Rush Limbaugh Program - October 7, 2014, Tuesday, Hour #3

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 7, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program

31:06

October 7, 2014, Tuesday, Hour #3

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Yeah, yeah, right here.
	I was just looking for something and it's not there.
	So I'll find it later.
	Here we are.
	Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
	Telephone numbers 800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program and the email address lrushbo at eibnet.com I think, Mr. Broadcast Engineer, we're gonna.
	We're now gonna go to soundbite two and in order, and I may use number one, just depends on how I feel when we get there.
	Men's Health Magazine posted a story this morning on their website and immediately pulled it down, but some people grabbed a screenshot of it before they pulled it down.
	It was entitled, the secret to talking sports with any woman was written by a woman.
	The subhead is the things that interest.
	You are unlikely to interest her, but you can still make a connection.
	And here's how and here's the story before it was pulled.
	no this is not the story for this this is the explanation of the story after it was pulled men's health has offered up a fine example of how not to talk about how to talk to women about sports the magazine deleted a short article entitled A Secret to Talking Sports with Any Woman after critics really ripped it for portraying women as uninterested and incapable of truly understanding sports.
	The reason, and it was written by a woman, the reason why women, quote, don't share your passion for sports, the story said, is they need storylines and they can't see storyline watching a game.
	You have, if you're the man and you want to watch a game with a woman and you want her to care about it, you have to give her the storyline or she won't be able to follow it.
	After yanking the offending article, the magazine, Men's Health, apologized on Twitter, saying the piece was not meant to suggest that women are in any way inferior to men and that they had missed the mark.
	And the negative feedback on their story is justified and they apologize and they pulled it down because it was insulting.
	I wish I could remember the name of a guy who wrote a book.
	This is 10 years ago now.
	This is why I don't remember it.
	Somebody will remember it.
	And I will point you to it.
	It was about the differences in the male and female brain.
	It was a book devoted to scientifically explaining why certain things are interesting to women and aren't to men and vice versa.
	For example, this guy claimed to have, after studying male and female brains in various areas of the brain, he claimed to have scientific explanations for why, for example, women love to shop and men don't get anything out of it.
	Couldn't care less.
	Why men love sports and women couldn't care less about it.
	And it was clinical.
	There was nothing political about it.
	It was nothing, well, depending on who read it, it might have inspired fighting words, but it was a purely clinical attempt to explain the real differences in the male and female brain.
	It did not assign blame to anybody, any man, any woman.
	That was not the point.
	Its purpose was to explain why there are apparent major differences that lead to what is thought to be incompatibility.
	Why women are interested in certain things and why men aren't.
	The differences in what sexually is attractive to men versus women.
	And we both know those are different things.
	We all know.
	This guy attempted to clinically explain that.
	And I think I didn't see the story.
	I haven't seen the story because they pulled the story, but I would bet you that because it's a woman that wrote this.
	And I would bet you she was simply trying to explain, you know, okay, if you're a guy and you really want your wife or your girlfriend to dig sports with you, here's how to do it.
	Now, the women who saw somebody took it as a giant put-down of women's intelligence and women's ability to comprehend things.
	And that's why it reminded me of this book, because the book did not insult anybody.
	It had, as I say, clinical reasons, specific clinical reasons why the male and female brain are oriented differently and are charged differently, excited differently.
	It was written by a single guy.
	No, one man.
	That was one author.
	There were not two authors.
	Somebody gave me the book.
	I've got it somewhere in my expansive library.
	And I know I'm going to have to find it now and tell you what it is.
	It made it all natural, by the way.
	There was no criticism.
	The differences in male and female interests, it attempted to help people understand each other.
	There was no criticism.
	There was no put-down.
	There was nothing.
	It was a genuine scientific clinical attempt to explain differences and to point out why, no matter how badly women might want men to be interested, it's never going to happen.
	And how badly men might wish women could see the world.
	It was never going to happen because the brains are different.
	They're wired differently.
	They are charged, stimulated differently.
	And I know this is just a giant tease, and I'm sorry for that, but I'm going to find out what this is.
	And I will clue you in on it.
	Somehow, I doubt that I'm going to be able to find out before the end of the program.
	But it contained things like what this men's health story says, that women need a storyline.
	There's a scientific explanation for what that means in this guy's book.
	Yet the people who've read this are immediately reacting to it as a put-down of women.
	And this is one of the things, you know, honest discussion of differences is not permitted.
	Look at, I keep harking back to the Time magazine cover in 1995.
