All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 18, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:50
December 18, 2013, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24 7 Podcast.
Greetings, my friends.
Great to have you here as we kick off another three hours of broadcast excellence.
Hosted by me.
Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man, real truth detector, doctor of democracy.
You are listened or listening to the the most listened and the most talked about radio talk show anywhere out there.
And they just can't let go of the Pope business out there.
They just can't let go of it.
I'm trying to walk away.
I'm trying to move on.
They keep sucking me back in.
Welcome, folks.
Thrilled and delighted to be with you once again here.
Merry Christmas.
Happy holidays to one and all.
The telephone number.
If you want to be on the program is 800-282-2882, the email address, L Rushmore at EIB net.com.
The polling data not good for President Obama today.
We've got some fascinating sound bites coming up from CBS where Frank Lunch went over there to explain focus group data, polling data on Obama Obama care.
It isn't good.
And the CBS anchors practically beg Lunz to explain their poll and to tell them that it's going to be okay for Obama, but he doesn't have any good news for him.
It's funny.
Babawa.
Baba Waba, did you hear about this?
Baba Wawa actually admitted that she's let down because she and everybody that she knows.
We all thought Obama was the Messiah.
That she said it.
I've got it in the audio sound bites.
It's coming up.
Uh I mean, we ladies, let's see, uh the polling Bill Robertson.
Phil Robertson, Phil Robertson, one of the stars of the uh Duck Dynasty.
Have you heard it?
Have you heard about this snerd lady watched Duck Dynasty?
You ever seen him?
Have you watched Duck Dynasty Dawn Brian?
You guys seen Duck Dynasty.
I hadn't either.
I bought a couple of episodes on iTunes just to watch it when I saw that it was a big uh ratings deal, but I haven't seen enough of it to know.
Anyway, Phil Robertson's out there, and with what he has said, we got a gay community update coming later on the program today.
New York Times CBS news poll, broad skepticism on health care.
One third of Americans think that Obamacare will improve the system.
Two-thirds do not.
There is panic.
That's what the CBS people are talking to Frank Lunz about at Watchdog.org, Florida watchdog, lost in translation.
Once supportive Hispanics are turning their backs on Obama.
And Obamacare.
They were among Obama's best supporters, but support for the president and his signature health scheme is quickly dying among Hispanics.
Recent Gallup polls showed that Obama's approval rating among Hispanics is down 23% now to 52% in November from 75% in December of last year.
And the numbers have fallen even further once you got into December.
So Obama's probably a little bit below 52, maybe below 50% with Hispanics now on that overall approval and Obamacare.
You remember the controversy that came up with uh Meghan Kelly when she said that Santa Claus is white.
Yeah, and and Jesus, but but we'll stick with Santa Claus for this, because there was a teacher out there who uh really got this ball rolling.
It's an AP story here from Rio Rancho, New Mexico, a suburban Albuquerque teacher who told a black student that Santa Claus is white has been placed on paid administrative leave.
Rio Rancho Screw District spokeswoman, Kim Vesley confirmed yesterday that the teacher is out of the classroom while the incident is being investigated.
The teacher's comments came after students at Cleveland Hascruel were told that they could come to class dressed as Santa, an elf, or a reindeer.
Michael Rouget says that when his ninth grade son Christopher arrived with a Santa hat and a beard, the teacher asked, Don't you know Santa Claus is white?
Why are you wearing that?
The incident happened the same week that Megan Kelly said that both Sandy Claus and Jesus were white.
Okay, so a teacher who said Santa is white and placed on administrative leave while an investigation is being conducted.
Now what would happen if if if somebody if a teacher said, well, wait a minute, Martin Luther King was black.
Would that would nothing would that be controversial?
Why is it I mean Santa Claus is white?
We just we we discussed this.
In every portrayal of Santa Claus since the beginning of Santa Claus, Santa Claus is white.
You realize what this says about where we are in our culture.
I mean, this is this it's a fact.
It's it's just what is.
Oh, but apparently it isn't.
It's now controversial.
We're gonna suspend a teacher, we're gonna do an investigation to find out what's behind this.
So personal insult to the young man.
The young man shows up at Santa Claus tears, you can't do that.
