All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 8, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:45
September 8, 2014, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program documented to be almost always right 99.7% of the time.
I am Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man.
America's truth detector and also the doctor of democracy.
Executing assigned hosting duties flawlessly.
Your highly trained broadcast specialist.
A telephone number 800 282882, the email address L. Rushmo at EIBNet.com.
A federal study was actually funded to determine why 75% of lesbian women as opposed to lesbian men are obese and gay men are not.
I guarantee you this is true.
A federal study to determine why 75% of lesbian women are obese and gay men are not obese has totaled nearly three million dollars.
The National Institutes of Health Study is now in its fourth year.
It has received an additional $670,000 for fiscal year 2014, which is about to end.
For a total of three million dollars, researchers at Brigham and Women's Hospital have come to several conclusions since studying the striking interplay of gender and sexual orientation in obesity disparities.
The study is going to last until 2016.
The striking interplay of gender and sexual orientation in obesity disparities.
Somebody, I guess, found out that 75% of lesbians.
Why is it say lesbian women?
Are there male lesbians and we just don't know about it?
What is a lesbian woman?
Why do you need to put women in there behind behind lesbian?
Well, let me just reread this.
A federal stud to make a change here so it's not confusing.
Federal study to determine why 75% of lesbians are fat and gay men aren't has totaled nearly three million dollars.
So somebody figured this out and obviously concluded it isn't fair.
Because we're supposed to be the age of equality.
And this isn't fair.
It's not fair.
Why aren't gay men fat too?
Or more probably crucial, why aren't lesbians thin.
What could be at play?
They have determined, you ready for this now?
They have determined at Brigham and Women's Hospital that gay and bisexual men had a greater desire for toned muscles than straight men.
So gay men and bisexual men really, really want toned muscles.
Straight men, eh, if it happens fine, if not not going to lose sleep over it.
Lesbians, according to the survey, the study, lesbians have lower athletic self-esteem that may lead to higher rates of obesity.
And lesbians are more likely to see themselves at a healthy weight even when they're not.
The research found that LGBT individuals, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender people, exercise less than heterosexuals, and that sexual minorities are 46 to 76% less likely to be on an athletic team.
Did you know, folks, that there was so much unfairness in all this?
Did you have any idea?
Well, fear not because your federal government's on the case trying to figure out why these disparities, these obesity orientation obesity disparities exist.
And they're going to get to the bottom of it.
Because one thing's going to have to happen.
Either gay men are going to have to get fat or lesbians are going to have to get thin.
Because there can't be these disparities.
well, something may be wrong here.
And we can't have that.
There's nothing wrong.
Therefore, they've got to find the explanation for this.
High hopes for tax money isn't as expected as Colorado's legal marijuana industry is not bringing in as much money as anticipated.
In fact, tax revenue from the legal sale of marijuana is way below expectations.
Now, when the when voters approve recreational marijuana sales, Colorado predicted it'd pull in more than $33 million in new taxes the first six months.
And they were salivating.
It was probably one of the reasons why they did it.
Not hard to predict.
But they didn't get anywhere near $33 million in the first six months.
They got $11 million in the first.
They were $21 million short.
Any idea why this might be?
Anyone want to take a wild guess?
Why didn't they?
I mean, people are buying dope left, and why didn't they get the tax revenue?
No, it's because buying pot is less expensive on the street.
Oh, they forgot about that.
They forgot it's the old unintended consequence.
They forgot that pot was still going to be available in back alleys and on the street or wherever.
That you're not going to have to go to a sanctioned retailer in order to pick up your stuff.
I don't know who ever said that potheads are not as smart as others to avoid taxes, but this kind of disproves it.
Even potheads are with it enough to know how to avoid taxes.
This is not a good liberal thing to do.
See, liberals are supposed to pay every tax that comes their way.
That's a sign of patriotism.
And well, well, look at Obama and the Democrats and the way they talk about this inversion business.
Companies that re-headquarter overseas to avoid the U.S. corporate tax rate.
That's a shame.
That's that's not right.
They're avoiding taxes, and here come the potheads in Colorado doing the same thing in the state trying to figure out what happened.
