Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Hiya, folks, greetings to you, music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists on across the fruited plane.
Here we are, once again, Rush Limbaugh behind the Golden EIB microphone.
Broadcast excellence, all yours for the next three hours.
And if you want to be part of it, we invite you.
We welcome you to call.
The telephone number is 800-282-2882.
The email address, lrushbo at eibnet.com.
Let's start right off at the top of the audio soundbites today.
We've got usual stack of stuff on the latest with the invasion on the southern border, and it involves the Democrats going on Twitter and telling the world, come on in, America's doors are open.
I'm not kidding you.
They're all over Twitter.
And John Lewis, same thing.
Our doors are open.
We're all connected.
We can't just build a wall or a fence and say no to more.
This is America.
Our doors are open.
Obama is welcoming them in.
The government wants to establish talking shopping carts so that food stamp recipients will be directed to healthier foods in the grocery store.
And if they end up buying the government-approved amount of healthy foods, they can win free movie tickets.
I kid you not, they want to install talking shopping carts in grocery stores for food stamp users.
Well, Michelle's voice would probably be a good idea.
I don't know whose voice, but probably would be Muchel's voice.
In fact, it's a USDA suggestion, U.S. Department of Agriculture suggesting major changes to grocery stores.
I guess it would apply to the homeless too.
I mean, the homeless are using food stamps.
It says here, they want to nudge Americans to purchase healthier foods when they shop.
USDA commissioned an expert panel to make recommendations on how to guide the more than 47 million Americans on food stamps into spending their benefits on fruits and vegetables.
Now, of course, incumbent here is the assumption that the government thinks you're too stupid to buy what's right for you.
But not only that, they don't think you ought to have the freedom to get what you want.
They are going to try to coerce, i.e. nudge you into eating what they want you to eat.
By the way, this push toward eating fruits, you could end up with type 2 diabetes if you're not killed.
You know how much sugar is in some fruit?
Oh, Rush, come on.
It's natural.
That doesn't matter.
It's loaded.
Vegetables, and you have to cook them.
How many people are going to go home and actually cook?
It's a losing battle.
The group released an 80-page report this month presenting their ideas, which include talking shopping carts and a marketing strategy for grocery chains that would feature better store lighting for healthier items.
In other words, the healthy items would be better lit, probably be brighter and a little bit more focus on them.
Initial suggestions from the USDA on how to alter the grocery environment include stores offering snap-ed cooking classes, consultations with dietitians.
Another idea included a point-based system where food stamp recipients could receive movie tickets in exchange for healthy food purchases.
Grocery store staff could also be used as ambassadors for the USDA's agenda.
That's right.
Grocery store snitches is what we're talking about.
Grocery store brown shirts.
Ambassadors, disguised as ambassadors, to help you.
You people on food stamps, do you understand what this means?
Do you understand what the government thinks of you?
You are blithering idiots.
You're incapable of doing what's best for you.
You're incompetent of eating right way.
You don't know how to spend your money.
You need ambassadors.
You need talking shopping carts.
You need the incentive for free movie tickets all to eat what Michelle Obama thinks you should eat.
The panel based all of this on a nearly $1 million government-funded study entitled Nudging Nutrition, arguing that the research suggests an intervention of this sort might be successful in modifying consumer shopping behavior.
Man, oh man, I mean, here you have one of the most basic rituals of life, going to the grocery store to stock up in order to feed yourself so that you stay alive.
And your government, if you're on food stamps, they think this of all of us, you don't know the right stuff to eat.
And they're going to tell you they're going to have you steered in only certain directions.
What they ought to do, if they're really serious about this, which they're not, because there's an instant solution to this, if they're really serious, you simply disallow certain things to be purchased with food stamps.
You only allow the purchase of fruits and vegetables.
You only allow the purchase of whatever it is the government wants to eat.
Anything else, the food stamps won't buy it.
But they won't do that.
And you know why they won't do that?
It's not the real purpose of food stamps.
The real purpose of food stamps is vote buying.
The real purpose of food stamps is not compassion.
It's not better health.
This is just the libs trying to make people think they care about them.
It's all about vote buying, nothing more, nothing less.
And so there won't be any restrictions.
There will just be these constant nudges and guidelines.
Sam Cass, the executive director of Let's Move and senior policy advisor for nutrition policy, will not have the opportunity to speak at the Scruel Nutrition Association's convention in Boston this week, the Politico says.