	They were shocked to learn that men and women are different.
	Literally.
	I mean, they're born that way, and it was such shocking news to them.
	They made a cover story out of it.
	Now, what must they have thought before they found out men and women are born different that were the same?
	And so when these differences are pointed out, for some reason, women are the, not women, leftists always assume it's a put-down of women to cite these differences.
	With such things as were addressed as the nurturing Orientation.
	It was really quite good.
	And it explained a lot.
	And it didn't put anybody down.
	And it didn't elevate men over women or vice versa.
	So I will find out what this was.
	It won't take.
	There's a related story here, by the way.
	This is the Boston Globe.
	Gender diversity increases productivity, decreases happiness.
	Women, would you rather work only with other women?
	Men, are you in a better mood at the office when you're surrounded by male colleagues?
	Yes and yes, according to a recently published study on gender diversity in the workplace.
	It found that employees are happier when they work with people of the same sex.
	The slightly puzzling flip side is single-sex workplaces aren't nearly as productive as those where men and women earn their living side by side.
	We all think that we want to be in this pluralistic society in a diverse setting, said Sarah Ellison, senior economics lecturer at MIT, who co-authored the study.
	Can I be, let me just tell you, I don't believe this.
	I've never saw the value in diversity as a means to anything.
	You know, I don't need to say or do things to tell myself for other people to be told that I'm fair or that I'm not judgmental.
	I think this diversity business, you know, having a workforce comprised of equal percentages of men versus women, gays versus straights, blacks versus whites, Latinos versus everybody else, it's a crock.
	And it denies the humanity of everybody you tend to put in a group.
	I would think you're going to assemble a workforce of employees.
	You would go find the best people you could to get the job done and understand that not everybody's going to get along.
	And the idea to make everybody get along, this study proves it doesn't prove out.
	Yeah, you satisfy that as okay, everybody, every woman wants to be in an office with only women.
	Fine, but their productivity goes down.
	Is that a big mystery?
	You need tension sometimes.
	You need competition.
	You need friction now and then.
	You need an edge.
	But diversity for its sake, I mean, that's political correctness.
	That's the New Age movement.
	That's multiculturalism that believes, I'll tell you what, it manifests itself.
	It manifests itself that only women can represent women in politics.
	And that if a man is a member of Congress from District A, that he's not going to do a nearly as good job representing the women there.
	No, no, no.
	Women are going to think they need a woman.
	Black's going to need a black.
	Hispanic's going to need a Hispanic.
	And that, my friends, flies right in the face of what this country was all about from the days of its founding.
	And this push for diversity is a myth.
	It doesn't lead to what everybody thinks other than outward appearances.
	It gives the illusion that we're fair.
	It gives the illusion that we're balanced, the illusion this or that.
	But it totally denies the individual human characteristics of everybody involved.
	If your objective in putting together a group, be it employees or whatever, is based on outward appearances.
	That seems to me common sense.
	Okay, so they've done all this work on diversity, and they've convinced everybody that the greatness of America is our diversity.
	And they found people and they mixed and matched them, and then they found out it didn't work.
	They found out that when they let women and women work with only women and vice versa, men only with men, productivity down the tubes.
	Everybody got along, ostensibly, but productivity went down the tubes.
	Is that hard to understand why?
	Not to me.
	I just, there's so much denial of basic human nature in liberalism that it becomes absurd.
	The site says here, the findings do not surprise Ann Littwin, a Boston organizational development consultant.
	Littwin said that in the workshops that she's conducted, people commonly revealed that they are more comfortable with co-workers of the same sex.
	Men complain they have to walk on eggshells around women colleagues, she said, out of fear of saying something that women might find offensive.
	They feel like their equilibrium is being thrown off and it's uncomfortable, said Litwin, who is the author of the recently published New Rules for Women, revolutionizing the way women work together.
	Women, however, say they have to fight to get their ideas noticed when the office is crawling with men.
	So men complain about having to walk on eggshells.
	Women feel like they have to be assertive to be heard.
	And then when they're assertive, they get accused of being a BI itch.
	Is this not age-old stuff?
	Nothing new here.
	It's age-old, and it takes me right back to this book that I wish I could remember.
	No, I'm going to have to.
	I'm going to have to find this by virtue of a deep search of my email files to find this.
	You could plaster the name of the book in front of me, and you can plaster the title, and it wouldn't ring a bell.
	I'm going to have to find, I'm going to find the email of the person who pointed it out to me.