Santa Claus is white.
Who do you think you are?
Well, it is getting absurd.
It is just it's just that this is this is worse than political correctness.
This is Stalinism.
This is this is going way beyond political correctness.
Well, but it but what yeah, you can say if you don't like that, just don't do it again.
You can admonish the teacher if you wanted, hey, you know that we're not cool.
So but I mean, that that's not what they're going after.
That they're just this is a door open, make a point about race.
It's just absurd.
That's why that's why if it what it the point it makes about race is that America is racist, that Santa Claus is an imaginary figure, he doesn't exist, and the white power structure made him white because there are a bunch of supremacists, and it makes everybody who's not white feel inferior and insignificant and left out, and we're not gonna do that anymore.
So Santa Claus, a make-believe figure, you say he's white, that's racism.
That's what it means.
That's what's behind it all.
Well, okay, that may be too.
Snurdly is shouting at me that the message is that you you you you conservative, you can't talk about race unless we grant you permission.
You can't bring it up.
You can't say what you think unless we grant you permission.
How do we know the teacher wasn't attacking Santa Claus by calling him white?
How do we know that there's so much here that we that we don't know?
Teacher investigation.
But what if you say, is it controversial?
Say, hey, wait a minute, you can't do that.
Martin Luther King was black.
I mean, this is just absurd, folks.
It's gone, it's it's gone beyond any rhyme or reason.
Um the the media, by the way, and I'm a little story on this too.
By the way, we were the first to observe this.
And it's in a blog out there, and it somebody sent me, Rush, rush, look at this.
This is so smart.
And I looked at it and I said, Yeah, I said this a couple of weeks ago, maybe even three now.
The media is turning poor Obama into a victim.
Somebody, somebody search Rush Limbaugh.com and find for me when I first made that observation or point that Obama and the left, the media's turning him into a victim.
He's somebody we should feel sorry for.
It's all part of the limbaugh theorem.
Just in the last three weeks or month.
I'll get the answer to that very quickly.
There's been a study that was that was conducted.
And wanted to find out what uh what's better, happiness or being right.
Is it better to be right than to be happy?
That was here's what happened on this.
It was part of an unusual experiment, spearmint for those of you in Rio Linda.
The husband, yes, this is a study of marital relationships.
Is it better to be right than to be happy?
Now hang on here, just hang on.
You might you might be in for a little bit of a surprise here.
It's part of an unusual experiment.
The husband was instructed in the survey, in the test, in the laboratory test, the husband was instructed to quote, agree with his wife's every opinion and request without complaint, and to keep doing that even if he believed that the female participant, his wife was wrong.
This is all in a report on the on the research published yesterday by the British Medical Journal.
And I once spoke to Charlton Heston.
I think he was the first interview for the Limbaugh Letter.
And at the time I spoke to Chuck, as he became known to his close friends.
He'd been married for 50 years, right around the time we were doing the interview, and I asked him what the secret was.
He said, I mastered four words.
I said, What are they?
Honey, I was wrong.
I said, that's it.
He said, yep.
If you want to stay married 50 years, you learn to say at every moment of strife, honey, I was wrong.
Well, that's what they're putting to the test here.
The husband and wife were helping a trio of doctors test their theory that pride and stubbornness get in the way of good mental health.
In their own medical practices in New Zealand, they had observed patients leading unnecessarily stressful lives by wanting to be right rather than happy.
If these patients could just let go of that need to prove to everybody else that they were right, would they end up being happier?
That's what they wanted to test.
So enter this husband that they found.
They based this, the starting point was the assumption that men would rather be happy than be right.
And so this guy, as part of the test, was told to agree with his wife at all times, in all cases, no matter what she was right.
She was not in on it.
The wife had no idea that this was a test, that this was a research project.
Based on the assumption that women would rather be right than be happy, the doctors decided not to tell the wife why her husband was all of a sudden so agreeable.
Because one day the husband was agreeing with everything.
Whatever she said, whatever request, whatever command, he did it, whatever opinion she expressed, he agreed.
And they wanted to find out if that would promote marital harmony.
If the man, notice upon whom the burden falls here, if the man would simply subordinate what he thinks is right to what his wife thinks is right, theory is everybody'd be happier.