So what will they do now?
Well, they had budgeted $33 million in taxes.
They're going to have to get it some way.
Prices are going to have to go up, and what's that going to cause?
More street sales, and even more plunging tax revenue.
And for those of you who may not know, the high-tech industry in Silicon Valley is an anomaly in many ways.
It is comprised of leftists, both corporately and at the worker level.
But they routinely agree with things and support things that are going to cost them through their life.
One of the things that they are inexplicably behind, the so-called net neutrality, all net neutrality.
If you want to know what net neutrality is, is the government takes over control of the internet.
That's all it is.
It is assumed that the government will then assign everybody involved equal broadband space, equal access, uh no speedways, everybody will have equality.
The government will enforce equality and fairness.
The internet is just fine as it is.
There's no government over control, there's no government control of it or regulation, like there is the FCC over broadcast.
But these tech people, they want the government to come in.
It's inexplicable.
But it's because they believe in the infallibility of government.
Well, here's another little added side note about this.
If you work at Google, and I'm I'm not sure about Facebook, and I don't think it's the case at Apple, but at Google, employees eat free in the cafeteria.
Google also, as do some of the other Silicon Valley companies, Transport their employees from places like San Francisco on shuttle buses at no cost.
Staffers at Google, it is a Google, Facebook, and Twitter have long enjoyed free gourmet meals, courtesy of the employer.
It's an employee benefit.
It's a perk that they offer in their attempt to find the best people.
There are buffets all over the place, in house pizza joints, kitchens stocked with organic produce, whatever you want, and it's all free, and guess who's found out about it?
The IRS.
The IRS is arguing that all of these free meals equal imputed income.
That normally people would have to spend money to eat lunch.
But because they're not having to spend it, it is in effect income.
It is a part of the compensation.
So the IRS is giving new attention to this issue in recent months during routine audits of some companies.
When the employers have not been withholding taxes related to the meals, the IRS increasingly has sought back taxes that can amount to 30% of the meals fair market value.
This according to tax lawyers.
In another sign of a new focus on the issue, the IRS and Treasury Department last week included taxation of employer provided meals in their annual list of top tax priorities for the fiscal year ending next June,
meaning the IRS is going to be targeting the free lunches at all of these high-tech outfits, which just can't wait to support more and more government on the premise that it will be fair and equal for everybody.
And once again, you have the conflict of really incredible intelligence and high IQ running up against common sense and failing at every encounter.
Now I mentioned at the beginning of the program, uh, ladies and gentlemen, that Obama has decided to delay amnesty for illegals until after the election.
My contention to you today and weeks ago was that he never was going to do this.
It was a threat that was never actually going to happen.
He had a lot of people believing it was going to happen, though.
Poor old Luis Gutierrez in Illinois.
La Raza, even a number of Democrats, were convinced Obama was going to do this.
And why?
Well, for the good of America.
And because this Congress is a do-nothing Congress and this Congress won't act.
You know, more and more Democrats are beginning to think the Constitution doesn't exist.
And if if Congress will not let you do what you want when you're president, you do it anyway.
That's the statist view, the totalitarian view.
If the Congress won't help, then screw them, and you do it anyway.
And they thought Obama was going to do this.
But I, your host, L. Rushbo, told you back on August 5th.
August 5th, over a month ago, here is the 26-second soundbite.
Obama had total control of the House and the Senate, and he used that for Obamacare.
Now the Republicans own the House, and maybe they're going to win the Senate, and that's when Obama, I don't ever think he's going to.
The only way he's going to grant blanket amnesty to five or six million or all 11 or 12 million is if the Republicans get the blame for it.
He can't find a way before the election to see that the Republicans are blamed for it.
And I say blamed on purpose because this is not something that the majority of the country supports, contrary to what you would see in the media.
The majority of Americans does not want the law of this country flouted this way.
The majority of Americans Does not want amnesty granted to 11 million, 5 million, 12 million, whatever it is, overnight blanket without due process taking place.
They don't want this occurring without shoring up the border, border security being number one terms of importance.