Now, according to the Politico, the organization which represents scruple districts in every state denied the celebrity chef's request to rally the troops on nutrition standards.
Cass attended the Scruel Nutrition Association's convention in Denver in 2012.
However, since teaming up with Michelle Obama to push for major screwal meal reforms, his relationship with cafeteria professionals has greatly soured.
So basically, a public screw nutritionist Has told Michelle Obama food guy to take a hike.
There's a lot of acrimony in this country.
Do you believe the degree to which we are divided?
We're divided over food.
We're divided over what to eat.
We're divided over who should be able to tell you what to eat.
We're divided over who's going to pay you to buy food.
We're divided over freaking everything.
And it's all because people have, for some reason, willingly surrendered self-reliance.
They've just given it up.
They've just said to hell with it, I'd rather be taken care of.
I would rather be guided.
I would rather be steered rather than take upon the responsibility of life myself.
And when you surrender that, when you give that power away or that liberty or freedom away, then the people who want to control every aspect of your life for just the fun of it or whatever other cockeyed reason are going to do it.
I knew this was going to, in fact, I'm surprised this next has taken this long to surface.
Last night on CNN, Joe John, the correspondent, had a report about me and my criticism of Eric Holder.
Now, that's not what I'm surprised took so long.
What I'm surprised took so long here is his report basically says establishment Republicans are worried about Sarah Palin and me because we're too partisan and they are worried that we are scaring off potential Republican voters and potential Republican donors.
Here is Joe John's report.
Radio host Rush Limbaugh slammed Holder for the comments.
President of the United States, Attorney General of the United States.
Oh, poor guys, poor victims of a mean, racist America.
But not all Republicans are in attack mode.
The combative tone, much like Sarah Palin's call for impeachment of the president.
So it's time to impeach.
Has some Republicans saying it's all playing into the Democrats' hands in a midterm election year.
Impeachment is exactly what the president wants me to talk about.
Just like he liked the Republicans and conservatives to talk about him being born in Kenya for five or six years.
He's happy to have Republicans talk about impeachment.
Bad thing to do.
The politics of that are all wrong.
Well, I don't know where I fall on the Rove meter here, but I haven't spoken in favor of impeachment.
Although, under certain circumstances, and if the political will for it could be developed, I mean, it's all dependent on that.
I'm not in, I'm not in this guy.
I never talked about him being born in Kenya, but I get lumped in with it.
But the point is here: notice I slammed Holder for the comments.
Holder didn't slam us.
Holder never slams the people he's really slamming or insulting or criticizing.
And here's the African-American Attorney General of the United States basically whining about all the racism that's out there.
And it's just a cover that they hide behind.
And I dealt with it the other day.
By the way, CNN, Mr. Snerdley, CNN brought Sonny Hoston back on to discuss my quite erudite response to her yesterday.
Brought her and Greg Anthony back to discuss what I had said in reaction.
And then they brought on the forehead as a bonus.
It was on Aaron Burnett's show, and I've got the sound bites, but I don't know if I'm going to use them.
I probably will, but I don't know when.
But anyway, here is this story that CNN has out there.
And again, it's CNN, so it's suspect.
But the theme is that Republican establishment Republicans are very worried about Sarah Palin and me.
Very worried that we and our partisanship are going to scare off moderates and independents, future potential Republican voters.
It's the same thing as don't criticize the president.
Oh, God, don't do that.
No, no, no, no.
That only angers the independents.
The independent, they don't like partisan.
The independents do not like criticism.
The independent and moderate.
No, no, no.
If you do that, they're going to run right back to the Democrats, who are as mean-spirited and extremist as any bunch of people in American politics in my lifetime.
Somehow, the independents and moderates do not mind the mean-spiritedness, genuine mean-spirit.
I'm not talking about partisanship.
I'm not mean.
I'm one of the nicest, most self-effacing guys on the planet.
I'm also a harmless little fuzzball.
These people on the left are genuine, mean-spirited, ill-mannered extremists.
And somehow, the independents and moderates don't have a problem with any of that.
But whenever the Republicans even dare to criticize, why we're told that this does not serve well the premise of bipartisanship.
And the Republicans will get blamed.
And therefore, the Democrats will emerge victorious because the end.
Meanwhile, with talk radio in full bloom during the 2012 campaign, Mitt Romney won independents going away.
Not the Democrats.
Companion story to this, the Washington Examiner is a fear of getting coked, hurting Republican super PACs.
