All Episodes
Previous Next
April 8, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:31
April 8, 2014, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know how long the Democrats have been using this equal pay thing?
JFK signed the first one in 1963 when women were one-third of the workforce.
1963, that's how long this has been a campaign issue.
And it's got the word equal in it again, which is the magic as far as they're concerned.
So they're just going back to it to try to get their base, because their base is bored, folks.
Their base, the Democrat Party base is not excited.
And the reason the Democrat Party base isn't excited is the blooms off the Obama rose, first and foremost.
Secondly, all of that hope and change.
I mean, they bought it, they invested in it.
They really believed that we were on the road to an equality-based utopia.
And as is the case when liberals run things unchecked, everything's worse by every measure.
Folks, let me find, I give you, I've got, in fact, I think I said it saved it from yesterday.
In order to be able to make this point by every measure, the economy is worse today than when Barack Obama assumed orifice.
This from the Independent Journalism Review, seven stone cold facts about the economy that the left cannot wash away.
Compare these changes from the last year of the Bush presidency, 2008, versus the first full year, the last full year of the Obama regime, which is 2013.
Full-time workers in 2008, 120 million.
After five years of Obama, 116 million.
4 million fewer full-time work.
Despite all the stimulus, despite all the QEs that the Fed's done, despite all the job summits, despite all the Obamacare, despite all of everything that was going to create jobs, a laser-like focus, 4 million fewer full-time workers.
Workforce participation rate, 2008, 66%.
and At present, under Obama, 62%.
People have left the workforce.
92 million Americans currently not working.
Home ownership, 70% of America owned homes.
2008, 62% today under Obama.
Now, again, remember this is supposed to be a utopia.
Five years Obama, man, we're gonna the world was gonna love us.
We're gonna stop partisanship.
We're gonna end racism, we're gonna erase slavery.
Everybody was gonna love everybody, everybody's gonna be getting along.
Um, it was gonna be post-partisan, post-racial, it was just gonna be everything equality was gonna be on the road.
Uh yeah, everything, everything was supposed to be just markedly improved, and it's not Democrats have been running this show for the vast majority of these five years.
Median income, $55,484 a year, 2008, $52,000 a year now.
And falling.
The poverty rate was 13% in 2008.
Today, 15%.
By every measure.
Things have worsened.
This number, this next number is striking and depressing.
In 2008, there were 31.5 million Americans on food stamps.
Today, 48 million.
31.6 million to 48 million.
And this next, these are all, by the way, reasons why there is a Tea Party.
But this next one, debt to GDP ratio.
2008, 64% of GDP was debt.
Today, 101.6% of the GDP is debt.
In other words, we owe more annually than what our economy is producing.
That right there is plus Obamacare is why there is a Tea Party.
That debt number is what tells people their kids have no future.
Why, Mr. Limbaugh, why would the debt because taxes are going to have to be raised to even make it look like you're trying to make a dent in that debt.
And as you raise people's taxes, you make them poorer.
You raise people's taxes, you reduce their standard of living.
You raise people's taxes and you reduce their liberty and freedom.
You raise people's taxes, you make them more dependent on government.
The debt goes up.
You don't solve anything raising people's taxes.
And yet that's all Obamacare is, and that's all Obama's done.
And my point is, his base, like everybody else, is living this.
And while food stamps are plentiful, and while unemployment compensation has been extended and all that, his peeps are still not happy.
They can't wait.
I mean, they're not excited to vote to continue this.
There's an election coming in 2014.
Stan Greenberg has surveyed the Democrat base, the rising American electorate, single women, unmarried, young voters, minorities, they're bored.
They're not they're they're not excited about voting.
That's why Obama's gone back to the groove yard of their own forgotten favorites with the silly equal pay business.
They're out there, by the way, the White House said yesterday, Obama himself said women still earn only seven seven cents for every dollar a man makes.
And his own, one of his own economic advisors said, no, no, no.
If we said that, that's not true.
Yesterday, it's 88%.
That's what the White House, the White House still only paying women 88% out of every dollar that uh that men.
And the story that accompanies this poll is headlined thus, morning plum, why 2014 looks so bad for Democrats and what they can do about it, because it's a Greenberg story, why it looks so bad and what they have to do.
Now, uh I'm not want to make too much out of this, but I think, folks, it is.
So I'm looking for anywhere I can uh for signs that would promote being optimistic.
