All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 8, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:21
January 8, 2014, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, we got confirmation.
December 3rd, there's a Texas political news site called the Quorum Report.
December 3rd.
This AP story is uh last couple of days on immigration.
The Quorum Report sources.
Boehner tells Texas Bidness interests that immigration reform votes will be held after the filing deadlines have passed.
And from the article, various Texas business interests have told Quorum Report that John Boehner has been telling them that he'll start holding immigration votes not long after the filing deadline has passed.
That would make it after April.
This, of course, runs counter to conventional wisdom that says immigration votes in the House will wait until 2014.
So I mention this only because I held out the possibility that the AP is the AP, and they're, you know, they're devoted to advancing the Obama agenda.
It could have been making it up or taking liberties with it.
But here is a source, Quorum Report, Texas political news site back on December 3rd, which basically says the same thing.
Greetings, folks.
Welcome back.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network.
Our telephone number, if you want to be on the program is 800-282-288-2, the email address, Lrushboard EIBNet.com.
Now some of you probably say, look, I've been listening.
What do you what about the Gates book?
What about the this is what I mean about the soap opera.
I talked about the Gates book.
It was the first thing.
There's not a whole lot to say about it.
I said what needs to be said inside of five minutes.
Now, in the interests of communication, and making sure that everybody in the audience hears, I will say again at some point what I said about the Gates book.
But we are we're moving on here.
Basically, real quickly.
No, I'm gonna wait.
I'll just it's it's I just don't know why anybody's surprised.
That's the umbrella under which every opinion I have on the Gates book falls.
I mean, who are we talking about here?
We're talking about Liberal Democrat, Barack Obama, Liberal Democrat Party.
What are we talking about?
The idea that they wouldn't be supportive of the military is not news.
The idea that what they do is political, not principled commitment.
That's not news.
Not to me anyway.
They're liberal Democrats.
The idea that Hillary and Obama told each other that their opposition to the war in Iraq and the surge was purely political, and that's not news to me either.
And by the way, I'm not trying to sound uppity.
As regular listeners will know, this is one of my really strong frustrations.
It's very easy to know who liberal Democrats are.
Doesn't take much, just a little courage and honesty to admit it.
The thing about the Gates book that really frustrates me is he knew this.
He he is he saved this for a book after he leaves office, and when it can't have any impact on anything.
Okay, so Obama doesn't face another election.
Not saying he's not going to continue being president, but he doesn't face another election.
So big whoop.
None of what we're voted one caveat to that.
Gates also creams Biden.
I mean, really creams Biden.
I mean it is vicious what he says about Biden.
And he's right about that too.
Anyway, all that coming up.
It is true.
Bloomberg News, Gongaria and syphilis.
And again, I had a health teacher in high school that called it gongaria.
I mean, when he said it, we all kind of in the class looked at each other and tried desperately not to laugh.
And then when we asked him questions, we would use the word gongaria when asking him about it, and it didn't faze him.
Look, it if you are listening with your young child, you may not you may need To take about a minute away here.
Purpose of this program is not to shock anybody.
And we're not here trying to be obscene or that if if if the discussion of STDs and things like this make you uncomfortable, or you don't want your child to hear this.
I'm going to count down from five.
And if you're still here, then it's on you.
You've been warned.
Five, four, three, two, one.
When I was in junior high and high school, we were talked to about this by instructors and teachers quite a bit.
Gongrella and syphilis.
I will never forget this, folks.
And I feel safe in telling you this because people that would be offended by it have not, they've they've stopped listening for a while.
So they're not out there to be offended or worried.
Seventh grade.
The principal calls an immediate assembly of everybody, boys and girls.
We all go to the gymnasium in the junior high school, where the principal, the principal, gave us a lesson and lecture in blue balls.
This is why I asked audience members with young children to tune out for a while.
It actually happened.
And of course, there were some who had no idea what and they went home and they told their parents, what happened in school, little Johnny?
Well, we got a lecture on, and the town was rocked by the and the principal ended up being dismissed, obviously.