Get this.
Democrat super PACs, political action committees, have raised more money than their Republican counterparts by millions of dollars, a factor attributed in part to the fear Republican donors experience being targeted by the IRS or by being coked.
And the headline is a fear of getting coked, hurting Republican super PAC.
The point of this is Washington Examiner David Drucker with the story says Republican super PAC donations are way down because donors do not want anything like the Koch brother treatment.
They don't want the IRS being sick on them.
And now you know exactly why that was done.
The IRS being sicked on Tea Party sends a message.
Also what they did to one of the huge Romney donors, I can never remember this guy's name out in the great Northwest, but they audited this guy twice.
His name will come to me in mere moments.
And they've gone after Sheldon Adelson of Las Vegas Sands.
They do.
They target Harry Reed, who if Harry Reid were in your family, you and everybody would be having quiet discussions about whether to commit him.
I mean, really, getting into the area of derangement here, delusional derangement, psychosis.
But, nevertheless, this unrelenting, insane blaming of the Koch brothers for everything is having an impact, apparently, because other big-time Republican donors don't want that treatment and they're withholding their donations.
Frank Vandersloot, that's the guy.
Can never remember the guy's name, Frank Vandersloop.
They audited the guy too.
He was just a big-time donor to Romney.
And the Koch brothers, of course, are excoriated multiple times a day simply because they're alive.
And this is, it's all part of the real Democrat agenda.
The real Democrat agenda is the elimination of any opposition.
Back after this.
I have a bunch of stuff here yesterday from, here today from yesterday's program I didn't get to.
And I want to touch on some of those items now before I get into what I prepped as the meat of today's show, because I don't want to leave these things hanging.
First story, Washington Post, less than, before I do, what do you think, just off the top of your head, or maybe you've heard, what do you think the percentage, the American population, is gay?
Let me just take a stab.
I'm not going to mention your names on the other side of the glass.
I just want all three of you to tell me what you think the answer.
There's no wrong answer.
I mean, there is a wrong answer, right answer, but I'm not doing this to trick anybody.
And there have been recently some media figures who have spouted a figure that's incorrect out there.
Okay, well, no, what do you think the gay population of the country is?
Okay, okay, 5%.
What do you think, Snerdley?
3%, what do you think?
3, what do you think?
5%.
Okay, the forehead, I think it was the forehead on CNN recently said that 1 out of 10 Americans are gay.
Well, the Washington Post says that less than 3% of the U.S. population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.
These are numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Why would...
Now, wait a minute.
What?
Of all government agencies, why would the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention be figuring out the sexual orientation of the American population?
Well, I'm just asking, why wouldn't the census be reporting these numbers?
Or why does the Center for Disease Control and Prevention even know?
Well, I can see what they would know, given they're part of government.
Why are they the source for this?
The National Health Interview Survey, which is the government's premier tool for annually assessing Americans' health and behaviors.
What?
Health and behaviors, okay?
The National Health Interview Survey found that 1.6% of adults self-identify as gay or lesbian.
0.7%, seven-tenths of a percent, consider themselves bisexual.
So that adds up to 2.3.
The overwhelming majority of adults, 96.6%, label themselves as straight in the survey most recently taken in 2013.
In additional, an additional, 1.1% declined to answer.
They said they didn't know.
Or they said they were something else.
They were not gay.
They were not lesbian.
They were not bi.
And they were not straight.
They were something else.
Now, given pop culture, would you, are you shocked that less than 3% of the population is gay?
I'm just asking.
We'll be back.
Okay, if you're just a casual observer of media, and let's say that you spend a lot of time watching prime time television, you can't miss a television show where one or more of the stars, major characters are gay.
Storylines revolve around the gay lifestyle, homosexuality, any number, both socially and politically.
You can't miss it.
It is everywhere in the pop culture.
Now, how does this happen?
If less than 3% of the population is gay, how does less than, how does 2.3% of the population end up dominating both the pop culture and political worlds?
How does this happen?
I would venture to say that people who do not know solely by virtue of their immersion in pop culture would be shocked to learn that the gay population is less than 3%.
Most of them would think it'd be much higher.
What with all the talk about gay marriage?
What with all the gay entertainment storylines?
Presented, by the way, in a positive way, not snarky or anything of the sort.
So I imagine a lot of people hearing this are surprised.
What?
You mean less than 3%?
How can that be?
So, put another way, 97% of the population is not.