So they put it to the test.
Both spouses were asked to rate their quality of life on a scale of one to ten, ten being the happiest, at the start of the experiment.
Spearmint, for those of you in Rio Linda.
And then again on day six, they were supposed to record and rate their quality of life on the one to ten scale.
It's not clear how long the experiment, spearmint, for those of you in Rio Linda, was intended to last, but it came to a screeching halt on day twelve.
By then, the male participant, the husband, found the female participant to be increasingly critical of everything he did, despite the fact he was agreeing with her every time something came up.
He was doing everything she wanted.
Every request from take out the trash to do the ditches to why don't you do whatever she was always right, and he agreed with it, and there wasn't one challenge.
And she became increasingly critical of him as time went on.
It did not promote the harmony that they all expected.
It did just the exact opposite.
She became so disagreeable, so critical, that he couldn't take it anymore.
He made his wife a cup of tea, and on day 12, he revealed that they were part of a research study that she hadn't been let in on.
And that led the researchers to terminate the study.
Whole thing's blown when the wife knows what's going on, the whole research project is blown.
Over the 12 days of the experiment, spearmint for those of you in Rio Linda, the husband's quality of life plummeted from a baseline score of seven all the way down to three.
The wife started out as an eight, rose to 8.5 by day six.
She had no desire to share her quality of life with the researchers on day 12.
By day 12, this couple practically hated each other.
The husband had no wife had lost all respect for the husband.
The husband was miserable.
And remember, the test was he's just to agree with her.
Because the premise here, you know, if you take a lot of friction out of life, forget about being right, forget about being dominant, just whatever.
Just be bipartisan.
Just try to make the other person like you.
Don't be disagreeable at all.
Don't have any arguments.
Don't have any bickering.
Whatever the other side wants, agree with them.
Compromise.
It led to utter disaster and near divorce in 12 days.
Because the wife, rather than being made happy by a constantly agreeable husband, began to nag him even more.
No matter what he did, it wasn't good enough.
No matter how strenuously he agreed, she didn't believe it.
No matter what was going on, every effort the husband made to remove any friction whatsoever, all it did was add it.
The scientific team was able to draw some preliminary conclusions.
It seems that being right is a cause of happiness.
And agreeing with what one disagrees with is a cause of unhappiness.
Now there are real huge, it sounds like a funny thing to do.
There are huge lessons here, I think.
I gotta take a break, however.
I wish I didn't have to take a breath.
I don't want to re- I'm in the middle of really what's a profundity here, but I have to take the break, so sit tight.
It doesn't fly, but you know what it does?
It will automatically parallel park itself.
It will.
It's got a built-in female driver.
It will automatically parallel park itself.
And you know what else it does?
Honest to God.
It has sensors that sense bumps in the road ahead of it, and it adjusts the suspension before you get to the bumps to be able to handle it.
It's got all kinds of high-tech gizmo stuff like that.
Yeah, it's really uh really cool.
Now, here, folks, here look at this this is a little harmless thing that they did with man and wife here, but this thing has this this little research survey has all kinds of extrapolational meetings.
Because what did they survey?
They they survey, okay, let's just try to get along, whatever.
Just subordinate, compromise what you think, you know, broom it.
If if you have to subordinate what you think is right to something you know is not right, will that make you happier?
Did you agree with somebody that's important to you, like your wife in this case?
No matter what you're wrong.
No matter what you compromise, no matter the wife practically wanted to divorce the guy after 12 days.
Now let's expand that to the Republicans and Democrats in Washington.
The Republicans are subordinating everything they believe in for bipartisanship and for compromise and for reaching across the aisle and for doing deals.
And what's happening?
They're losing their base.
The Democrats don't respect them.
They're laughing at them and mocking them.
They're not getting anything done, and they're not really gaining a whole lot of respect.
I think it's fascinating.
And yeah, here I gotta take another timeout.
Sit tight.
Okay.
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh.
And half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
So Snartley tells me that uh he got a text from a uh a uh info babe, a female infobaby knows who wanted to know if the survey was done by an all-male research team.
Who cares?
The results are the results.