So whoever does it is going to get the blame for it, not the credit.
There is no credit for doing this.
So Obama has never, in my mind, been serious about granting amnesty.
He knows the country doesn't want it.
But if he can get the Republicans blamed for, however, I mean, if he has to do it, the last desperate act, I've got to do this for the good of the country and a Republican, but he can't find a way.
And the proof is that he's now saying he's not going to do this until after the election.
Why would it matter?
By the same token, if this is such a good thing to do, if it's such the right thing to do, if it's so good for the country, why wait?
Why isn't it done already?
We've been debating amnesty in essence in uh in intense ways for the past five years.
Why wait?
Why didn't he do it the first two years when he had the Democrats in control of the House and the Senate, and nobody could have stopped him?
The Republicans didn't have the votes to stop anything.
Obama cared nothing.
Why didn't he do it then?
Because there isn't any credit accruing for doing it.
There is only blame.
And he knows this as well as anybody.
Will he do it after the election?
We'll see.
Here's what he said on Meet the Press yesterday, Chuck Todd interviewed him.
And Todd said, look, I want to go to immigration.
You uh you made a decision to delay any executive action until after the election.
What do you tell the person that's going to get deported before the election?
That this decision was essentially made in your hopes of saving a Democrat Senate?
Well, that's not the reason.
The country's going to be better off if we have an immigration system that works.
We have a Senate bill that would accomplish that.
The House Republicans refused to do it.
And what I said to them was if you do not act on something that's so common sense that you got labor, business, evangelicals, law enforcement, you've got folks across the board supporting it, then I'm going to look for all the legal authorities I have to act.
I want to make sure we get it right.
Wait a minute.
You've had years to get these ducks in a row.
You've known for years the House Republicans are not going to sign under the Senate.
The Senate bill is the Chuck Schumer bill, and trust me, it's amnesty.
He doesn't want it called amnesty, but it's effectively what it is.
And by the way, the story is 60,000 illegals might now be deported.
Really?
What's the law say?
The law says that is what should happen.
Law doesn't mean much now, of course, but I'll take a break, but there's more on this.
Sit tight, be right back.
Okay, so Obama says, no, no, no, no, no, I can't, I can't, I can't do, I can't do uh immigration reform uh for the election because, well, the uh, you know, the Republicans won't go along with it, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Chuck Todd says, Mr. President, it just looks like election year politics to people.
Here's the other thing, Chuck, and I'm being honest now, about the politics of it.
This problem with unaccompanied children that we saw a couple of weeks ago, where you had from Central America a surge of kids who are showing up at the border.
Got a lot of attention.
And a lot of Americans started thinking, we've got this immigration crisis on our hands.
And what I want to do is when I take executive action, I want to make sure that it's sustainable.
I'm gonna act because it's the right thing for the country.
But it's gonna be more sustainable and more effective if the public understands what the facts are on immigration.
Well, when are you gonna start telling us?
I mean, how many years has it been now?
So President Obama said on uh on Meet the Depressed, the new version with F. Chuck Todd on Sunday, that he now can't do amnesty until the American people understand it.
And these stupid sorry.
Oh, did you also notice, Chuck?
I'm being honest now.
Wait a minute.
It's not nitpicking to say, does that mean you normally aren't?
Chuck, I'm being honest now.
Okay.
These unaccompanied kids, they showed up.
What he's admitting is they screwed up the whole deal.
Because the American people saw that and understood quite properly what's gonna happen.
We saw what was gonna happen and we don't want it to happen to Obama.
That now has to be explained as an aberration and something odd and kooky and weird, a one-off.
It's not what's gonna happen.
And until he can figure out a way to tell the American people that they didn't see what they saw.
He can't go ahead and do amnesty.
Just that simple.
So while he's telling Chuck he's being honest now, he's gotta figure out a way to tell us we didn't see what we saw with this flood of kids, and we really attacked way too much meaning to it.
It didn't happen.
That's what he's got to convince us of.
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
Radon, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network.
And we're gonna start on the phones in Albany, Oregon.
This is uh Danny.
I'm glad you called, sir.