It was funny.
It was just absolutely hilarious.
But this kind of um this was the extent of sex education that we got in health class.
Gongaria and syphilis.
Now, I just happened to mention this right before the top of the hour, and a couple people on the other side of the glass said, Well, I thought we wiped those out.
I thought that wasn't a big deal anymore.
That's the story.
They're coming back.
Gongrorea and syphilis are on the rise in America again.
And according to Bloomberg, mostly in men who have sex with men.
A trend the government said is linked to inadequate testing among people stymied by homophobia.
And limited access to health care.
I'll read that to you again.
It because some of you may, what the hell does that mean?
Here it is.
I'm just going to read you verbatim.
Gongrorea and syphilis are on the rise in the U.S., mostly in men who have sex with men.
A trend the government said is linked to inadequate testing among people stymied by homophobia and limited access to health care.
The rate of nuke, what do you think that means?
The rate of nuke, what do you think that means?
A trend, gongrene and syphilis on the rise among men who have sex with men, a trend the government said is linked to inadequate testing among people stymied by homophobia.
Does that mean the people doing the testing are stymied by homophobia, or does it mean men having sex with other men are afraid to admit it because the testers are homophobic?
I don't have any idea what this means.
What's that HR?
It is a horribly written sentence.
It has it it's it's not clear what this means at all.
The rate of new gongrilla cases rose 4% in 2012 from the year before, while syphilis jumped 11%.
This from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
They said today in a report, rates for chlamydia, the most common of the STDs, gained less than 1%.
With all three diseases uh being curable with antibiotics, many people don't get tested as recommended.
And that's especially the case for syphilis, where the rise is entirely attributable to men, particularly those who are gay or bisexual.
I guess what they mean then is that gay men are reluctant to go get tested because they think they're gonna run into homophobia testers, bigots, uh, racist, sexists, and so forth.
So they don't get tested because they're afraid the people testing are gonna judge them and give them give them the business or what have you.
And so it's going undetected until it's too late.
And so it's a homophobic society, Mr. Sturdley to blame for this.
And inadequate health care, but how can that be?
Because we've got Obamacare.
So it is a homophobic America responsible for rising uh gungria and syphilis rates.
Because the men who are experiencing the increase are afraid because of a homophobic country to go get tested.
That's what it means.
Mm-hmm.
Well, that's uh that's there are symptoms, and you you do have to go get checked.
But the the story is that they're not getting checked until it's too late.
After the symptoms.
Then there's no testing necessary.
It's just it's clear as a bell at that point.
They're waving too late.
They're waiting too long to get tested because this is a homophobic country.
Speaking of which, let me see if I can find this real quick.
Totally unrelated.
Here it is.
Campus reform, one of my all-time fast-becoming favorite websites.
This is a bunch of really clever young people running a website, college students and so forth.
A study by a Cornell University developmental psychologist found that statistics about gay youth may be inaccurate because of jokesters who claim to be gay or bisexual when they are not.
Rich Savin Williams, who specializes in the subject.
What subject?
Well, anyway.
Rich Seven Williams, who specializes in the subject, said that many students initially claim to be gay, and then later say they're straight because they were just joking, trying to confuse the pollsters.
More than 70% of those who claim to have a romantic attraction to somebody of the same sex later said they were lying.
He added, many researchers choose to ignore the problem and continue to use the false statistics that are found in the study.
Rich Savon Williams, in an article in the LA Times, said it's not that we saw something that no one else had seen, but they kept using the data.
People should have said, hold on a minute.
Who are these kids?
70% of them are lying.
Now this is funny, except when you realize that they're using the false data to enact legislation.
The false data, because these kids are joking about being gay is is creating a false percentage of the number of gay people, at least on college camp by.
And these the kids are just joking, but I kind of I have sympathy, not sympathy, but I I love practical jokers.
I'm the king of them when I was young.
You've heard them all.
And screwing with polsters is one of the most fun things you can do, and then share the experience with your friends who are also engaged in the deception.
And if this is true, 70% of college kids are lying about being gay.
