All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 14, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:32
October 14, 2014, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings to you, music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists, and sports fans all across the Excellence and Broadcasting Network.
Rushland Boy here behind the Golden EIB network.
A television number if you want to be on the program.
The same as it's always been forever.
800-282-2882.
You want to send an email?
I check them.
illrushbow at EIBnet.com.
And we welcome now back to the program a doctor from Washington, Thomas, who called us, got through.
He'd been dialing and happened to get through in the middle of a jog.
So he paused and caught his breath.
And we welcome you back to the program.
I had to go hunt a term you were using, viremia.
And here's what I found.
You tell me if this is pretty close.
Medical condition where viruses enter the bloodstream and thus have access to the rest of the body.
That's what viremia is, right?
Yes.
Okay.
So your basic premise is that we're not being really, I don't know, told the truth or they're not shooting us straight on how this disease is spread.
Is that your basic point?
Well, they are clear on how it's spread through bodily fluids and close contact.
What is unclear, just one point, based on what you just said, we're not sure if this is – studies in the past have shown that this is direct contact.
Whether it's gone airborne is a question right now.
But more to the point, before a virus can become contagious, it has to infect the host body and develop a sufficient level of viremia before it starts getting secreted in the saliva, bodily fluids, etc.
And what they're not telling us, based on studies done in 1995, we do know that a strong viremia occurs out from 21 days and out from 100 days.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Wait, what does that mean?
A strong viremia occurs out from 21 days from what?
The virus is in high titers when they check for work.
They check extremely high titers out from 21 days.
But that's not studies that show that the titers can be high and transmissible prior to 21 days.
A lot of studies don't disprove it because they haven't been done.
Vigorous studies to show this have not been vigorously pursued.
So the virus can come up to a high titer prior to you getting very sick.
And through close contact, either through kissing or sexual contact or secretion into tears or saliva or other things, you can actually catch the disease prior to getting sick.
But what they're not telling us is that you're not getting up for transmissibility prior to you getting a fever.
Wait, just a second.
I'm trying to keep up here.
You can catch the disease prior to who getting sick?
You or the host?
No.
Okay.
Just for instance, somebody comes into contact with somebody with Ebola and the virus is now replicating in the host's body.
But the host may not know it yet.
The patient may not know that he's contagious.
I have no idea.
If you're in an infected area or high, you know, high area where it's found, you should be concerned about it.
But if you're around somebody, say, in an airport and they're shedding the virus and they're asymptomatic, you have no idea.
And what I'm saying is the virus can reach elevated levels prior to 21 days, prior to sickness symptoms, and be shed through close contact prior to the patient getting sick.
So if we're just leaving it as a litmus test, oh, I'm sick, therefore I shouldn't be on a plane, or therefore I now can transmit the disease, that's wrong.
It takes the viremia prior to getting sick can be shed, even though it may be smaller, but it's still infectious.
Okay, so let's have to prove that.
So what you're essentially saying is that when we are told if a patient is not showing symptoms, you can't catch the disease, may not be true.
That may not be true.
Like I said, studies to prove or disprove this have not been made.
Well, then why are they?
If there have been no studies, doctor, why are they telling everybody, don't worry, if you don't see anybody with any symptoms, you can't get it.
On what basis are they?
From a statistical point of view, that's probably true 99% of the time, for the majority of the time.
But the virus is replicating in the body prior to it getting to a high enough titer where they can get sick.
But prior to the symptoms occurring, the virus is still going to be spread or shed from the body that has been infected prior to actually having symptoms.
And this is what people need to know.
We cannot be allowing people to come into America, even if they're asymptomatic, because the virus can be shed prior to symptoms, prior to a level of the virus actually hurting the body.
The virus can be shed in the same manner prior to sickness.
It may be statistically low, but it can happen.
Well, but that's not going to happen.
It's very clear that this regime is not going to institute a protocol like that.
Well, they're hurting us.
Our own health care workers are at risk.
Our patients are at risk.
You look what happened down in Dallas, and you'll realize that our facilities are ill-equipped to handle an outbreak more than maybe a patient or two.
We're not equipped to handle this.
We should not be allowing patients to come in from infected areas without a 31-hour day waiting period.
Doctor, no, no.
As has been stated by a number of people now, particularly when it comes to Liberia and Sierra Leone, we cannot turn our backs on those people because it was slavery in this country that was responsible for those countries being set up and established so that slaves in this country could escape and have a place for freedom.