Appreciate your waiting as well.
Make it into Rush from the Pacific Northwest.
Thank you very much.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Great to be here.
I I read this morning that the first species said to have gone extinct due to global warming, has been found alive and well in the Indian Ocean.
I uh I have that story right here.
Formerly nicotine stained fingers.
It's from my version's the Detroit News.
And it is a story out of the it's a Nairobi Kenya snail.
Once thought to have been among the first species to go extinct because of climate change has reappeared in the wild.
The Aldabra banded snail was declared extinct seven years ago.
But it was rediscovered on August 23rd in the Indian Ocean Island Nation of Seychelles, or I don't know how you pronounce it.
But that's how the phonetics look.
The mollusk, which is endemic to the Aldabra coral atoll, which by the way is a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
Did you know that?
Yippee.
It had not been seen on the island since 1997.
Conservationists are celebrating the re-emergence.
Re-emergence.
It didn't go anywhere.
Species do not just come back to life.
96 is when the Great Pause started.
97 is when they declared the snail extinct.
So what do you make of this, Danny?
Well,'s actually uh brought it out of its uh hiding, you know, and uh I figured it must be safe to come back out and uh get out there and uh enjoy life once again.
Well, who knows what happened to it, but for it it it my question is this is what gets me in trouble with the with the crowd that wants to feel good.
Okay, so here comes a bunch of global warming scientists, and they've they've got their agenda, and their agenda is that man is destroying the planet.
They need evidence.
They can't prove it.
They've got to convince as many people as they can.
They've got to tug at the emotions.
They've got to get people emotionally involved in believing this.
One of the simplest ways is to accuse us of killing wildlife, because animals, especially to our children, oh, are the essence of innocence.
And that's why Al Gore decided to portray us killing polar bears.
Al Gore's movie uses fake pictures, and he's not the only one.
A bunch of global warming people have misrepresented.
You know, a polar bear can swim.
Are you ready for this, folks?
This is gonna boggle your mind.
A polar bear can swim for hours.
Miles.
A polar bear can swim for miles.
Polar bears do not live on glaciers.
But right there in El Gore's movie is a picture of a polar bear on a three square foot piece of ice that the caption says is all that's remaining of some glacier that's melting away, and their polar bear, as far as the children watching it are concerned, is stranded.
Therefore it's dead.
It just doesn't know it yet.
We're looking at a live, dead polar bear.
That's the emotional connection that the fraudsters attempt to make.
They don't tell the kids that the polar bear can jump off that thing and swim for miles and probably had to swim to get to it.
And was probably taking a breather on it.
Their polar bears like to hang out on ice because it's cold, which they like.
But the picture doesn't convey any of that.
So they come up with this story that this species has gone extinct, and that species has gone extinct.
And I'm sorry, folks, it's just me, but I just don't trust people on the left when they say things.
There's too much evidence that they lie, particularly in situations that are involved in the furtherance of their agenda.
So when somebody tells me that a species, a flower, uh a plant, a snail, has gone extinct.
Mike, how does anybody really know?
How in the world is it possible to know when something's gone extinct?
Something is as as small as a snail.
Well, Mr. Limbo, you see, it's really very easy.
Snails, like we're talking about, they live in a very small portion of the planet.
So you don't have to scour the whole world from if you don't see them, they're not there and it's extinct.
Is that it?
So you don't see one for a few years, and oh, it must mean it's died off because of global warming, which by the way, isn't happening.
So people don't question, they just believe it.
They just glom onto it, and because he's saving innocent plant and wildlife.
Oh.
Nothing better to make your heart sing.
Oh, it's magic.
Oh, it's just the coolest to think you're saving these helpless, lovable, cuddly, the case of polar bears until they grow up, and then you don't ever want to encounter one.
But if they're in a zoo, they're cool.
A snail, yuck, but still, we have no business killing it.
How many of you have had your kids come home from school, get mad at you for killing polar bears or whatever, because of what the teacher's teaching them and showing them.
So my my question is how do they even know the thing went extinct?
What is this?
It's re-emerged.
It didn't ever go anywhere, is the point.