	That's the only way I'm going to be able to find this.
	We all have ways of categorizing our memories.
	And it was what this book was about that I came up with, not the author, the title, or any of that.
	In the meantime, folks, let's take a brief time out.
	We'll come back with more of your phone calls right after this.
	Do not go away.
	The book was not Mars, Venus.
	It was not Men and Marriage by George Gilder.
	It was not a bestseller.
	It was, I'd have to say it was obscure.
	I would venture to say that when I find it and tell you what it was, you're never going to have heard of it.
	And I'm sorry for bringing it up when I can't get you the title and the author, but I promise I'm going to find it.
	This is just a quick email away, but I can't do it while I am in the midst of the busy broadcast.
	Here's Ryan in Grand Prairie, Texas.
	Glad you waited.
	Great to have you on the program, sir.
	Hello.
	Yes, sir.
	It's an honor.
	I would like to start with.
	I am actually a resident of Dallas County, but I work for a large municipality in Dallas-Fort Worth area as a paramedic.
	And I would like to sort of, I don't claim to be an expert in infectious disease, but I'd like to give more of a boots on the ground situation to you.
	Most of the time, people assume EMS is like what you see in Chicago fire and whatnot, but it doesn't work that way.
	When you get a call for a shortness of breath and you show up and they're coughing and you ask them, you know, a whole bunch of the litany of questions and whatnot, they say they're fine.
	They say they've just a little sick, and then about two weeks later, the supervisor come to me and say you've been exposed to tuberculosis.
	This has happened to me four times, seriously, and a fifth time I was wearing a respirator because, you know, told me I want shame on you, told me to have shame on you.
	Yeah, exactly right.
	And I think this can shed light on Ebola here.
	Our healthcare system here, and I can speak about Presbyterian because I've waited over an hour with patients on the cot there.
	It's overworked.
	And people understand how the divert status works.
	You could be in an accident.
	You could have a heart attack or stroke.
	But we're giving updates throughout the day who's on divert.
	So even though this hospital may be a mile and a half from you, we go somewhere else because they're not accepting anybody because they're so swamped.
	Hey, Ryan, hang on your phone.
	I got to take a break here, and we'll continue this when we get back.
	Don't go away.
	We're back to Ryan, the EMS technician in Grand Prairie, Texas, near Dallas.
	Ryan, I was just reading the ambulance that transported Thomas Duncan supposedly was not scrubbed down immediately.
	And in fact, same ambulance picked up a homeless man who the hospital couldn't find for several hours after he wandered away from the hospital.
	I mean, nobody knew what they were dealing with at the time, including, I would assume, you guys, the guys on board that ambulance, the EMS people.
	Correct.
	Yeah, and that's the thing.
	How it works is you clean your ambulance on the threat level, so to speak.
	They could have ran three or four calls after that, you know, and then they went back to the station.
	They were there the rest of the evening.
	And, you know, Mr. Duncan, you know, he was waiting in that hospital room for so long.
	You know, they say, no, I'm not an expert in infectious disease, obviously.
	If he was sweating, just the evaporation of the sweat, you know, that could be enough to trigger a delayed response in someone else.
	Well, that seems right to me.
	That's a precious bodily fluid.
	Sweat does happen to evaporate.
	Yeah, I get that's that's a that's an excellent point.
	Well, you guys are doing the Lord's work.
	You know, and here's a question I've got.
	I mean, hospitals are dealing with one patient here, one patient there.
	What happens if it becomes 10?
	What happens if it becomes 50?
	I don't know what the state of preparedness is.
	The CDC says we got it handled.
	Don't sweat it.
	We're not going to bring anybody in the country that's got it.
	We're doing great screening procedures.
	No worry.
	Yet in Europe, they're telling everybody, be on the lookout because we think it's going to spread throughout all of Europe.
	And it's inevitable that that's going to happen.
	Now they're closer to Africa, obviously.
	But let's see.
	Here's Chuck and Valhalla, New York.
	Great to have you on the EIB network.
	Hello, Chuck.
	Hello, Rush.
	My Godiddos.
	You know, I have one thing that I have not heard said about this Ebola thing.
	And maybe it's a little out of the line.
	But it seems to me that stopping immigration from these countries affected by Ebola should be done because if it saves one child, isn't it worth it?
	I think that I think we have an obligation to keep our own kids safe.
	Yes, yes, I hear you, Chuck.
	In fact, now that you mention that, now that you, whatever happened to that, whatever happened to if it saves just one child, that is a marked difference.
