All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 4, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:48
August 4, 2014, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 Podcast.
Yeah, you gotta love this.
Have you have you all noticed all of the um all of the mockery there has been in the media over the weekend about any fears anybody might have about Ebola in the United States?
All we have here is a disease for which there's no cure.
It's uh fatal.
50 to 90 percent of people get it.
And so people expressing concern about it being within.
Our borders are being made fun of.
They're being mocked as fear-bongers.
And it's uh it's not just one story.
There have been all kinds of stories that snide comments over the weekend in the drive-by media that uh essentially mock all of the you rubes, only you people in America who are nervous about the spread of Ebola in the United States.
And you know, I have to tell you, I especially love it when when they trot out somebody from the Centers for Disease Control to tell us, don't worry, not a thing to worry about.
They've got it all under control.
That's the same centers for disease control and prevention that we found out last month had forgotten they were storing viable living anthrax in old cardboard boxes in a storage room for decades.
They just that just slipped their mind down there.
But anyway, it's it's uh that they that one of the one of the infected Americans, they flew over there on, I guess it was Thursday or Friday from they flew over, maybe it was Saturday, and they took with them a super secret serum that had never been used before, and apparently it is magical.
Grab audio sound by number 12.
This is Sanjay Gupta on CNN's New Day today.
Kate Baldwin talking to him.
She said, You were able to get new details, extensive details on this serum being given the Ebola patient.
What are you learning?
This experimental therapy that was stored at sub-zero temperatures being flown into Liberia expressly for the use of Dr. Bramley in 60 minutes after he was administered the medication.
His condition sounds like nearly reversed.
His breathing became regular.
He had a significant rash over his body that started to go down, and he just improved really, really quickly.
By the next morning, even was able to take a shower before getting on the pre-planned medical evacuation jet ride back here to the United States.
First it was Dr. Brantley, and then apparently Miss Whiteball received it as well.
It had never been used in a human being before.
Typically, medications go through a clinical trial process where you show that it is safe, you show that it's effective, and then it becomes more widely available.
This had never been done before, only in monkeys.
Where did this come from?
Who knew?
And wait till the rest of the world hears about the fact that we've got it, and that we took it to Liberia, but only used it on a sick American and didn't share it with sick Liberians.
Wait until they find out, wait till Obama finds out about that.
What you when you folks there is gonna held pay.
When Obama finds out we got this super secret thing to kid that does something magical to Ebola, and we took it to Liberia and used it on an American and then brought him and the serum home and we didn't share it?
This is exactly what has been wrong with this country that Obama's been trying to fix.
Unfair that we should have something like where did this come from?
Well, let's stay with CNN's new day.
And the hostette, Kate Baldwin, speaking with the NIH director of infectious diseases, Dr. Anthony Fauci.
This guy came to fame, worldwide fame in the uh in the AIDS epidemic back in the 80s.
Kate Baldwin said, uh now some of Sanjay Gupta's reporting suggested that representatives from NIH contacted these organizations to try to get in touch with these patients to offer this treatment.
Uh what what more can you tell us about this serum?
The NIH is not offering the treatment up.
The original research on that has been uh supported by the NIH, but the actual procurement and ownership of the antibody is not NIH.
It's from a company who was able to get a very, very few doses that are around to get some of those doses to the patients involved, uh to the doctor and to Nancy.
Uh so that's the role of the NIH was in the original research, but we don't own those antibodies.
The private sector.
Oh man, is Obama going to be ticked.
So a company in the private sector came up with this magical serum, but there isn't much of it.
There was only enough to take to Liberia for two patients.
Americans.
Now, granted, they were doing the work of the Lord.
They were over there helping other Ebola victims.
That's how they contracted the disease or contacted.
Yeah, contracted the disease.
But nevertheless, we take the serum over there.
There's not much of it.
We don't share it.
We haven't shared the formula.
Just typical American selfishness and greed.
No wonder we brought these two back.
We got a magical serum.
Anyway, greetings, folks.
I thought you'd like to know that, well, we've got this magical theorem.
They continue not amok in the media.