Just to screw with the polsters.
Except, except the people collecting the data, even knowing that 70% are lying about it, continue to use the data.
Back after this.
Don't go away.
Okay, back to the safety.
Never thought I would say this.
Back to the safety of the phone.
The EIB network, back to the calls, Wilmington, Delaware, and this is Claire.
It's great to have you.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Uh, I want to talk immigration.
I think it's one of the saddest realities for America.
By not enforcing our laws, both parties, they both disgust me, have effectively allowed amnesty by not deporting people.
Uh, and it's likely gonna re come to the replacement of our culture.
And the the reason I say that is they talk about eleven million, which is such a ridiculous number that are illegal.
But let's entertain it at this point and just say that it's eleven million here illegally.
In two generations, that group will be dead, and it won't be of any consequence.
But the four and five children that they've they brought here illegally by by delivering them in our country, they're now legal citizens.
We have a declining birth rate, and I hope America's listening.
Both parties, because these are your children and your grandchildren that were born in this country and were under our values that are going to be replaced by a group of people.
There's no way a declining birth rate's gonna be a good thing.
Claire, let me get theirs.
Let me tell you something that that might well, it's it's it's not gonna soothe you, and it it all it's gonna do is maybe help you to understand it, but it's not gonna it's not gonna help really.
The one thing that is driving your comments, you think there's a crisis.
You think there's we got a real crisis, and I agree with you.
We've got an economic crisis.
We have a cultural and societal crisis in this country.
This country, as founded, is hanging by a thread economically and culturally.
The problem is nobody in the political establishment, either party in Washington thinks so.
They don't see it that way.
They don't see an economic crisis, they don't see any problem with all the spending.
This is no different percentage-wise than it's ever been.
There's no problem with it.
There's always going to be somebody to print it.
There's always somebody to buy our debt.
There's no problem here.
It's not a crisis.
We're not saddling our kids with debt.
And when it comes to immigration, they're all just looking at voters.
They don't the the this is the problem.
Well, they're the political class does in no way see the country the same way that you and I or the vast majority of voters see it.
There just isn't any concern.
Well, if we had more Joe Arpayos, I tell you that's what the country really needs.
You know, here's my fear.
No one teaches our children history today.
I I'm actually homeschooling my child for the first time this year for two reasons.
I think our education system absolutely stinks.
One, but two, I have a faith and a deep faith in God, and I refuse to keep seeing society push God out, and my child being in that society.
I don't know what he'll grow up to be.
I can only teach him and hope he'll retain these things.
But what really makes me mad about the immigration is that we are paying for these people, their education, their health care, their welfare.
We're paying for it.
And they're gonna rule us probably within another generation because they'll outnumber us.
And it is all at the expense of these politicians who don't represent any American citizen.
I am so sick of both of them.
What they've done to this country, it's a it's an absolute disgrace.
You just said something that I think also illustrates the great divide.
You're looking at demographics in a different way they are.
You're looking at pure numbers, and you're you used the term they're going to rule us.
Meaning because they're gonna be outnumbered and they're gonna outculture us.
They're going to destroy the distinct American culture, they're gonna be outnumbered, and America as we knew it is gonna cease to exist.
The people in Washington, I'm telling you, I don't care where you go, whatever party, do not see it that way at all.
They see these as poor, disadvantaged, discriminated against, low wage, pretty ignorant workers that are not gonna be dominating anybody, but they are going to be dependent on government, and therefore they're gonna be loyal voters, and that's how they're seen.
I agree with I absolutely agree with you on that.
But you know, I mean, the people of this country had better wake up.
Uh i it's such a danger.
Not only who's coming across that border, you're right.
They're so worried about votes.
Does anyone want to shut the border down from the people that could be crossing to come in and do excessive damage in one day in this country?
Uh it's unbelievable that no one will stand up and say these things.
It's unbelievable to me.
Well, no, people do stand up and say them, just not in Washington.
There's there's nobody in the of course the Democrat Party you wouldn't expect.