No, no, no, no, you it doesn't matter.
The opening premise was universal.
The opening premise was what defines happiness?
Being right or being agreeable?
What's more important to people?
Being right or being happy.
And of course, the premise is that sometimes you can be happy by acknowledging that you're not right even when you are.
And so they put it to the test in a marriage.
But you can apply this, I think, to any relationship, large or small.
That's my point here.
So they had this just a review.
They told, they did not clue the wife into what was happening.
They just told the husband, whatever happens, she's right.
You don't have to say you're wrong.
You don't have to just she's right.
Whatever she wants you to do, you do it.
The assumption is she knows everything, and you are just a willing servant because that's what will make her happy.
But if you sit around and get into arguments with her over who is right, you're not gonna be happy.
That's what they wanted to test.
And they found out in this test that the guy acquiescing to his wife on everything, she became more miserable than he was.
She lost respect for in day 12.
They were practically ready for a divorce, and they ended the research study was supposed to go on much longer than that.
And what they found was that the guy not standing up for himself, this is not a male-female thing.
I mean, it is in this particular thing, and uh the in the arena they tested a marriage.
But you take this to Washington, folks, and it it applies.
What do you have?
You have the Republican Party convinced that the world hates them and that they can't be happy standing for what they stand for.
They've got to agree with the Democrats because the majority of people, this is the premise, support the Democrats.
The majority of people support big government, the majority of people support the welfare state.
You Republicans know this, you may as well just finally acknowledge it and agree to it and portray yourselves as supportive of it.
And that's what they're doing.
That's what bipartisanship is compromising what you believe, bipartisanship as defined by the establishment.
Bipartisanship is not compromise.
Compromise is defined as Republicans caving on everything.
The Republicans are never right in this research.
If we extrapolate this to Washington politics, Republicans are never right, but they're trying to be happy.
Republicans are never right, and as they're trying to be loved.
The Republicans are told that they're hated because they're too extreme.
They argue too much, they're too partisan, they're unwavering, blah, blah, blah, all that.
And the Republicans are then told the way you're gonna get along, the way you're gonna win elections again is by agreeing with us.
You've got to stop these things you believe in.
You've got to get rid of this business of closing down the border.
You've You've got to get rid of this rigid position of women that you've got.
You've got to get rid of all these things you believe.
And the Republican Party, by golly by gosh, is in the process of doing that.
Are they happier?
Are their voters happier?
Do the Democrats like them any more?
Is there really bipartisanship going on?
Is there genuine compromise going?
No.
The Republicans are losing the respect of the Democrats, like the husband lost the respect of his wife.
The Democrats don't respect them.
They think they can kick them around and get whatever they want out of them.
The Republicans are running around doing everything they can to make the Democrats think they agree with them, and it's their own party, the Republicans say they've got problem with Tea Party people.
I mean, it's right in front of us here.
And so the result is standing for what you think is right is a is a more substantive route to happiness than caving on what you believe just to get along, which is really what this was about.
Whatever you have to do to get along, and in this case, give up what you believe, and that's how you'll be happy.
That's what they wanted to test.
And it turned out that when the husband gave up his core, he wasn't respected, he wasn't happy, and neither was his wife.
And I mean I maintain to you that this is exactly what's happening in Washington.
And it's the same trick.
The Democrats are responsible for this belief system that the Democrats uh that the Republicans are hated and despised because they're on the wrong side of all these issues.
And they're extreme, and their base is a bunch of uh looney tune uh kook extremists.
And you guys are never going to win another election as long as you keep standing for whatever it is standing for getting rid of the deficit, you want to cut taxes, and you understand people are gonna hate you.
The Republicans are trying to make everybody who hates them like them.
And they're and in the process, they are abandoning their core principles and beliefs in the hope that they'll be liked, loved, there won't be any friction, and instead, what is the real result?
It's worse than ever.
Republicans are getting shellacked on everything.
There is no respect, there's no bipartisanship going on, there isn't any compromise.
You have the Republicans here playing the role of the husband, just subordinating everything he believes for the sake of happiness or contentment.
So don't focus on the results here strictly in this marriage.
I think the results are applicable throughout any relationship you as an individual or a group you're a member of could have with another group.