So, how does it happen?
This is, to me, folks, this is a fascinating question and answer that explains how major cultural shift occurs.
How in the world can 2% of the American population end up dominating, in many ways, an entire political party and entertainment pop culture?
Because there is an answer to this.
They couldn't do it alone.
They're not large enough.
There aren't enough.
They do not, in strength of numbers alone, have any power whatsoever.
So from where do they get their power?
How do they derive it?
And how is it used?
And how is it implemented?
And then how is that power used to persuade?
And by the way, not just persuade, but to effect real change.
Let's take a look at, let's do it another way.
What percentage of the population of this country self-identifies as conservative?
The last I saw, it was 35, 37%, something might be 33.
Don't know.
The exact number is not important.
It's over 30 and it's under 40, so it's somewhere in there.
The self-identified portion of the population liberal is 20%.
The self-admitted gay population is 2%.
So how is it That a combined 22% of the population has succeeded in relegating 37% of the population as the real minority, and not just a minority, but an extreme, wacko, insane, lunatic, you name it, minority.
How have they, how has it been possible?
How has a genuine, I mean a microscopic minority been able to flip things on a majority in practically everything?
There's one common element that links all this, and it's the media.
It is the media that expands, solidifies, creates impressions of large and big and powerful by virtue for simply as,
I mean, it's as simple as saying that if half of the prime time network television programs feature gay characters and gay storylines in a positive nature, what are average, ordinary, unaware viewers, what are they going to conclude?
So it takes this really small minority, even if you combine the self-identified liberals with the self-identified homosexuals, you're at 22% versus 37, 35, whatever it is, percent.
It's 37, 37% self-identify as conservative.
How has all this happened?
And right there, the answer, and you know it as well as I do, it's the media.
The media has decided who they're going to align with and promote, and in so doing, they have established basically a falsehood.
They have created an impression that is not accurate that everybody believes, or a lot of people believe.
So much so that the self-identified majority in this country now believes that it barely exists.
The 37% of the population identifies as conservative thinks that it is barely hanging on by a thread.
And in terms of numbers, that 37% thinks it is outnumbered by liberals and various, and that 20% liberals includes African Americans and probably includes the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender population.
So it may not be 20 to just be 20% total.
But if you break that down even further, then you've got the African American population is what, 13% and declining, by the way.
So how does this happen?
Can the media alone do it?
Just your average, ordinary, everyday reporters and writers and television hosts, are they enough, even if they're all aligned and unified, is that enough to pull this off?
Or do they need backup?
Do they need an imprimatur?
Who is it that allows them?
They're all employees.
Who is it that allows them?
The reporters, the television hosts, that you name it, the writers of these shows, the producers of these shows, the directors of these shows.
Who is it that permits them to do all this?
Who in the world, I mean, if you have knowledge that 2% of the country is in, in this case, gay, why would anybody do prime time television programming oriented?
That's certainly not mass appeal.
So why would you do it?
Aha!
You're not doing it for mass appeal.
There's a political agenda behind it.
This is my point.
There is a political agenda to everything that the left does.
And part of the political agenda is creating mirages, creating falsehoods, making what isn't true look real.
And they're able to do it with a combination of consistency in pictures.
It's a fascinating thing that the true, I mean, we really are, we are being governed by.
We are engaged in a roiling of our culture that is resulting in massive, seemingly overnight changes that are in no way associated with the majority of the country,
and yet they continue to happen and made to look as though the real majority barely even exists.
No, wait, before we go to the phones, grab audio soundbite number 24 this afternoon on the House floor.
Got to hear this.
This is during one-minute speeches.
Members of the House get to go to the well of the House and pontificate for a minute.
Nobody has to listen.
There is nothing official attached to it and nothing to do with legislation per se.
They can just go mouth off.
And today, Representative Frederica Wilson, Democrat Florida, went to the well of the House during one-minute speeches to speak about the Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram.
Three months without our girls means that the time is now to keep pressure on the Nigerian government.
We must tweet with the fervent passion that extends beyond the glamour of a breaking news story.
We cannot slow down.
We cannot lose momentum.
We cannot rest until our girls at home.
Every morning between 9 and 12, tweet, bring back our girls with the hashtag, bring back our girls, bring back our girls.
Hashtag join Rep Wilson.
Hashtag joinRep Wilson.
Hashtag tweet, tweet, tweet.
Keep tweeting until we bring back our girls.
And there you have it.