I mean, the Democrat Party do their whole agenda has been to destroy what you and I call the distinct American culture.
They believe it's unfair, immoral, and unjust.
We've always relied on conservative or Republican people to defend those things and to provide pushback against what has been an attempt to change this country since the days it was founded.
What we're in the middle of here is our elected officials no longer push back.
Our elected officials no longer seem on the same page with us.
They don't think there's an economic crisis.
They don't think that amnesty or immigration is a crisis.
They rather be seen as humanitarians.
They just save America.
We're a nation of immigrants.
What do you mean?
We never lock people out.
That's crazy.
That's xenophobia.
We're not going to there's this, there's a disconnect.
And I I'm telling you, it boils down to something.
Very simple.
They just do there's no difference in America today than it was 30 years ago.
I mean, well, I I believe as a citizen, and I hope there's a lot of people out there that feel the way I do.
I hope I'm not alone.
But we have a right to defend our culture.
We have a right to defend our borders.
We have a right to say who we want in this country.
Are they a benefit to us?
No.
We have a right to all these things.
No, you've had your way for way too long, and you've been discriminating against people, and it's time others got some of the power that you've been using.
This is how it's looked at.
I know how you're saying, and it sounds I know what you're saying that that's how they look at us, but the people know better, and they better wake up and start voicing their words and stuff.
They have woken up.
This is what's so maddening.
The vast majority of people do not want amnesty or this kind of immigration reform.
How are you?
Great to be with you, folks.
As always, Rush Linboy here behind the golden EIB microphone.
Telephone number 800-282882.
Mike, you got uh the LBJ sound bites standing by.
Okay, cool.
Keep them there.
And also, I've got I I I promised you to do the story on the New York Times success, pursuit of success is bad for you, could hurt your health.
They're right here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
By the way, I want to go back to this uh story from campus reform because it's actually an L.A. Times story about college kids lying about being gay to uh to pollsters.
The LA Times headline, do jokesters distort research on gay youths.
And the LA Times article points out people who were inconsistent on their sexual attraction scored lower in intelligence and got lower grades, the researchers found.
The questions about romantic attraction might have confused them, especially since the survey didn't define what that meant.
In other words, some of these students might have been so stupid they didn't know what romantic attraction meant.
So this is how the experts are trying to explain away that they got hoodwinked.
So they had a bunch of college kids in a nationwide survey.
70% of college kids lied when they said they were gay.
Well, we can't have that.
Oh, God, that just that that throws everything out of kills.
We can't have that.
So the people doing the research are now saying, well, you know, the jokesters, the people that said, they're really they're not very smart.
They didn't understand our question about romantic attraction.
I kid you not.
I mean, that, folks, that that is hilarious.
You may not hear about this story anywhere else, but I'm gonna tell you, in the deep dark crevices of many avenues of American culture.
This is going to be a huge deal.
And it's gonna cause all kinds of friction, controversy, angst.
You go tell these special interest groups that the numbers they have for the percentages of people, young people who are gay, and then you tell them 70% made it up.
There is going to be panic.
You will you probably won't hear about it.
You'll see manifestations of the reaction, but you won't see the reaction.
This is going to be one of those things that'll be under the radar.
But we're already getting a the LA Times story is a great indication of how they're going to be dealt with.
These jokesters, rather than get mad at them, rather than rather than give give them credit for having pulled a practical joke on them, they're saying they're dumb.
Just they don't do very well.
They don't get good grades.
They're just not that bright.
They didn't understand our question about romantic attraction.
So they're trying to make it look like they weren't punked, if you will.
That these respondents are just blooming idiots.
This is this is important data to a lot of people, particularly political activists.
On the left, here is Jane in Scottsdale, Arizona, one of the nicest places in this country.
Jane, how are you?
I am very well in our 70 degrees.
How's that global warming working out for everybody?
Yes.
As part of the Democratic circle of life, I like to call it that.
Um, I'm appalled at the six billion dollars we just borrowed again, because God knows we don't have it to extend unemployment for people, especially able-bodied people who have been unemployed for over two years and say they want to work.