Everybody concerned about this.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882, the email address Lrushbo at EIB net.com.
I had this story from Friday, and it just never made it to the top of the stack.
Do you remember?
Somebody in the Washington, D.C. city government, some function, I forget the office, and in a council hearing used the word niggardly, which means selfish and and tight.
Cheap used the word niggardly, and they went bonkers and they made the guy practically resign.
In fact, I think he did resign over his poor choice of words.
It was NIGG ARDLY, niggardly, and this guy said, he just didn't want to put up with a cacophony of outrage from genuine low information idiots.
Well, it's happened again.
A man working for an English language learning center in Utah says he was fired after writing a blog post about homophones, which his boss complained made their school associated with homosexuality and homophobia.
Tom Torkletsen had worked at the Nolan Global Language Center in Provo for three months when he wrote about homophones.
Do you know what a homophone is?
Well, what do you think a homophone is?
A gay telephone?
You think it's a gay telephone?
No.
A homophone?
No, no, it's not a musical instrument.
A homophone is a word that sounds the same but have different meanings.
Words that sound alike but have different meanings, like through and through T-H-R-O-U-G-H-T-H-R-E-W.
Those are homophones.
B and B, B-E-B-E-E.
Torkelson wanted the English language learners to grasp this concept early on, although he told the Salt Lake Tribune that he knew the homo part of the word could be problematic.
Now why is it?
Because it's politically true.
Can you mention niggardly and homophones are a couple of words that will soon find themselves thrown out of the English language because they offend.
Even though they have specific meanings.
A few days later, this guy was fired.
Tom Torkleton fired, says he was fired by his boss and the scruels owner, Clark Woodger.
Woodger told the Solake Tribune that he fired Torkleson for going off on tangents.
But he does think the lesson was too complex for anyone, just starting to learn English.
People at this level of English, they see the homocide, and they think it has to do with somebody being gay, and it doesn't, and so we don't have any room for this guy here, and he's gone.
And the guy that used the word Niggardly is gone.
Because it just, you know, even though it has nothing, it's it's a spendthrift.
It's a tight one.
That was January 15th, 1999.
David Howard, a white aid to Anthony Williams, the black mayor of Washington, used niggardly in reference to the budget.
Ten days later he quit.
Ten days later he resigned, and the mayor accepted it.
Speaking of homophones.
Remember when the president of Uganda stood up and said that Uganda was going to have a pretty pretty big and pretty forceful anti-gay law, that they didn't believe in homosexuality.
Remember, John Kerry, there was, I mean, I think something in the Middle East was on fire.
It might have been Syria or something, and John Kerry says, you know, we call the guy.
We call a guy, we read in the Riot Act, and this is an example of how you do things in the 21st century.
Uganda gets it wrong about homosexuality.
We took care of it.
And today, an anti-gay law in Uganda has indeed been struck down by the nation's constitutional court.
The law had instituted penalties for gay relationships that included sentences as long as life in prison for aggravated homosexuality and jail sentences of seven years for aiding and abetting homosexuality.
So it looks like the medical experts that Obama and John Kerry sent to Uganda back in March to explain to them the error of their ways have had an effect.
And sticking with the subject of homosexuality, this is from Breitbart.
Gay leaders are expressing alarm.
and At the just released numbers from the Center for Disease Control that place the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as homosexual at only 1.6% percent of the adult population.
That would mean the total number of gays in America is about 3.8 million, roughly one and a half million less than the total number of American Methodists.
Now, that is almost half the low number that was recently reported.
There was a number that, I forget where it came from, but the number was 2.6 or 2.8%.
And I I can't remember where that number came from, but I remember the day I got it, I did a little pop quiz, and this was fascinating.
I asked members of the staff in a blind study what they thought the gay population the country was.
Without any, I mean, there's no wrong answer.
It was not a trick question.
I generally wanted to know what they thought, and I didn't give them any other information.
No hints, no nothing.
And the numbers ran from 10 to 30 percent.
And the reason for for doing the pop quiz survey was to find out just how successful the pop culture effort to I don't know, normalize or whatever, has been.