And I'm not uh being falsely optimistic, I'm not grasping at straws, but despite the rising welfare state, despite all these new people on food stamps, despite all these new dependents, all the unemployment extension, the people that voted for this are not happy.
That's the one telling ingredient.
If the Obama base was happy with what's going on, because we're in a Santa Claus era, people are depending on government.
They have lost their jobs, they've lost full-time status, some have been converted to part-time, they've had their health insurance canceled.
Obama voters, after being told in a lie for three years they can keep their doctrine plan, they are losing all of that.
They're not happy.
The people that voted for, that's why his approval numbers down in the in the in the low 40s.
They're not happy with this.
If they were happy, if if if Obama's approval was still over 50 or at 50, and if if these people couldn't wait to vote to continue, that would be a big problem.
So I think, even though the welfare state, even though dependency, food stamps and all that is way up, it tells me there's still a chance that a vast majority of people don't want any part of this because a bunch of Obama voters are not happy with this.
Now, I don't want to make too much of that.
Uh, but I will admit I'm looking anywhere I can for reasons to keep plugging away be optimistic about this.
We're talking about Holding on to the country, talking about preserving the country as founded.
And it's clear that the Democrat Party is trying to reform or transform this country into something you and I don't recognize.
And they are doing it.
I'm not denying that.
Don't misunderstand.
They are succeeding in this transformation.
But their voters are not happy.
Now, it's also true that their voters are never happy.
We must be honest and admit that.
Liberals are never happy.
Well, they are.
That's that they're getting a lot of what they want economically.
They're getting the rich are getting it stuck to them.
They're not happy.
Their food stamps are up, but they're not happy.
Of course, they never are.
No matter how much they get, they're never happy.
It's one of the hallmarks of being a liberal.
You can't laugh.
You can't find anything funny.
It's almost uh committing a sin.
You have to be constantly enraged.
You have to be constantly angry.
You have to be victimized at all times.
And they are.
They've they have uh they've perfected that.
Now I got a story here, this from the UK telegraph.
You'll not find a story like this in the drive-by media ever.
The game is up for climate change believers.
Oh, and do I have let me let me let me see what they're looking for one thing?
I know I hope I put it in the stack.
Yeah.
Found it.
Okay, here we go.
Game is up for climate change believers.
Before I tell you what's in this, let me tell you something I saw yesterday.
I was reading my tech blogs that buttresses the point.
The left, now you have to don't doubt me on this.
The left, all of these people on the left, they think that their science on global warming is dead on right.
They do they think it's irrefutable.
This consensus of scientists, they believe it.
They really believe that we are destroying the climate.
They really believe we don't have much time.
They they folks, they believe all this.
They now are frustrated at all of us deniers.
And you know, they're really mad, and they're thinking put us in jail, don't let us speak, uh, all that kind of stuff.
But now their academics are doing research surveys to try to explain to them why we deniers don't accept the science.
They have engaged in massive amounts of research.
To them, the science is unassailable.
To them, the science is one fact after another that says man is destroying the climate.
So they started a research project with some people at Yale with the premise, okay, the science is irrefutable.
Why do smart people reject the science?
And they have engaged in very deep psychological examinations of people like me, who they believe know the science says that climate is warming, and yet we reject it.
And they can't understand why.
Why do and you know what they're blaming it on?
The headline of the story, Politics makes us stupid.
And it was a piece by Ezra Klein in his new website, Voxwhatever.com.
Coco, I didn't print, Coco, you need to link to find that and link to it on our home page.
So people, if you want to take time to read this, it's the most amazing thing.
They have got themselves believing that the only reason we don't succumb is, for example, they they if if if me or anybody like me were to all of a sudden come here and tell you, by the way, folks, we are destroying the planet, that it would end my career.
That you would abandon me and so forth.
So I am willing, because of my political associations, I am totally willing to disavow real science and be wrong.
I mean, it the the hubris and the arrogance here is just stunning.
They are so beside themselves that they can't make us see the science like they do, that they think there's something deeply wrong with us psychologically.
And they've come up with some of the most convoluted theories and experiments and so forth to prove it.
And it basically boils down to the more educated you are on politics, the stupider you are in science.
Or the more recalcitrant you are to accept science.
Now the fact is their science is bogus.
Their science isn't science.
Their science is computer models.
They don't have any science.
But you can't tell them that.
They think their science is the Bible.
And their science says only one thing that man is destroying the planet by causing temperatures to rise.
It's the most.