Yet we give them this unemployment, this taxpayer dollar, and don't ask anything in return.
We don't ask them to do community service.
We don't ask them to go out and clean up the highways and do jobs and earn it.
I don't understand.
I can't even breathe.
You're doing a good job of it.
Oh my word, the unions wouldn't allow it.
That's what the problem is.
The unions would not allow these people to go out of the world.
You know the explanation for this as well as I do.
They these people fit perfectly the definition of victim.
So here's Obama whose economic policies are responsible for a shrinking private sector, which means shrinking job market, shrinking income opportunity, shrinking opportunity to uh uh increase your standard of living, everything about the private sector is shrinking.
So his policies have brought this about.
But Obama still is engaging in the limbaugh theorem, which holds that he's not responsible for any of this, nor is he accountable.
He's still trying to fix it.
And so in that vein, these people are victims of an unfair, immoral, unjust country that is controlled by the rich who will not share any that they are stealing from everybody else.
And so requiring these people to do something for their unemployment benefits, like look for work or walk the highways and picking up junk, they've already been victimized enough, Jane.
Don't you get it?
Poor babies, they give me a rash.
The you know, we could have 20,000 jobs just with the Keystone Pipeline alone.
I think our politicians are for sale.
They go to Washington, D.C. and they lose any modicum of integrity or honor.
Is a problem.
There is no question.
It's just horrendous.
And I can't tell you how I appreciate your taking my call.
Well, I'm happy that you got through.
Oh, I am too, and I wish you a happy new year, and please hold the banner high for we constitutional conservatives.
Always.
Always.
It's worth fighting for, and it is winnable.
I still firmly believe that.
As bleak uh as it can seem on a daily basis, I still think it's uh winnable.
And as such, I'm still in the game.
No reason not to be.
But it is frustrating.
But uh it it it helps somewhat, just a little bit to understand it all.
And the unemployed are just perfect for Obama.
People in misery, suffering economically, made to order for his agenda because he's allowed, he's he's permitted to say, see, the way America's always been is unfair.
Look at all of these people out of work.
Look at all of the rich getting richer, and look at all this income inequality, it's time to do it a different way.
My way.
We're gonna have the guy, and that's that's what we're in the middle of here.
And so any opportunity Obama has to portray people in distress and at the same time portray himself as singularly focused on helping them, made to order, because the more people are victims, the greater the opportunity for Obama to blame America for it, not anybody else.
And that's what we're in the midst of.
So when you say, well, they ought to have to do something for it, or at least say thanks.
No, their lives are already miserable because of you and me, Jane.
They don't owe us anything.
It is we who owe them.
And that's how Obama wants them to look at it.
And by the way, human nature is such that anybody would much prefer somebody else be blamed for their circumstances than to blame themselves.
So if you've got a president coming along, absolving you of any responsibility for your own plight, you're gonna eat that up.
It's somebody else's fault.
It's the country's fault.
It's the riches' fault.
It's uh the society's but culture's fault, whatever.
That's that that that is what's so despicable to me about the leadership in this country today.
It's just it's unconscionable.
Got to take a break.
We'll be back.
And it is true.
He loves the unemployed so much he's making more and more of them.
Ninety-one million Americans not working, but they are all eating.
And a lot of them are at the consumer electronics show, trying to pick out their next big screen.
In fact, I got an email.
Why don't you talk about it?
You're big into gadgets.
Why don't you ever talk about the consumer electronics show?
For one reason, 99% of the stuff that's on display will never hit the market.
The stuff that does won't be for two or three years, and the third reason, Apple isn't there.
So there's nothing worth having.
back after this.
Washington Times president's poverty level has broken a 50-year record.
The The poverty level under Obama breaks a 50-year record.
Let me give you a couple of pull quotes from the story.
Of the 37.6 million people who were poor at the beginning of 2009, 26.4% remained in poverty throughout the next 34 months.
Another 12.6 million people escaped poverty during that time, but 13.5 million more fell into it.