	There is a really profound difference in the way public health officials are dealing with this versus other things.
	And whatever draconian steps are necessary, or if it saved the life of one child, we had to do it, like raising taxes for welfare benefits or what have you.
	For the children used to be the way you put the final nail in the coffin to get anything you want.
	It was for the children.
	If it saves just one child's life, we're not hearing anything approaching that here.
	And it's all political, folks.
	I know you don't like, some of you don't like hearing that, but this stuff is all political.
	And the way this is being politicized, and if you don't believe me, just be patient and wait.
	You'll see it on your own.
	All of this in the media is being couched in terms of how it will impact Obama and how it might help or hurt Democrat electoral chances in November.
	And I'm not being snarky, facetious, making it up.
	It's exactly the way this is being.
	It's the aspect of this that interests the media.
	Is Obama going to do well here?
	Are people going to trust Obama?
	If it goes wrong, is it going to hurt Obama?
	Is it going to be a big attack on Obama's perceived leadership?
	These are the kind of questions that the drive-bys are very much concerned about.
	Now, I mentioned, ladies and gentlemen, earlier in the program that Leon Panetta, I want to get to this because I mentioned it.
	I teased it at the top.
	And I want to not have the program in without mentioning this.
	It didn't take long.
	Panetta's got a book out, and in the book, he is savaging Obama, savaging him, and it's all part of building up the Clinton, the Hillary Clinton in 2016 meme, if you will.
	And Bill Clinton's on the campaign trail now.
	He's down in Arkansas, and he's campaigning, and a lot of people are quoting what Panetta said.
	Dana Milbank in the Washington Post today has a piece that what it purports to do is criticize Panetta for daring to be so disloyal to Obama.
	But yet, it repeats every Panetta criticism.
	I mean, it's a pile-on piece.
	I don't know whether Milbank intended this or not, but it's dump on Obama time now.
	And here's, let's start with audio soundbite number two.
	This is Bill Clinton.
	Now, to set this up, you know, way back in August is I, back on the 27th, is when I first intensely and with a focused message started talking about the Republicans' absence of a message in this campaign, but how they're keeping quiet.
	They see that there's a potential wave election for them, and a lot of people down on Obama, down on the Democrats, and their strategy is shut up and not interrupt that and let that happen.
	And in the process, what happens is that the Democrats, once again, are given the free reign to define the Republicans.
	I mean, in politics, it's a truism.
	If you're not going to define yourself, your enemy will.
	And that's how you end up with a war on women.
	That's how you end up.
	Republicans are racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes.
	If you refuse to define yourself, and there's any number of ways to do it, your policy message, your agenda portfolio, whatever.
	If you refuse to do it, you leave yourself wide open.
	And it was back in August that I first began to get nervous about this Republican silence, about what they stand for, and about how things will be different and better if they win.
	There hasn't been any of that.
	And I chronicled the differences between today and 1994.
	When the Republicans took the House in 1994, came out and blew and surprised everybody.
	They did it.
	They had a contract with America.
	They had a specific agenda.
	They told the American people what they were going to do.
	Here's what we're going to do.
	We get elected.
	Here's what change we're going to make.
	This is how things are going to get better.
	And it was effective, and it won.
	It was a factor in their winning.
	The mistake they made then was that after that election, they assumed the country had transformed itself to majority conservative, and they stopped teaching.
	They stopped explaining what they were doing.
	They just started implementing things left and right.
	And people got scared.
	So what is this?
	They had just voted against Democrats.
	And the contract was the contract.
	But as it was implemented, there wasn't sufficient explanation, quote, teaching.
	Well, because there's no national message now from the Republicans, it allows people like Bill Clinton to go down to Arkansas and tell people what the Republican message is.
	They're really running against the president, aren't they?
	They see these polls.
	The president's unpopular in Arkansas.
	And yeah, the economy's coming back, but nobody believes it yet because you don't feel it.
	You cannot afford to do what their opponents want.
	They want you to make it a protest vote.
	You know what you got to do.
	You got to vote against the president.
	I promise your last shot.
	It's a pretty good scam, isn't it?
	Give me a six-year job for a two-year protest.
	That's Mark Pryor's opponent's message.
	All right, so that's Clinton out attempting to save Pryor and his campaign by defining what the Republicans stand for and what they really want.
	And he even got in a shot there at Obama about the economy.
	He's mocking Obama when, you know, Obama said the economy's going, great guns.
	You don't feel it yet.