If you run across young people think the gay population is 30 percent, you know that the effort, primetime television shows, what have you, has been extremely successful.
And some may say that in terms of the Democrat Party, we are being governed by the fundraising efforts of one million people in this country.
The number keeps getting smaller, and of course, the gay community is outraged at the CDC for putting this number out.
Gay leaders are expressing alarm, they don't want the number out, they don't think it's true.
And they are going to make an effort to do something about, let's just see.
Let's just keep it sharper.
Let's see if the CDC revises the number up after some political pressure is applied from militant gay groups.
I wouldn't be surprised.
Philadelphia, advocates of the Affordable Care Act, focused until now on persuading people to buy health insurance, have moved to a crucial new Phase, making sure the eight million Americans who did so understand their often complicated policies and use them properly.
This this story is from the New York Times.
It's from Saturday, which means it was buried.
Headline, newly insured, many others now face learning curve.
And let me just cut to the chase.
The article is centered around the heart-rending story of a 38-year-old woman by the name of Salwa Shabazz L. That would be Shabazz Dash E L, like Antoine Randall L. So this would be Salwa Shabazz L. She is the subject of this heart-tugging story.
You see, Sawa Shabazz L is getting insurance under Obamacare.
Four, da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da, $32 a month.
But she was shocked, and so was the New York Times, to discover that she has to pay a $60 copay to see a specialist.
The price to see the specialist is $500.
She has to pay $60, and she is outraged.
She is livid.
She can't afford to pay $60.
You know why?
Because she just quit her job at the liquor store because she has epilepsy.
She's trying to get SSDI.
The rest of this New York Times article is yet another push to force states like Pennsylvania, where Ms. Shabazz L lives, to expand Medicaid by raising the income restrict.
This is a full frontal assault.
Here's a woman, $32 a month for health care and a $60 copay, and it's still too much.
It is still too much, and it's still unfair.
And so the New York Times is on the on the way here to try to force Pennsylvania and other states to make it no charge whatsoever for people like this.
And I guarantee you it's most people.
And they're always heart-rending stories, tugging at your heartstrings.
The newly insured, it's so complicated, they didn't know what they were getting, and it's not Obama's fault, of course.
No, no, no, it's the state's fault.
Or, you know, it's just the way it is.
Never mind.
Never mind that we were told passing Obamacare would take care of all of this.
In fact, things like this not happening was a major selling point.
And it was supposed to eliminate visits to the ER room, emergency room, their way up.
It's just one more story in a whole stack of them of the debacle that Obamacare is.
I gotta take a quick time out.
We'll be back.
I've got some thoughts on this impeachment, the Israeli stuff.
We're gonna cover the gamut here today, folks, and just hang in there and be tough.
The original story from the Centers for Disease Control of Gay Population was the Washington Post.
It was back on July 16th, so a little over two weeks ago.
And I remember at the time, so what in the world is the Centers for Disease Control doing, tabulating this percentage?
Why isn't that a census Bureau calculation?
Well, it turns out that this is the same story.
It's not two different stories.
The Washington Post simply massaged the number a little bit.
The number, folks, that's all they massage the number.
The number was never 2.8 or 3.0.
The number's always been 1.6% of the population is homosexual or homosexual.
The article pointed out the one today that gays are angry that this low number is going to hurt their political power, and that they are going to do everything they can to change it.
But this turns out it's not two different numbers.
Well, It's two different numbers.
But it isn't two different stories.
It's just that it's the same release from the centers for disease control.
It's just that somehow on July 16th, the Washington Post, the number ended up at what?
2.7 well, 2.8, almost 3%.
And the number is less than half that.
And there's a Breitbart article about this in the lines of Scout, who goes by one name, a spokesman for Center Link's network of LGBT.
Oh, speaking of which, do you realize there is a war going on between militant feminizes and transgendered people?
You didn't well, well, it turns out they've been fighting over all kinds of stuff for a long time.
The militant feminizes are angry at the trannies.
Well, I I don't have time to tell you why right now.
There are only precious seconds left in this busy broadcast segment.
But it is coming up.