Which now takes me to this piece in the UK telegraph, the game is up for climate change believers.
Charles Moore has a piece here in which he reviews The Age of Global Warming by Rupert Darwall.
And and the Rupert Darrell that this age of global warming looks to be a history of the entire environmentalist global warming LECO movement since 1970.
I just want to read you the lead here.
Most of us pay some attention to the weather forecast.
If it says it's going to rain in your area tomorrow, probably will, but if it says the same for a month, let alone a year later, it's much less likely to be right.
Too many unponderables.
The theory of global warming is a gigantic weather forecast for a hundred years or more.
However, however interesting the scientific inquiry is involved, therefore, it can have almost no value as a prediction.
Yet it is as a prediction that global warming has captured the political and bureaucrat elites.
All the action plans, all the taxes, all the green levies, protocols, carbon emitting flights, the massive summit meetings, after all, are not because of what its supporters call the science.
Proper science studies what is, which is in principle knowable, and is consequently very cautious about the future, which isn't knowable.
No, they are the result of a belief that something big and bad is going to hit us one of these days.
The origins of global warmism lie in a cocktail of ideas which include anti-industrial nature worship, post-colonial guilt, a post-enlightenment belief in scientists as a new priesthood of the truth, a hatred of population growth, a revulsion against the widespread increase in wealth, and a belief in world government.
That That's who the global warming believers are.
Now that I have to stop there, but I'm by no means finished.
And temporary stop in the global warming business, because I need a little bit more time than I've got here.
Get into it and wrap it up in the next segment.
But first, let's go to the phones.
We've got Barbara Middletown, New Jersey, uh, who wants to weigh in on Jeb Bush.
Uh and hello, Barbara, great to have you here.
Hi, what a great honor.
Thank you so much for taking my call, Russ.
You bet.
Um, you know, yeah, about Jeb Bush, I mean, I think the GLP is really throwing away a great opportunity here.
And I mean, we all see what's going on that the media and the GLP is getting ready for the great anointment.
And uh I just kind of thought to myself, I wonder how many people are feeling how I feel that I'm not going to do it this time.
I mean, we did it with McCain, we did it with Romney, and they kind of know that we're just gonna fall in line.
They know that.
They and you you talk to people, and they'll say, well, if it is Jeb Bush, I guess I'll do it.
But I've been finding, because I've been calling Tea Party and conservative groups all over the country.
I just in the last couple of weeks.
And I've been calling them and asking if they wanted to sign on to this kind of like a list that I got them compiling a statement, and it's become like a full time job at this point.
People are I call them, and there's no doubt in their mind, they're enthusiastically asking to be signed, uh, you know, put on as a signatory to the statement saying that they will not support a moderate.
They're uh a rhino, they're not gonna do it.
And just from calling all these different groups, I'm I'm I've been amazed, like from Alabama to California, New York, out uh Maine, everywhere, that everyone's feeling the same frustration.
Well, I I do think that the GOP is definitely throwing away a great opportunity for the case.
Let me run a theory.
A friend of mine said, what if Jeb really doesn't want this and is just saying things that guarantee he won't win, such as they're not coming here for anything other than love.
I've got a guy who thinks that Jeb is trying to disqualify himself right now just because he doesn't want to run and he don't want all these people trying to draft him.
So say something that he knows is not gonna be accepted and get it out of the way.
Well, you're gonna have to.
What purpose would that serve?
Is that just be because they're pressuring him to be the anointed candidate?
I know.
My answer to that is well, if you don't want to run, just say so.
Rather than disqualify yourself.
I mean, uh uh.
Yeah uh I I think Tea Party we know that four million Republicans in 2012.
Stop and think I t I still can't believe it.
I mean, I believe it.
2012, four million Republicans stayed home.
For the very reason she's talking about here.
All right, I I want to read to you, I can't possibly read that entire Ezra Klein piece that I was talking about, but I've told Coco to find it at Vox.com.
It says, you know, Ezra Klein, the wonder kin that the New York uh Washington Post who left form his own website, Big Lib.
Think Nate Silver that doesn't do polling data.
Excuse me.
I want to read you one little paragraph from this piece.
This is the deep psychological study to try to explain why we deniers refute this onslaught of irrefutable evidence.
Perhaps people are not held back by a lack of knowledge after all.
They don't typically doubt the findings of oceanographers or the existence of other galaxies when science tells them that, they believe that.
Perhaps there are some kinds of debates where people don't want to find the right answer so much as they want to win the argument.