What passes as representation of the American people in the House of Representatives?
The hashtag bring back our girls been demonstrated to be a dismal failure in terms of bringing back our girls.
But wait until Abu Ahmed, whatever his name is, Boko Haram hears this.
Can you imagine how scared?
Can you imagine how frightened this guy's going to be?
Oh, no.
Oh, no.
Did you see that, brothers?
They're ratcheting up the tweets.
They are going hashtag crazy over in America on to bring back our girl.
We better need a new hiding place.
Just incredible.
But of course, you see, ladies, she cares.
And Social media uniting everybody around a common cause based and rooted in humanity.
It's a beautiful thing.
Here's Greg in San Diego.
As we head to the phones, first call today.
Great to have you, sir.
Hello.
Thanks, Russ.
This is very exciting.
I think I have an answer for, or at least an opinion, on your question about how does the minority relegate a majority.
It has to do with distribution of message.
In business, we also always look at our market share.
If we were to look at our market share, distribution of our message, big government versus conservatism, the big government people have about a 95% market share now through the alphabet news station, ABC, CPS, NBC, academia, newspapers, Hollywood, where we only have about a 5% market share of our distribution of message, maybe through your show, Sean Annie Show, several others, and a little bit of Fox News.
That's it.
Wait, you left somebody out there.
You didn't mention a Republican Party in there, Greg.
I think that's true.
That's fair.
Cannot even include the Republican Party in the less government market share message.
That's profound.
That's interesting.
That's the same group of people that cut off from funding several years ago because of that.
So I guess we're on our own, the conservatives versus big government types, their market share might get bigger because the distribution now will include the Republicans.
So the fight is even bigger.
If we sit back and look at how do we increase our market share of our distribution of message.
Well, there's an answer because now the answer to that involves the, I guess, the shrinkage of the sample.
We can say, for example, that the homosexual population is less than 3% of the country, but what percentage of the entertainment industry is the gay population?
Can I sidebar for a second?
There's a truck in front of me that has a Reagan Bush bumper sticker on it.
I'm on the freeway.
Is there a gun rack that you can see in the rear window?
No.
It's a Chevrolet.
It's a Chevrolet, and it's still on the road with a Reagan Bush sticker.
Spreads pulled over with its foot up waiting for a tow truck.
No, just kidding.
Anyways, let's get back to distribution of message.
Well, that's what I'm talking about.
If you reduce the sample size, instead of saying what is the gay population of the country and reduce it to what is the gay population of the entertainment industry, you've got a big difference there, I would guess.
I have no idea what the number is, but I know it's larger than 3%.
And it's got to be, I mean, way, way higher than that.
But even with that, even with that, it still takes, it still takes a legitimizing factor.
It also requires a portrayal of a gay lifestyle in a certain way in order to create the message that you want.
You just can't have gay characters.
You've got to portray them in a certain way.
And all of this requires a common element.
The media, be it ownership, be it the news.
You can say that the TV show itself is media, which it is.
But the market share example is a good way to look at it.
But then when you get into market share, market share doesn't explain everything.
In business, the most sought-after thing is the profit.
You can have all the market share in the world.
If you're not profitable, it won't matter.
I give you two examples, Samsung versus Apple, without getting into great detail about that.
Regardless, it simply, it all is going to end up, no matter how we do this, it's all going to end up back at the media.
It's going to end up back at the media, and who runs that?
To explain all of this massive cultural shift, all of the political shift, the cultural change, it's all going to lead back to that.
And I'll tell you, if you want to take it, it's all going to lead back to ruling class versus country class.
Always.
It is, the ruling class is a small bunch of people compared to the rest of the country.
They're tiny.
Call them the elites, whatever you want.
The 1%, the truly rich, they're tiny.
Look at the power.
What gives them the power?
How do they use it?
So forth.
And it's all being done here to illustrate the size of the challenge that exists here.
You can either come up with a strategy to wrest control of the media from those who currently have it, or you can devise a strategy that would seek to discredit the message of the media.
Regardless of however you go, whichever strategy you decide to employ, it's a massive undertaking.
You know, folks, there's a little discord out on the left coast in Los Angeles.
It does not involve Donald Sterling this time.
The homeless population is very upset at Mayor Garcetti because he is providing housing for the illegal alien children that are arriving in great numbers over the border.
And the homeless, what about us?
In West Laco, Texas, a veritable resort has been bought by the government and is being turned over to house illegal alien children.