I want to thank those of you sending me critical emails, such as, why are you wasting time talking about Ebola for crying out loud, you not know what's going on at the border and with impeachment, and now they're trying to bring Romney back.
Wait a minute.
Now wait a second now.
Wait a second.
The reason why it's a great question is because folks, we're into our 27th year.
There's something that you need to grasp about this program.
Everything discussed here is politics.
The way Ebola is being dealt with is political.
And it is instructive, it's informative, it's educational, and will tell you a lot about the left.
The Centers for Disease Control, with the actual number of homosexuals in America, 1.6%, and their reaction to it is totally a political story.
The reason is the left politicizes everything.
Plus, I'm gonna get you want to know the Romney story?
You want to know what I think about the Romney story?
You know what the Romney story is?
He's back.
He may run again.
Oh, yeah, he's on the campaign trail.
And and the subtext of the Romney story is he can win this time if I've ridden a black guy on the ballot.
That's what nobody's saying, but that's the subtext.
And the only reason Romney lost, because he couldn't win.
There was a black guy running for re-election.
There was no way the country was going to send the first black president packing.
That's not why.
People are looking at this the wrong way.
Mitt Romney's a fine man.
Mitt Romney is maybe one of the most decent people you'll ever run into.
But uh folks, with the economy as bad as it was, with Obamacare ticking time bomb that it was.
If the Republicans nominate somebody that forced four million Republicans to sit home and not vote in this climate, why in the world are they thinking of doing it again?
Now I think I know the answer.
I think I know why Romney is attractive.
There's some people that want to head Jeb Bush off at the pass.
There are others that want to head off any conservative nominee at the pass.
It's really, when you when you come to the Republican Party, first and foremost is all about making sure that somebody like Cruz or anybody with ties to the Tea Party doesn't get the nomination.
And I'm telling you the subtext, hey, you know, Romney had a great message, great guy.
He just, if he's running against somebody, there's no black person on the ballot, and he may have a chance.
I'm telling you, that's a totally wrong way to look at the A Romney care Obama going to cancel each other out.
But it's it's worse than with with the economy as bad as it was, with Obamacare lingering, with everything that was known, Benghazi and everything, when everything that was known.
Poor Mitt was not able to capitalize on the absolute worst four years of a presidency we've had in my lifetime.
What in the world makes people think he's going to be able to do it again?
I mean, History is history.
They're real world events to judge from.
And making up reasons why he lost.
And making up reasons why he might win again.
Well, of course, he might be running as the first woman candidate, which should be the same thing all over again.
Just trade race for gender, and the Democrats get the same campaign.
But before you even get there, I think I say, you won't find in terms of just nice man, you won't find anybody greater.
Morality and family, you won't find anybody better.
But takes more than that.
And there was a lot.
Obama was screwing up left and right big time.
There are some who think that 2012 should have been a slam dunk Republican landslide.
And I'm close to being one of them.
Now I know the exit polling data.
I know that Obama still succeeded in having Bush blame for the economy.
And I know that Obama had finished really high in this question, cares about people like me, but that's my point.
There was plenty of time to make the case in the campaign for who Obama was.
Nobody was going to do that because nobody was going to attack the first black president.
That's the problem.
He was no longer the first black president by then.
He was simply the president with a record with a set of policies that were leading to disaster.
Sad thing is that there are a lot of us not surprised we're where we are.
This none of this was a mystery to me, and I'm sure not to a lot of you.
Okay, so that's that.
Impeachment, I'll tell you, we've been back and forth and upside down on this.
But I think there's an aspect of this the Democrats are not thinking of.
And even in the audio sound bites I have that were collected over the weekend, the Democrats are still out there trying to gold the Republicans into impeaching Obama.
And Obama is out there trying to goad Republicans into impeaching him.
And it's the Democrats that are doing all the talk about it.
And you got Juan Williams on Fox telling everybody that anybody wants to do this is a racist pig and so forth.
The one thing the Democrats are not stopping to think about as they continue to talk about this, would you want the word impeachment associated with your president so damn often?
If you were a Democrat, what do they think they're doing here?
After a while, if you if you keep talking about the impeachment of your own president, I understand they're succeeding with fundraising on it.