And now that if they're getting, we can't turn our backs on them.
We can't close the borders.
That isn't going to happen for political reasons, among many others.
Illogical.
It makes no common sense.
It bears no common sense.
And from a national security point of view.
Well, maybe not, but there is common sense if you have different objectives.
Well, again, yes.
But we can't allow this to happen because we're hurting our country.
We're hurting our health care system.
It's ill-equipped to handle this at this point.
If you look at the guidelines at the CDC and the way they handle such a virus and the suits that they put on and don't and the way they take them off is totally different from the way they did down in Dallas.
Right.
It's like Friedman is learning himself day by day.
We can't allow a retroactive policy to be made based on, oh, well, this isn't going to work.
We have to know what we're dealing with first.
We have to have our borders closed to anybody that can spread this disease into this country because it can have multiple repercussions to our health care system.
I'm sure you've heard, you mentioned Dr. Frieden, and he is one of many who hadn't had Anthony Fauci at the National Institutes for Health and others have said we can't keep people from those countries out.
Why, that would defeat the whole effort to control the virus and to control the outbreak.
And it would be profiling, and it would be almost bigoted.
We can't.
We can't do it.
If we shut down those countries and isolate them, we can't get health care workers in and out, they say.
We can, but again, you can't put a political agenda ahead of a national crisis that could occur if we allow this virus to spread unchecked in the United States.
It would devastate our economy in the long run.
I mean, if it gets that bad, we can't do this.
We can't handle this.
Now, I agree with you.
Don't misunderstand, but I don't think that way of thinking is prevalent in the highest levels of government.
I don't think it's that way at all.
I have other worries about that.
All you have to do today is take a look at the lead headlines on the Drudge Report, and it is a ready-made recipe for authoritarian figures to start dictating all kinds of controls on the people of this country.
Not African countries, but people of this country.
Any thinking person would have to wonder if this was by design.
As Ben Carson said a couple of weeks ago on national news, you know, this is a recipe for disaster.
There may be civil unrest in the next year or so based on the way our administration is handling its crises.
We're not handling them well, either by design or by nefarious actions or by inactions.
It's showing it cannot adequately handle its own national security issues from outside or within.
It's scary.
What do you think about the proposal?
I have it in my Ebola stack today.
The proposal to establish in every state Ebola-exclusive or specific hospitals where only dedicated Ebola hospitals sought after the nurses' infection.
This is from Bloomberg News.
U.S. and local health officials want to set up dedicated hospitals in every state for Ebola patients, part of a new emphasis on safety for health care workers.
It makes good sense.
That does make good sense.
Yeah, this is after the nurse caring for Thomas Duncan has tested positive for the virus.
But remember now, Doctor, it was just two weeks ago that Dr. Frieden at CDC assured us that virtually any hospital in the country can do isolation for Ebola.
You know, they're all over the ballpark on this, Doc.
I don't know.
That's not true.
We're not even following the same procedures the CDC uses.
When I say we, from what I gather from the news and from the news clips and watching what's been going on down in Dallas, you can't just put on a suit, you know, a hazmat suit and think you're going to protect yourself against a virus and not really follow the same procedures they're doing.
You're using at the CDC.
I mean, the CDC is using a totally different procedure.
Let me ask you putting on an air-positive suit with no seams.
They're washing down, prior to taking it down with a bleach solution.
And as far as I know, they're not doing that at Dallas.
They're putting those health care officials, I mean, healthcare practitioners at risk, not following the same guidelines they're doing at the CDC.
Let me ask you one more question.
I have an article in the New York Times in 2000, and I've kept it aside.
I referenced it yesterday, but I've not delved into it because it's now 15 years old.
But the purpose of the point of this article is that Ebola could, in fact, infect non-symptomatic patients via transfusions or sex and maybe even air.
That it could be, this is 15 years ago, could be airborne.
Now, in light of what all you've said, is that even conceivable?
Well, the first two are definitely, but as to airborne, again, I don't know if any good study has been done to actually prove or disprove it.
And that until we know otherwise, we have, I can't say we must assume, but we should assume the worst and act accordingly.
Otherwise, we're going to have a very sick nation.
Doctor, thanks for the.
I appreciate you taking a break there after your jog and letting us get back to you here in the extra time that you spent.
That's Thomas, a physician from Washington, weighing in on this.