I don't think there's any question about it.
Bottom line, what's the lesson?
You believe it, stand up for it.
If you're right, by God, stand up for it.
Believing in yourself is a route to happiness.
Confidence in yourself is a route to happiness.
Feeling embarrassed about yourself or having subordinate who you are because there's something wrong with you, no way you're gonna be happy doing that.
And that's the lesson here.
If if a guy says, look, we're running a little test here, see how well you get along with your wife, you are always wrong, no matter what.
And you've got to shelve what you really believe, just put it aside for the interest of compromise and comedy.
And so if it doesn't work, just doesn't work because nobody can be happy.
Nobody can be happy not being who they are, unless they're psychotic, which does describe some on the left.
But I mean, you get the point here.
It's it's far more satisfying to be who you are.
Find out who that is, stand up for it.
Be proud of who you are, proud of what you believe in, because you know it's right, and do try to persuade people.
And you're gonna be much happier, and you're gonna be much more self satisfied, and you're gonna end up being much more confident.
Because the bottom line is that that compromising who you are, giving away who you are, subordinating who you are, is not gonna get you any more respect or any respect, and it isn't gonna make you happy, and it isn't gonna solve any problem in any relationship.
Unless you're dealing with somebody pointing a gun at you.
You can always come up with exceptions to rules here.
But in the civilized ebb and flow of things, I don't think there's any question about it.
Now, got a uh post here at legal insurrection.
And the poster to writer is somebody called themselves NeoCon, but it is actually just a post pointing to something in the Washington Post.
And they point to the headline and they say, look what's going to happen here.
Look what's going to happen.
They're going to make Obama a victim.
That's how they're going to explain this.
And the Washington Post headline, Obama suffers most from year of turmoil poll fines.
It's a Washington Post ABC poll.
And the article goes on to describe the precipitous decline in Obama's standing in the approval numbers and how that is causing Obama to suffer.
Not people who've lost their health insurance.
No.
Not people who are going to, not people who've lost their jobs, not people who can't pay off student loans, not people who are trapped because of the Obama economic decision.
No, no, no, no.
We're not worried about them.
Oh my God, oh my God, Obama.
Oh, Obama is suffering more than anybody from this.
This is perverted and it is sick, and it is their way of dealing with this.
And I went and researched my website, and it's all the way back to October the 16th.
Where I first made reference to this fact that the Democrats, the left, the media, were going to start portraying Obama as a victim.
It was a I was playing off of a piece written by Dr. Keith Abloh, who was a psychiatrist or a psychologist or something.
He is a bald-headed guy, and he's on Fox quite a bit.
And the title of his piece was Abloh's Diagnosis Shows Us Why the Limbaugh Theorem Works.
That's that was actually my headline at Rush Limbaugh.com.
And what Ablo did with with the piece that he had written, what he was talking about, uh, it attached the word victim.
Obama is a victim of America.
So are all African Americans, victims of America.
When you're victim, you get sympathy, and they make accommodation for you, and everybody feels sorry for you.
They don't want to criticize you, and that's why they're doing it.
I mean, how can you criticize the president?
The poor guy's a victim.
Oh my God, he is a wonderful idea.
He wanted to help so many people.
He wanted everybody to have health care, and he got sabotaged by a bad website.
He got sabotaged by a bunch of private sector people ripping him off, setting up the website, and he got, oh, poor Obama got screwed.
He didn't know that was going on.
He didn't know this was going on.
He didn't know that was so poor, unfortunate Obama's.
How can you criticize the guy when he's so victimized?
That's.
And I just want to get it out there.
I warned you back on October 16th.
That's what was coming.
And right here it is in the Washington Post today.
Obama suffers most year of turmoil.
Yes, yes, I guess I've got this pajama guy.
Before you start laughing at that, folks, the latest tweet from Organizing for America.
Have you seen this?
Oh, you haven't seen this.
It's it it if some metrosexual, I mean, even it that's even dubious, in his pajamas, holding a cup of hot chocolate in two hands.
And the uh the tweet is how do you how do you plan to spend the cold days of December?
Wear pajamas, drink hot chocolate, and talk about getting health insurance.