You realize they collected $4 million the last two weeks in just email appeals based on this fact that Republicans want to impeach Obama.
So I understand they've got their money out of it.
But I'm going to tell you, I never follow the conventional wisdom.
I I find out what the conventional wisdom is and I go the other way.
Almost always.
And this conventional wisdom is that all this talk of impeachment is going to help Obama, and it's going to hurt the Republicans, and it's going to really force Obama's base, the Democrat base, out in droves in November.
If they keep it up, at some point people are going to start asking, well, why?
Would anybody want to impeach them?
Why are you guys talking?
Why is this why is this threat even there?
Right now the Democrats are living off the answer to that question, be it, well, the Republicans are mean-spirited, they're extremists, they're racists, and they hate the first black president.
That's why they want to impeach him.
But after a while, if the Democrats keep this drum beat up, common sense, folks, at some point is going to prevail with enough people if this isn't going to make sense.
Impeachment as a positive.
Impeachment, this is all they've got is to run around and spout empty threats that their president's going to be impeached.
To me, this is the exact kind of thing that can backfire on us.
I hope they keep it up.
Because they've got nothing.
The Democrats literally have got nothing going for them.
The truth of the matter, and the drive-bys don't tell you about it because they are Democrats, but the Democrat Party is in the dregs.
Nothing that they've done is working.
You can't find a success as part of any policy they've implemented since Obama became president.
You can't find one.
This country is in a downward spiral.
The only question people are asking is this coincidental, accidental, or purposeful.
And that's what people are debating.
But the idea the border's wide open.
Everybody knows it is.
Now, Obama is out there continuing.
The Democrats are continuing this tease campaign that Obama is going to grant blanket amnesty to five or six million if the if the Republicans don't do it by uh by by what, October or now September.
And they keep talking about if the Congress doesn't.
Let's not forget the Democrats run the Senate here.
It's not just the Republicans in the House that are obstacles here.
The Democrats in the Senate are not playing ball.
And they're not getting anything done.
Harry Reid's made an absolute disaster out of the Senate.
I know we make the mistake, and I I may at this point last week.
See if this doesn't describe you.
You hear, you're watching the news.
You hear Obama make an argument, and you think, okay, that's it.
He's won the argument.
As soon as he makes it, he's won the argument because you think that every low information voter in the world, or low information ding bet, is going to automatically believe everything Obama says when he complains, when he whines, when he makes allegations.
So you get depressed, you get a little defeated.
There goes Obama again, making some allegation just by virtue of making the charge, just by virtue of expressing an opinion, you think he's automatically going to be right.
Look at his approval numbers.
39 and a Gallup 40 in CNN, it's lower than that.
It has to be lower than that, given the wilder effect and everything else that goes into play when people talk to pollsters about black candidates.
His approval number is way lower than that.
Real world, there is nowhere near 50% of this country that's supportive of Obama.
Nowhere near it.
You live in the world of a mythical support for Obama because the drive-by's are not dare gonna tell anybody how low his support really is.
And even when they report 39 or 40 percent, they're gonna report it and let it go.
They're not gonna harp on it, they're not gonna remind you of it, report it once to say they've done it, and move on to other things.
But it's not the case that when Obama makes an argument or says something, it's automatically deemed true because the Republicans don't have a chance at refuting it.
The Democrats have nothing, folks.
All they've got is this the race card impeachment, it's all part of the same tactic.
And that is tell lies to their base about the extremist, mean-spirited, evil racist Republicans, and get votes out in order to protect and save Democrats from these evil mean guys on the Republican side.
Now it's been an effective strategy because the Republicans haven't found a way to refute it.
But here, grab somebody number two, it is Mike Allen.
He works at uh Politico.
He's got a blog he publishes every morning that's pretty it's an encapsulation of what's going on in town that day in D.C. He was an inside politics.
Yesterday morning on CNN, John King, the host, said Democrats think if they can lose only eight to twelve House seats, they'll be in play if they get a presidential win in 2016 to maybe get the majority back.
Now stop and think about that.
Here's John King.