And we're going to take a quick time out.
We'll do that and be right back and continue after this.
So I get an email after that call for the doctor.
And I'm sure that many of you are asking the same thing.
What's the bottom line?
His point in all of that was, we've got no business allowing people from known Ebola-producing countries into ours.
That was his whole point.
And his point, secondary point, which confirmed his primary point, was he's a doctor.
He said, this idea that a patient has to be showing symptoms in order to infect people isn't necessarily true.
The doctor's point was that you can be infected by a patient who is not showing symptoms and thus may not know that he or she has Ebola.
There are instances of it.
And because of that, his simple point was, if the safety and security of America and her people is the primary concern, there's no way you let Ebola patients or you allow flights from countries such as the three in Africa.
You don't allow those flights into the country.
The Filipinos are banning all flights.
I mean, it can be done.
Lesser countries than ours are instituting such protocols.
It can be done.
I have to be honest here with you folks.
We got a call coming up from a guy, an admitted low-information voter who voted for Obama.
He'd been listening here for a couple of months, it says, and he's starting to see things differently.
And I appreciate that.
But there's some things I have to say here, and I have been saying them.
And I realize that to a low-information voter, say somebody tuning into this program relatively new, maybe the first time, second time, first week, or what have you, some of it may sound off the wall.
If they don't have a lot of listening under their belt to establish context or understand context, and if they don't have an understanding of prior regime policies, the things that I may offer as analysis or opinion might shock them, which is not my intent.
But you remember when the doctor said common sense would say, given what we're learning, that you shut down flights from the three countries in Africa.
Common sense.
If your objective is to protect the country and the health of the American people, that's what you would do.
That's common sense.
I said, well, if you have a different agenda, you could very well have common sense attached to that agenda that makes no sense in what the doctor pointed out.
Let's say, for example, that there's a political agenda at work, which there is.
The political agenda, the political desire, the top of the heap political desire for the inside the Beltway establishment today is granting amnesty to all of the illegal immigrants that are in the country now and future illegal immigrants.
The number is anywhere from 11 to 12 million, it may be as high as 15 million.
Both parties, for different reasons, want those people to be legalized by granting amnesty or some other status that would allow them to become citizens down the road and become voters down the road.
Now, for that to happen, you can't close the borders.
If you close the borders, if you shut down flights, say from Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Nigeria, then you've established a dangerous precedent for your other ideological desire, policy desire, which is amnesty.
And so to a new listener, it might sound extreme or even cynical to say, well, this regime is not going to shut down flights to this country because it would jeopardize another political objective they have.
Now, that's for people to think that way, I mean, that's pretty brazen to put the health and safety and security of the American people second to a political desire you have.
And a lot of people, frankly, folks, are just not going to believe that, particularly newly arrived, low-information voters.
They're just not going to understand that.
They don't think of the presidency that way.
They don't think of the leaders of the country as doing things in a way that would subordinate the American people to danger, health risks, and all that.
Most people think instinctively that everybody in governments ought to protect them, from the military to the presidency, to members of Congress, that everybody's looking out for them because that's what they think the job is.
And then here along comes some guy who says, well, maybe not in this case.
Maybe what's more important is making sure that they get their amnesty legislation or their amnesty policy done by the end of the year.
And they can't do anything that might jeopardize it.
And shutting down flights from Africa would clearly jeopardize it because it would clearly send a message that there are dangers to letting all kinds of people whom you don't know into the country.
So if they were to do that, that would open up questions.
Well, then why are you letting the southern border stay open to anybody that wants to come in?
And they don't want to deal with this.
Now, this is a sad truth in reality, but it's getting harder and harder, if I may complain to you here.
I don't complain or whine much, but these are things that I don't think are deniable.
At the same time, in thinking about people that are new, listeners to the program, can you imagine what a shock hearing something like that would be to them?
And I don't want them running away.
I want them to hang in and learn all they can.
So it's an ongoing challenge here to be honest, express opinions here in a way that's not going to shock people.
Back in a second.
Serving humanity by executing assigned host duties flawlessly.
Zero mistakes.
El Rushbo up against the odds each and every day, triumphing over them.
And now we go to Utica, Ohio.
This is Daryl.
And Daryl, it says that you voted for Obama the first time.
You were a low-information voter, but you've now found this program.
Welcome, sir.
It's great to have you here.
Thank you, Rush.
How are you today?
Very good.