Which is an interesting point once again to make.
Poverty, when expressed as an income level, most economists break down income in America into five brackets called quintiles.
And people move in and out of these.
The top quintile, I think, is like a million plus.
And that'd be the top 1% of 1%.
Uh I I forget what the what the breakdown is, but the poverty level is uh it's roughly what, $14,000 for family forfeit.
It's around there.
Um people move in and out of these all the time.
What however you're born doesn't mean you're going to die in the same quintile.
Now, the Democrat Party wants everybody to believe that the poor are permanently poor, they're born that way, and the only way out of it is with government assistance.
And it's BS.
I have known people who one guy I knew lost 200 million dollar fortune twice.
Both times in commodities.
Twice.
Was broke.
People move in and out of these levels at all times.
The point about poverty is that since the war on poverty began in 1964, we have spent, we've transferred 20.7 trillion dollars.
There has been income redistribution, taking from the haves, giving to the have nots, 20 trillion dollars, and the percentage of people in poverty hasn't changed.
It's 14%, roughly.
The numbers change because the population changes, the hard numbers, but the percentage doesn't.
You can take.
This experiment's been done, by the way.
You can take somebody who uh take a millionaire, and then take somebody who earns 30 grand, put them side by side, and take everything away from both of them, and come back in a year.
The millionaire will have most of it back.
The guy earning 30 will be at 30.
And the point of that illustration is you can take all you want, but entrepreneurs, producers, hard workers are gonna go do what it takes to get it back.
Everybody's different.
There are different ambitions, levels of ambition, desire, education, overall intelligence, ability, yet the Democrats want to make everybody the same, particularly when it comes to outcomes.
It's not possible.
So everything's done under the rubric of uh of fixing the inequality that exists.
And that's what sucks in a bunch of young people, by the way.
That's that to them is the essence of compassion, is everybody being equal.
Nobody should be denied.
There's equality.
It's a magic word, and party comes along and talks about that's gonna have them when they're young, idealistic, and so forth.
Let's go back and listen to LBJ.
1964, January 8th, on Capitol Hill State of the Union speech announcing the war on poverty.
This administration today, here and now declares unconditional war on poverty in America.
It will not be a short or easy struggle.
No single weapon or strategy will suffice, but we shall not rest until that war is won.
The richest nation on earth can afford to win it.
1,000 dollars invested in salvaging an unemployable youth today can return $40,000 or more in his lifetime.
So we see where this inanity, this insanity of unemployment benefits creates jobs.
Unemployment benefits creates economic growth.
Twenty trillion dollars we've spent, folks, since 1964, and poverty continues to win.
We have lost the war on poverty.
We've not even come close to winning the war on poverty.
And throughout the vast majority of these years, this war on poverty has been fought with weapons designed by the Democrat Party.
And they're ineffectual.
They don't work for those of you in Rio Linda, and in fact, arguably they make it worse.
Here's more from LBJ.
Same rhetoric, by the way, you'll see the rhetoric doesn't change.
This is same speech, January 8th, 1964, State of the Union address.
Lack of jobs and money is not the cause of poverty, but the symptoms.
The cause may lie deeper in our failure to give our fellow citizens a higher chance to develop their own capacities.
In a Lack of education and training, in a lack of medical care and housing, in a lack of decent communities in which to live and bring up their children.
Our joint federal local effort must pursue poverty, pursue it wherever it exists, in city slums and small towns, in share proper shacks, or in migrant worker camps, on Indian reservations, among whites as well as Negro, among the young as well as the aged, in the boom towns and in the depressed areas.
So the thing to take away from this is 1964.
It's a Democrat president, and the Democrat Party's view of this country has not changed.
They still look out over the horizon and see misery and decrepitness, unhappiness, and look at Johnson's solutions.
Education, job training, medical care, housing.
That hasn't changed.
The same weapons, the same language, the same way they tug at heartstrings since 1964, and they keep using the same lingo, obviously, because it works.
But look at how bad that means our education system's been since 1960.
▲
Export Selection