The whole story's bogus.
Well, it isn't bogus.
Thought extinct due to climate change still alive.
The headline is right.
I guess the essence of the story is good, but they still thought to be extinct by its back, and then but elsewhere in the story you find is this re-emerged, didn't re-emerge, didn't reappear, didn't go anywhere in the first place.
It was not extinct.
Do you realize how hard it is to make something go extinct?
The global warming, people make you think it's snap of the fingers.
Couple degrees, and and by the way, whatever warming there's been has not even been major.
Clearly not enough to wipe out species, and yet people sign up to it, glom onto it, accept it, because it's easy.
If you ever stop to just literally think of this stuff.
But if we're not teaching critical thinking, if we're not treaching teaching skepticism, which ought to be ingredient number one in anything science related, skepticism.
It's gotta be.
Anyway, I appreciate called Danny Jeff in Summit, New Jersey.
You're next.
It's great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Welcome back from a well-deserved vacation.
It was tough sweating without you, I have to tell you.
Well, thank you.
I appreciate that.
I'm I'm glad to be back.
Well, I I I have to tell you, I I uh definitely write into your point about being skeptical, skeptical about things That uh the left says.
It's very interesting how when they have an agenda to further, whether it's something in economics, something in medicine, or something in science, they have the best and the brightest.
It's thoroughly researched, their theory is unimpeachable, the science is settled, the door is closed, that is it.
There's no question, ifs, ands, or buts.
And there's none permitted.
None permitted.
But when their theory goes off the rails a bit, such as the pause, all of their best and brightest, and all of the settled science, all they can say is it's inexplicable.
Isn't there one of their best and brightest who can explain the inexplicable?
It's a good point.
In other words, they're never wrong.
There's just something that happened that was unforeseen that's caused a delay in what we know is right.
But if they have such remarkably settled science as they supposedly do with their global warming theory, everything must be foreseen in order for the science to be settled.
It completely undermines their original premise and shows that it's only to further at clue's agenda.
Better be careful.
Better be careful, Jeff, because if there are children, kids under 30 listening, you're you're shattering their worldview here with this.
You're destroying them.
You're destroying them.
I have well under 30, they're 10 and 13, and they listen to you and to Mark Levin all the time.
And believe me, they come home all the time from school and say to me, Can you believe what my teacher said today?
Good for you.
They're being educated well.
And by the way, I I I wanted to point out something to you.
I think this may be one of the three-tenths of a percentage time when you might not have been correct about something, but I'll I'll I'll give you a chance to correct it.
You said earlier that when you were talking about the ice growing in in the polar ice caps, and it's it's thicker and more resistant, and it's larger than it than it was several years ago, that there were no stories about that at all.
I think that's not correct.
I think if you look back in the eighties, time and newsweek all have cover stories about the coming ice age.
So is that a big word?
You know, I you're right.
I I have to concede they did do the story back in 1975, 79, and 80.
You are exactly right.
The coming ice age was a newsweek cover.
You are exactly right.
I I I have been corrected.
That story has been reported to major media 30 years ago.
You're exactly right.
I suppose the theory is if you do a story on everything at some point in time, some of it's got to eventually be true.
Yeah.
That's an excellent point.
It just I need to apologize.
I said there hadn't been any stories on this in the American media, and I've been proven wrong.
They were 30 years ago, right on the money.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
Back to the audio sunbites here, folks.
I mentioned earlier Luis Gutierrez, Democrat Illinois, all excited last week and the week before, just couldn't wait.
Obama was going to do executive order amnesty, and Luis Gutierrez is running around helping everybody get ready for it and plan for it, put systems in place, and Obama pulled the rug out from under him.
He was on this week.
George Stephanopoulos yesterday, who said the White House is calculating that uh all's going to be fine with the Latino community if he acts on immigration after November.
In other words, whenever he does it, Luis is going to be fine.
He doesn't have to do amnesty before the election.
Is that right?
Playing it safe is what is going on at the White House and among democratic circles, and playing it safe means walking away from our values and our principles.