Thank you.
I was just listening to what you were saying, too.
And I haven't made it past high school, but common sense tells me shut the borders.
I mean, I don't understand any of this or why they do this stuff, but it has to be political.
And you're not going to scare me away because it's sad.
And I don't understand why more people can't just say, why don't we close the borders?
I mean, it's like red flag, red flag, red flag.
I don't understand.
Yeah, but okay, but hold that thought.
Your common sense is telling you, and you voted for Obama, but you're not.
Yeah, you wouldn't again.
And you are a self-described low-information voter.
You've been working on not being one.
So you've been trying to be.
Okay, so your common sense says, close the border.
Close the border.
Yet they're not closing the borders.
So what then do you tell yourself?
I mean, in terms of why aren't they?
What's the first thing that comes to your mind or after you think about it, what is it that you think is inspiring them not to close the border when you think it's the common sense to do?
Common sense thing to do.
First thing pops in my head is this is dumb.
It does not make any sense to me at all.
It has to be political or they got to have some other thing that they want to do besides protect us and information for us.
And like the reporters growing up, you just assume they're doing their job.
They're out there working.
They're reporting.
And you're getting the facts.
And it's not back politically.
But why aren't we getting the truth all the time?
If I was doing the job, I would try to report the truth.
I see they probably have a boss somewhere or his boss has a boss.
Oh, no, you can't say that.
You got to say it like this.
But you used to think, you used to think that reporters were telling you the truth, right?
Yes.
I mean, that's part and parcel of being a low-information voter.
Although, I have to tell you something, Daryl.
You're the first low-information voter I've ever found to admit it.
And therefore, I don't think you really were.
Because most low-information voters, by definition, don't know that they're low-information, but you thought that you were.
I think you're probably more informed and not as low-information as you thought you were.
I think you're ahead of the game more than you realize here, is my point.
Listening to you, you point it out a lot, and it makes sense.
It's hard to argue with some of the stuff you say.
And you're actually pretty funny when you listen to your comments and the little noises you make when you're cracking on People and stuff.
It's very good.
I'm happy.
I'm happy to hear that.
I'm happy to hear that because I here's here's let me let me tell you why this is maybe be incorrect to say this is troubling me, but my objective here is to persuade.
I'm not just commenting for the sake of commenting, folks.
In fact, I think way too many commentators do that.
They're not really in the game.
They're not really in the fight.
They're just, here's what I saw today.
This is my analysis.
And see you at the bar later.
And I actually have a vested interest in outcomes.
And I'm doing what little I can do behind a radio microphone to affect outcomes that I prefer.
I mean, I would prefer the left lose as often as possible.
I would love for there to be an army of American citizens voting against the left every election.
That's what I'm attempting to do.
That's what I'm attempting.
Entertain people in the process and do a good radio show in the process, have it all be part of the mix.
That's the objective here, to create an army of informed people that understand the dangers posed by liberalism and Democrats and the left.
That's why I'm writing these children's books, the Rush Revere Adventure Series.
By the way, new one, pre-order available, just announced last week, Rush Revere and the American Revolution, and it's hot, folks.
It is so good.
And if, believe me, I wouldn't say that if it weren't.
And the fact that I am saying it, I am so enthused about it.
And there's an added message in this book, and that is the story is dedicated to the military and their families and deals with the pain and the questions that the military kids have when dad or mom is deployed, and they don't understand why.
And they don't understand why they're gone so long.
Why would they leave?
We deal with that head on in Rush Revere and the American Revolution and tie it all back to actual events in American history.
I can't wait for this book to get out.
I can't wait.
28th is when it comes out.
I can't wait for you all to get this in your hands.
I can't wait to hear what you think about it.
But it's all part of the effort here to persuade people.
And I know that there are people tuning in each and every day for a host of reasons.
I mean, even the far left media watchdog critics create curious people who tune in here to find what the hell is going on on this show.
And they tune in here every day.
And so it's a balancing act to continue to meet the expectations of the daily audience and to make sure that the newly arrived audience is intrigued enough to want to hang on.
And I'm telling you, I have an opinion of low-information voters that I hope I'm wrong about.
And it is that they just can't conceive of their government not being focused on helping them first.
They just can't conceive of having, we've got a president who really thinks this country is the problem in the world.
And I don't know how many average Americans even can conceive of having elected somebody like that.
Because most people hold the presidency in deep reverence.