Well known media slave for the Democrat Party, wishfully think, okay, now if the if the if the Democrats, if they can just lose only eight to twelve seats, then they're gonna be in play to win the White House in 2016.
But if they lose more than 12, it might be a problem.
When's the last time you ever heard anybody talking about, oh yeah, if we only lose eight to twelve, the White House is a slam dunk.
You know, they're thinking Electoral College and all these other bits of minutiae.
But the point is this is where they are.
Losing eight to twelve House seats, they'll still be in play.
And you could have, they say the Senate, the Republican needs a net gain of six, think it's possible somebody's got to get to 51 or 50.
Anyway, is this a fair assessment, Mike Allen?
Where are the Democrats right now?
Here's an amazing sign of just how bleak the environment is for Democrats.
Democrats strategists who had access to all the polls, focus groups, said we're writing off voters who are angry.
Our target voters now are people who are worried, disappointed, concerned.
Those are the voters that they want.
That's a bad place to be.
Holy smokes is he right.
That's a horrible place to be.
I'll explain why when we get back.
Okay, so Mike Allen at Politico says he talked to a Democrat strategist.
Access to all the polls, all the focus groups.
We are writing off voters who are angry.
Well, that makes sense.
Voters angry.
I mean, who is there to be angry at but Obama and the Democrats?
Contrary to what the media might want you to think that everybody's mad at the Republicans, they haven't done anything.
Well, that's true.
But in this context, that's positive.
Their fingerprints aren't on any of this.
As far as Republican voters are concerned, they're in trouble because they haven't done anything, meaning they haven't tried any pushback, but their fingerprints are not on this mess.
The Republicans are not keeping the borders open.
They want to, but they haven't done it.
Obama has.
The Republicans have nothing to say over this economy.
That's all Obama.
Everything's all Obama.
So the Democrat strategists are writing off angry voters.
That makes sense.
But this next business.
Democrat target voters are people who are worried, disappointed, and concerned.
Those are the voters that they want.
Mike Allen says, that's a bad place to be.
And it is.
Why do you think so, Mr. Snurdly?
Why is it a bad place to be to want voters who are worried, disappointed, and concerned?
Because they're worried, disappointed, and concerned over you.
I don't care whether it's anger or disappointment or worry or concern if if if stance to reason, if there is worry over the future of the country, if there's concern over the future of your job prospect, the future of your family, you are not, after six years, you are not going to blame George W. Bush.
And by the way, the polling data now reflects that under 50% hold Bush responsible for the economy now.
So that's play down for Obama.
So if this is true, and if the Democrats turn out and vote prospects in November circle around only those who are worried, disappointed, and concerned.
But there's nothing positive there is the is the bottom line.
You don't have anybody.
You've heard the old saw that, yeah, you got to give people reasons to vote for you.
You just can't have them out there voting against the other guy.
You've got to have them vote for There's nothing.
There's not one reason to vote for Democrats, policy-wise.
The only thing the Democrats can do in that arrangement, you vote for the Democrats because you think the Republicans are so bad.
Because they're going to target you, because they're going to give the rich all the money back or whatever.
Now, granted, there's a sizable number of people that fall for that.
We know it, have to admit it.
But it's it's it's not the voting block that you want to win a majority with.
And that's why all this talk of impeachment.
That's why Obama won't let go of it.
That's why his his uh press secretary and the communications, none of them.
Valerie Jarrett, they're all talking about how they Republicans want to impeach Obama.
The Republicans are not talking about it.
By the way, I'm not suggesting here that the Republicans are their own case study.
If they win here, it's strictly gonna be an anti-Democrat, anti-Obama thing.
That's sadly unfortunate, but it's true.
Republicans their own separate thing.
Don't but but but in this case, this everything they've got to talk about is either fear-mongering, negative, nothing, nothing positive.
Well, they never talk about positive rushment.
Oh, go back to 2008.
That's all it was.
It was a blank slate positive the Messiah.
You can't get more positive, and that's the difference.
I'll show you what I mean about Ebola and how it's been politicized.
And it is.
Everything the left does is political.
It's it would help so much if you could just accept this, folks.
▲
Export Selection