	Now, Clinton got even a little shot in on that.
	Now, Clinton being back is excited to drive-bys.
	CNN today.
	This is John King speaking with the political columnist Ron Fournier.
	There's nobody like him.
	The raspy voice hasn't changed.
	Covering him for as long as I have.
	It's like I got paid for an advanced degree in politics.
	He's the best.
	You see what he did yesterday?
	He did a typical Clinton.
	He took the best argument, the best argument that the Republicans have against voting for Democrats, and he slowly took it apart.
	He's messing.
	Let's show some of the pictures as we go through this.
	Here's Bill Clinton on the rope line.
	He's taking selfies with people as he goes through.
	He came to age, remember, in the pre-internet days.
	I don't know what it would have been like to have Twitter and Facebook and all this when Bill Clinton was governor and then president.
	I shudder to think about it.
	Oh, you shudder in excitement.
	Oh, my God.
	Can you imagine what the brilliant genius Clinton would have done with Twitter and Facebook?
	Oh, wow.
	Can you imagine how many Lewinsky's there would have been with Twitter and Facebook?
	Oh, my God.
	It would have been nirvana.
	They can't contain themselves.
	Now, what did Clinton actually say that was so brilliant?
	Well, let me read it to you again.
	You know, they're really running against president, aren't they?
	They say these polls.
	President's unpopular Arkansas.
	Hey, yeah, the economy come back, but nobody believes it yet because you don't feel it.
	Well, Obama said that, not the Republicans.
	You know, you can't afford to do what their opponents want.
	They want you to make it a protest vote.
	And you know what you got to do?
	You got to vote against president.
	After all, it's your last shot.
	That's a pretty good scam.
	Give me a six-year job for two-year protests.
	That's Mark Pryor's opponent's message.
	Sounds like gobbledygook to me.
	I mean, I don't see the brilliance in it, but it doesn't have to be.
	Clinton's on the campaign trail, and this is a sign, this media orgasming over Clinton back down the markets.
	This is a sign of just how bad it is for Obama in the drive-bys.
	That Clinton doesn't even have to make any sense.
	All he's going to go out there and do is speak with his raspy voice and smile and assume to be speaking against Republicans.
	And they love the fact that he's back.
	Now, let's not forget, let's not forget what a genius Bill Clinton is.
	A guy who had never run for anything but the Senate, one time came along and wiped the floor with Bill and Hillary Clinton.
	His name is Barack Hussein Obama.
	A newbie, a rookie, a rookie wiped the floor with the brilliant genius Bill and Hillary Clinton in 2008.
	And even got away with throwing a race card down on Clinton.
	For the first time in his career, Clinton's running around on the defensive on being a racist, and he should have been, because he said to Ted Kennedy one day, hey, you know, Ted, it wasn't all that long ago.
	This clown would have been getting us our drinks.
	He said that.
	Obama heard about it, threw down the race card, and Clinton got offended.
	But Clinton and Hillary got snookered.
	Hillary would have been out even sooner if it hadn't been for us here in Operation Chaos.
	Yeah, big genius, Bill Clinton.
	Now, another question I got.
	How does Panetta ripping Obama help Hillary?
	Well, if you put it that way, the two don't naturally go together.
	But Panetta's book lays the blame for foreign policy on Obama, and he was in the regime.
	Panetta was there.
	He's not an outsider.
	Panetta was CIA, whatever else he was.
	He was in the Clinton, in the Obama administration.
	He's got a book dumping on Obama in terms of foreign policy.
	That is an attempt to inoculate Hillary for any charge of incompetence in the 2016 campaign about Benghazi and other.
	I'm not saying it's going to work, but that's what they're trying.
	Well, Mr. Newt and the Republicans in the contract beat Bill Clinton in 1994.
	The genius Bill Clinton.
	Yeah, but it's so great to have the guy back.
	Oh, my God.
	You know, I'm creaming him.
	Ron Fournier, I'm sorry.
	I'm just, I'm having the greatest time here.
	I got Clinton back.
	Oh, this is so wonderful.
	It's like, it's like a college degree to watch Bill Clinton.
	And I still don't know what he said.
	I read that transcript again.
	I know what he's trying to say.
	Man, I don't know where the time went.
	All I know is we're out of it.
	And I will find the name of that book.
	I'll find the name of that author.
	Sorry to leave you hanging on that, but I'll find it.
	In the meantime, have a great rest of the day, my friends, and we'll be back with you 21 hours, revved up and ready to do it all over again.

▲