And there's a hashtag get talking, and you're supposed to spread this around, and this is how Obama is trying to organize his troops, spend the month of December thinking about talking about getting health insurance.
And the guy they're using here, uh uh it could be Rachel Meadow.
It could be Fred Slobodnik.
I mean, it c it really, we could be you looking at a eunuch here.
I mean, it's it it's it's unreal.
It's incredible.
It's a sexless individual.
No matter, you know, what whatever your tastes are, this guy, this woman, whoever it is, can satisfy you.
I'm not I've got I could show you on the dental cam.
I probably should do that now that I'm describing it.
But but everybody sent this to me like, go rush, this is incredible.
Can you see this pajama boy?
Republicans ought to be tweeting this out left and right.
I just want to warn you people about something.
This is no different than that Julia ad that we all laughed at and mocked and made fun of and re we kind of got our clocks cleaned on that ad.
Just like we were shocked to learn a lot of things, we found that a lot of women really identified with that Julia ad and thought that ad was them.
They didn't think it was funny.
They didn't think it was insulting.
They thought it was who they are.
The Julia ad was an abject embarrassment.
It portrayed a woman incompetent, barely able to get out of bed without the government helping her, unable to go to bed unless the government gave her birth control.
There was never a man involved, yet she had a baby, she had a little garden, she lived in a government housing complex.
We all laughed at it, and we thought, boy, this is going to show people what Obama's all about.
And remember, folks, there were a boatload of people that ate it up and dug it.
So before you start thinking that this pajama guy ad is something negative for Obama, just remember the Julia ad.
Now I know it's a different era now.
It's a year later and things have changed somewhat, but I'm I'm not convinced that this is not an accurate portrayal of the Obama base.
I think this may be who they are and how they see themselves, people.
Hi.
Welcome back.
El Rushbo serving humanity.
And as usual, half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair.
Okay, I'm gonna turn the dinno cam on.
I've zoomed it in during the break, and I'm gonna show you pajama boy.
For those of you who haven't seen this, it's a tweet with I mean, an asexual.
What do you call those people?
Well, no, that's a behavior.
There's a name.
Uh no, not Metro sex.
I'm thinking of eunuch or uh uh satyr martyr.
It's none of that.
I think I can't think of what it is.
There is a name for this.
And this this this it is sitting there in in black and red checked pajamas.
How do you plan to spend the cold days of December?
Wear pajamas, drink hot chocolate, and talk about getting health insurance.
Okay, here it is as I turn on the ditto cam.
You see that.
That is uh think it's a guy, but it can be whatever you want it to be.
Androgynous, there you go.
That's exactly what I was looking for.
Androgynous.
It could be Rachel Maddow, if you wanted it to be.
Uh, it could be Chris Hayes if you wanted it to be.
It could be John Podesta if you wanted it to be.
It could be couldn't be Bill Clinton, that's one thing.
Could not be Clint Eastwood, couldn't be John Wayne.
It's not Bob Beckle.
It's not me.
It's not Mr. Snerdley.
But the point is, folks, this is their target for getting young people to sign up for Obamacare.
This is the target, and I just we'll look at this and think, oh my God.
We will think OMG, all caps, exclamation point, oh my God, we'll look at this.
And then I I'm just cautioning you, remember the Julia ad because we had the same reaction.
And the Julia ad was a huge score for the regime with its target audience.
Women.
And this could be too.
But it's a different.
We've had a year go by.
I mean, the the where the Julia ad came out, there was no bloom off the rose.
Obama still was the Messiah.
Nobody had lost their health insurance.
The Republicans were, it was thought, still Conducting this war on women.
Well idiot jackals out there still believe that.
So it just.
I mean, you can't.
You cannot look at that and not cringe and laugh and Oh my gosh, my country?
This?
Oh no.
No, my my point is if if you laugh too publicly, too loudly, too publicly about Pajama Boy here, you're gonna you're gonna create sympathy for this poor little guy, and you turn him into a victim.
And a Julia ad worked.
I mean, and it it was huge, folks.
It it was a big score for the Democrats, but partly because it was a cartoon.
Everybody loves cartoons.
▲
Export Selection