They've looked at polling in four or five states where there aren't large Latino constituencies and said that's the way forward without thinking of the impact that that policy might have in Illinois and California and Colorado, and so they've walked away.
Playing it safe might win an election.
Sometimes you lose an election playing it safe also.
But it's almost never uh leads to fairness, to justice, and to good public policy that you can be proud of.
Right.
So here's Luis Gutierrez, Democrat in good standing, defining uh fairness and justice as lawbreaking.
Lawlessness from illegal immigration to Obama, literally peeing on the Constitution.
That is fairness.
That is justice.
Ripping The Constitution to shreds, ignoring Congress, executive amnesty, that's fairness, that's justice.
That's good public policy you can be proud of if you're a Democrat.
The Obama's playing it safe and walking away.
And that's not what wins elections.
You lose elections so forth.
So he's really fit to be tied.
As he believed him.
I guarantee Luis Gutierrez has been running around the past two weeks.
He was convinced this was going to happen.
And the only reason he'd be convinced it wasn't the media, it had to have some heads up from somewhere in Washington that it was going to happen.
Stephanopoulos said, so if the president acts in November, are they going to forgive him?
Latino community and go forward?
What does that mean coming out of the shadows?
That means not being hunted down.
That means not being treated like a fugitive.
And President Barack Obama in the last five years has deported more people than any other president in the history of the United States.
And while we wait until November, because that's the president's decision, there's going to be another 60,000 people deported.
So there is pain and suffering in the community, and there's a lot of anguish and anger.
Yep, because we're enforcing the law.
There's pain and there is suffering and there's anger and anguish because we're enforcing the law.
Imagine how tough it is to be a Democrat today.
Abiding by the law equals suffering and pain andguish and anger.
So he's um he's not happy out there.
Now, moving on to this bizarre lung virus, hospitalizing hundreds of kids across the Midwest.
450 children have been treated at Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City alone.
The virus comes on as a cold before developing into respiratory distress.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, testing whether it's an enterovirus D68 or EV D68, a respiratory infection with varying symptoms and levels of intensity.
If it is EVD 68, there is no proper treatment or vaccine.
Doctors have been treating severe cases with ventilation outbreaks reported in Colorado, Illinois, and Ohio.
In other words, hospitals across the Midwest are being inundated with children infected by a bizarre virus, which first comes on to common cold before developing into severe respiratory distress.
They have no clue.
They have no clue.
Now there's a companion story.
Oh, wait.
Oh, I'm sorry, there isn't a companion story.
Except I know that there is, but there isn't.
The companion story is that Obama will not tell anybody where all of the children that have crossed the border in the last four months have been relocated to.
I found that out in my cramming last night, getting ready for the big program today.
That there are a bunch of people want to know.
Okay, we had these kids cross the border from Il Davador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, whatever they came from, Central America, and they were processed real quickly.
They were, you know, gotten in, gotten out, and been distributed all over the country, and Obama won't tell anybody where he put them.
Well, I don't immigration card.
No, but it the regime, the regime will not announce where they are.
No, I don't does this are the two stories related or are they not?
Does this sweeping, mysterious virus that's that's that's that's multiplying across the Midwest.
Does it have anything to do with that or not?
We don't know.
That's the answer.
We just don't know.
But some people think there may be some kind of a connection.
There's a lot of polling news out there.
For example, on Friday morning, ABC, CBS, and NBC continued their blackout on the latest Gallup poll numbers, showing Obama's approval rating at an all-time low of 38%.
I also learned this last night in my cramming.
That there's a Gallup poll out.
Came on Friday.
Obama at 38%.
So Far the drive-by media is ignoring it.
And even what's his name?
Silver.
Adam Silver, this Nate, Nate Silver, the brilliant cruncher of polls to predict political outcomes.
He's I don't got enough poll data to do any number crunching here.
They're not taking polls, folks, which means the results are not what the media wants.
California voters sour on Obama.
Only 45% in California prove Obama's performance.
Not that it matters, it's just interesting.
And the bipartisan Battleground poll is out.
Confirms uh Republican four-point edge in winning the Senate in November.
▲
Export Selection