sociologist, social scientist.
It's an utter fraud.
We reported on it a year and a half ago.
Science Magazine and the New York Times have just picked up on it.
But these people are everywhere.
They're not just in science.
They're teaching math.
They're teaching everything.
They're in Hollywood.
They are in politics.
They are Democrats.
It is striking how much of who they are and what they believe is fraudulent.
And this article, New York Times, is amazing because it's sympathetic.
Why did he do it?
Oh, it's so unfortunate.
They actually have the guy in his car driving to the train station in Utrecht where this imaginary thing took place.
He's with the guy writing the story for the New York Times Science Magazine.
They go to this area of the Utrecht train station and the fraud, the con man, Diederik Stoppel, looking at it.
No, no, I just, I can't find it here.
This didn't happen.
It just didn't happen.
And I'm stunned reading this.
They actually went to the site of something that never happened together.
The author of the story and the con man, they go to the site of a fraudulent study and the guy looks around hoping against hope that maybe it did happen.
And he'd just forgotten and he was looking for something at the train station to remind him that his research project actually did happen.
No, it didn't happen.
They portray this guy as a lost liberal, much like the Unabomber was.
So sad.
Such a brilliant mind.
Oh, what a waste.
And we're dealing with an utter fraud.
A phony.
Simply a liar.
A lazy liar.
And by the way, he didn't just do this himself.
He incorporated his doctoral students into all of this fraud.
All the people that worked with this guy, all of this guy's students who helped him along the way, they participated in the fraud, some unknowingly, amazingly.
He's destroyed not only his own career, but the careers of others.
And so the effort is underway now to make it look like this.
He ain't just an aberration.
He's just a lone wolf.
Don't judge all of social psychology this way.
Well, I think we must.
We now just have too much evidence.
Global warming, a hoax, a fraud, whatever data.
Make it up if we need to to have it fit our conclusion.
Quick time out.
We'll be back with more after this.
You're guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, tumult, decay, fraud, and deceit, and even the good times.
Rush, Limbaugh, and the EIB network.
Folks, these frauds get their money to do this fraudulent research via government grant around the world, wherever they are.
They get either from nonprofits, from the government, from donations, or what have you.
The fraud and the deceit are everywhere, and it's always a fraud and a deceit on the left.
Well, let me read to you what I was just describing from the New York Times about this con man, Diederich Stapel.
On his return trip to Tilburg, where he lives, Stapel stopped at the train station in Utrecht, the site of his study on racism.
This was the site of his study linking racism to environmental untidiness, supposedly conducted during a strike by sanitation workers.
In the experiment described in the paper published by Stoppel, white volunteers were invited to fill out a questionnaire in a seat among a row of six chairs.
The row was empty except for the first chair, which was taken by a black occupant or a white one.
Stoppel and his co-author claimed that white volunteers tended to sit farther away from the black person when the surrounding area was strewn with garbage.
Now, looking around during rush hour, as people streamed on and off the platforms, Stoppel could not find a location that matched the conditions described in his experiment.
No, Diederik, this is ridiculous, he told himself at last.
You really need to give it up.
In other words, he went back to the site of a fraud, went back to the site of something that never happened there, with the writer in tow looking for the place that he made up to see if it could possibly be real.
Well, he had this writer with him, but he couldn't find the location that matched the conditions described in his experiment because it didn't exist.
He goes back trying to find some place he made up, and he's got the writer for Science Magazine with him.
And they're desperately hoping that he was sick and that what he did actually happened and that he'd just forgotten it.
Anything but fraud.
Oh, no.
But they couldn't find it.
So he finally said to himself, to the writer, Diederik, this is ridiculous.
You just really need to give it up.
This guy could have a great future as an American journalist, but I don't know what else.
It just boggles the mind.
after this.
So here's a guy who actually wants people to think that if you eat meat, you are more prone to violence and selfishness.
He...
He thinks that, and he wants everybody to believe it, so he makes up a research study using thousands of people to do it.
And how many people end up thinking this as a result in his world?
▲
Export Selection