Perhaps humans reason for purposes other than finding the truth.
Remember, he's writing about us.
Purposes like increasing their standing in their community or ensuring they don't piss off the leaders of their tribe.
If this hypothesis proved true, then a smarter and bed better educated citizenry would not put an end to these disagreements.
A smarter, better educated citizenry would just mean the participants are better equipped to argue for their own side.
So they can't figure out why, with the evidence as irrefutable and clear as it is, that we become even more opposed.
So that's what they're digging deep, trying to explain to themselves.
And of course, the truth is their evidence is bullshit.
They don't have any.
All they've got is computer models.
There is no evidence.
All they've got is predictions of a hundred years out.
They don't have anything.
And they've got they don't even talk about the hoax emails from the East Anglia University.
So let me go back here to Charles Moore writing in the UK telegraph, the origins of global No, one other paragraph just to repeat.
The theory of global warming is a gi And here's the answer to that paragraph.
Why don't we believe?
Why don't we believe what they tell us about galaxies?
And we believe.
I don't know that we even do.
We just know who can refute that.
We can't say galaxies.
They found Galaxy X5.
Fine, they found it.
We're never going to go there.
What the hell?
Nobody invests in it.
Now, if they want to tell us that Galaxy X5, 15,000 light years from Earth is destroying the planet, then they got a problem.
But this in this paragraph where we don't reject any other science, anything else they tell us that we believe.
Why?
The theory of global warming is a gigantic weather forecast for a century or more.
However interesting the scientific inquiries involved, it can have almost no value as a prediction.
Yet, it is as a prediction that global warming has captured the political and bureaucratic elites.
Prediction has captured them.
All the action plans, all the taxes, the green levies, protocols, and carbon-emitting flights to massive summit meetings, after all, are not because of what its supporters call the science.
It's what they want us to believe, but it's not the science that's making them do all this.
Proper science studies what is, which is in principle knowable, and is consequently very cautious about the future because nobody can know it.
And yet they're telling us with ontological certitude that unless we pay higher taxes and support one world government, the climate's going to be destroyed.
Nobody can know that.
They're asking us to believe a future prediction of 100 years out when we won't even believe a 10-day weather forecast.
And they get mad at us for being stupid.
These global warming clowns exist as a result of a belief that something big and bad is going to happen someday.
Okay.
The origins of global warmism lie, and here's how Mr. Mr. Moore describes these people.
The origins of global warmism lie in a cocktail of ideas which includes people that believe in anti-industrial nature worship, people who have post-colonialism guilt, people who have a post-enlightenment belief in scientists as the new priesthood of the truth.
People who have a hatred of population growth, and people who have a revulsion against the widespread increase in wealth.
People just can't stand to see wealth happen.
And people who believe in world government.
That's who makes up the lion's share of the global warmists, the elites, the academics, the scientists, and in many cases the rank and file.
Now, let me move on.
Here's another little, so I'm not going to delve on this, but the headline, Members of Parliament Seek to Silence Climate Change Skeptics.
This is another story where they want to deny speech to people that don't believe.
They want to put them in jail.
so And of course, makes perfect.
They're totalitarianists.
They're fascists.
Of course they would.
Makes perfect sense.
There's a guy that writes for the Newark Star Ledger who doesn't like me at all.
His name is Paul Molschein.
And he has authored countless hit pieces of me over the course of many years.
But he has a piece in today's paper.
And I don't know, he's a he's a huge media leftist, but after this piece, and especially after I highlight it, I don't know what they're going to do to him.
He may end up like Brendan Ike.
Oh, you're intrigued now, huh?
Okay, well, let me let me just read parts of this to you.
Because Snerdley knows who this guy is.
And this guy's been relentless in his in his attacks on your beloved host.
Imagine, he starts this way.
Imagine A public policy issue that could determine the course of millions of lives.
Imagine the science concerning this issue was complex and confusing.
Nonetheless, most scientists had reached agreement on certain aspects of it.
And imagine the Washington Post wrote an editorial stating quote, government agencies must constantly make recommendations on the basis of just this kind of incomplete but suggestive evidence, and there is a consensus on what to do.
Again, government agencies must constantly make recommendations on the basis.
Even though this is incomplete, and even though it's suggestive, it's true.
Science and government agencies must make recommendations on the basis of this.
Because there's a consensus of what to do.
Well, that sounds like the current debate over climate change, doesn't it?
But it isn't.
That editorial is from 1980, and the issue was not levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but levels of cholesterol in the diet.
In that case, the consensus was that the amounts of saturated fats and cholesterol in the diet are related to the levels of cholesterol in the blood, and that reducing saturated fats and cholesterol in the diet would lower cholesterol in the blood.
The Post wrote.
And that seemed to be the case at the time.
But there were dissenters.
Who said that it was carbohydrates, particularly refined carbohydrates, that were the more likely cause for obesity and heart disease, not cholesterol, and I was one of them, by the way.
That led mainstream authorities to hold a consensus conference in 1984.
And the result was a national policy that emphasized low-fat diets as the means of combating obesity and heart disease, and Michelle Obama is still doing it today.
Soon the market was inundated with low-fat foods, but they didn't work.
By 2002, the cracks in the consensus were so evident that the New York Times magazine ran a lengthy and well-researched article by noted science writer Gary Tobbs, headlined, What if it's all been a big fat lie?
It used to be that even considering the possibility of the alternative hypothesis, let alone researching it was tantamount to quackery by association, Tobbs wrote.
Now a small but growing minority of establishment researchers have come to take seriously what the low-carb diet doctors have been saying all along.
Can I translate this for you?
In 1980, science, consensus of scientists said cholesterol bad, and that in order to reduce your cholesterol, you had to stop eating high saturated foods and all this sort of stuff, and that led to a low-fat diet.
And everybody got on the low-fat diet, and everybody obesity just went crazy.
And it found out that it wasn't reducing the amount of cholesterol you ate, saturated fats that was causing it.
It was the amount of refined carbohydrates, exactly what Atkins and all these low-carb diet doctors say.
If you want to get healthier, reduce your carbs.
Well, a low-fat diet, you increase your carbohydrate intake.
You stop eating beef, you stop eating butter, you stop eating things with no carbohydrate, and you carboload on the theory that you're being healthier.
And what happened is obesity picked up like crazy.
And the bottom line is that the original consensus was proven wrong.
Okay.
And then he writes, finally, last month the prior consensus was finally turned on its head by a study published by the Annals of the Internal Medicine.
An analysis, a meta-analysis, 76 studies and clinical trials showed no link whatsoever between fat, even saturated fat, and increased heart risk.
He goes on to say, and so what if they're all wrong again about climate science?
They've been wrong before.
But there's more.
There's one more thing.
I gotta take a break.
And this one more thing involves perhaps the smartest man in the world.
Not not Hawking.
Hang on.
Don't go away.
Okay, back to this Moleshine piece.
He said I would encourage my fellow journalists to keep all this in mind in light of the highly touted consensus on the role of carbon dioxide in promoting global warming.
Climate science is much more complicated than human physiology cholesterol.
Once all the data are in, we may find that carbon dioxide actually has the effect predicted by Freeman Dyson.
A physicist of the Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton.
He's 90 years old, many consider to be the smartest guy on earth.
And he argues that far from harming the planet, CO2 may have a positive effect by increasing plant growth.
So maybe you disagree.
Fine, but you're disagreeing with a guy who calculated the number of atoms in the sun when he was five years old and who's been at the Institute since Einstein was walking the grounds.
Science requires taking the long view, said Dyson, when I called him the other day.
Science is always correcting mistakes.
That's what it's about.
It is not about consensus.
Freeman Dyson is among the signatories of a letter to the UN criticizing the IPCC.
Freeman Dyson, one of the smartest people around, science physicists is this CO2, it's could well be a good thing.
And remember, they said the same thing about cholesterol, and they've said the same thing about coffee and oat bran and all that, and they've they're always wrong.
So now we're supposed to believe a 100-year prediction, or a 30-year prediction, or a 50-year prediction, when nobody knows what the future is.
And acknowledging that they say we can't afford to find out if we're wrong.
That's how they cover themselves.
Folks, it's a giant hoax, and science cannot possibly be science if there's a consensus.
It's not up to a vote.
They're panicking, they're losing ground.
Paul Molshine, New York Star Ledger.
Sorry, Paul, I had to highlight you.
I know it's not going to help you if you're buddies, but I it's a good piece.
What can I say?
You wrote a good piece.
By the way, folks, not one of the global warmest predictions have come true yet.
If they had, they'd really have something to talk about.
Not one of their predictions has come true, so why should we believe any of them?
And don't forget Ted Bell's new thriller is out.
It's called Warriors.
▲
Export Selection