And they think people that hold the office are special and they're better than all the rest of us.
And that the first thing they're going to do is defend and protect this country, come hell or high water.
And yet, while they think that this Ebola thing is happening, and even low-information voters with a modicum of common sense are thinking, wait a second, why in the world are we not protecting American people?
Why do we have to let potentially infected people of a deadly disease into the country?
Why?
And when you supply the answer, well, because they have another political agenda here that they're not talking about called amnesty, and if they shut the borders to Ebola patients, then they got a problem with their other thing they want to do.
That just, oh, might confuse them.
But let me give you an example.
There is a video that has gone viral on YouTube not that long ago.
I would have had more fun with this.
We'd have created our own parody version of it, our own bit of satire.
We would have created our own organizations, fake organizations to represent this point of view.
But the fact that this video has gone viral and the fact that the vast majority of people that get their television via their phones or their tablets or their computers or what have you, as opposed to the actual TV set, that's a number that's rising, and it's young people.
It's part of the ever-changing landscape of the great population of the country.
So what happened is this.
At an upscale restaurant in San Francisco, an animal rights person walked in, Kelly Atlas of direct action everywhere, entered the blue stem brasserie and spoke from her heart.
She didn't throw things.
She didn't threaten anybody.
She didn't bring a bunch of ragtag protesters.
She walked in and in the middle of everybody having dinner began to speak out on the plight of her pet chicken named Snow.
And she begged these people to eat anything other than her pet chicken and other people's pet cows.
Don't eat meat.
She said she asked the diners at the San Francisco restaurant to join her in equal rights for all animals, not just cats and dogs and other non-food species.
She said, we're so enraged when we hear someone hurting a dog or a cat.
But because of this species-ism in our minds, we don't think twice about a chicken being hurt or a pig or a cow.
Her chicken, Snow, her pet chicken, was rescued from an egg ranch, she said.
When the chicken's egg production peaked and was on the wane, the chicken was of no longer any value to the egg ranch, and so they were going to kill the chicken.
I see the suffering that my chicken faced, and I'm so happy that I took her out of there.
And I want the same for every animal.
Now, Snurdley is in there laughing and yucking it up, and so probably most everybody else is, but I guarantee you that this video, it's gone violence, there's upwards of 600,000 people have seen it, and now because I've mentioned this, it's going to skyrocket.
You wait.
There are going to be all kinds of sympathetic followers and young people who agree And who would, if, if, if I did do a parody or satire of it, and if these same people ever came across that, they would think I'm a heartless, mean-spirited, extremist, mean guy.
What does it mean?
Yeah, well, it, yeah, yeah, it does mean America's chickens are coming home to roost.
But it also means it means something else.
I'm telling you, this, this, this is how no, I don't know.
No, I haven't, there's nothing in the story that says somebody, any of the other patrons stood up and told her to get the hell out.
I don't know, nothing in the story about what the other diners did.
But I don't care about them.
They're inconsequential to the story.
This is going to end up out there on social media.
And just like Al Gore was able to convince similar kids that polar bears were dying on three square feet blocks of ice because of global warming.
So is this going to build?
This is what the takeover of the education system has led to and what it means.
And meanwhile, all these Republicans running for office trying to get have no clue what's happening here in the world of social media.
They've got no clue how these young people are being approached and how their minds are being shaped and how their political opinions are being formed.
It's just this is this is different than walking in there and setting the place on fire.
This is different than walking in there and pointing fingers and throwing dead meat at the diners.
This is walking in and don't eat my pet chickens.
No, how dare you?
My chicken means as much to me as your cat or dog to the why are you eating my chicken?
And I guarantee everybody in that restaurant felt guilty as hell.
It's San Francisco, don't forget.
No, no, no, no.
If I'd been in that restaurant and this babe walks in and begs me not to eat her pet chicken, I would point out that I'm not.
That I hope her chicken is still alive at home, even though she's stranded it and abandoned it to come preach to me.
And then I would ask her, what about all of the animals your chicken eats to stay alive?
What about all the poor bugs?
What about the worms that your chicken eats?
Who is crying for them?
What about all the insects?
What about how many hundreds of millions of tiny animals has your immune system murdered?
Bacteria, virus, there's all kinds of tiny animals that your own immune system is killing, young woman, young lady.
It's just the whole thing is absurd, but that's the point, folks.
There's another story.
Get this.
How many of you think that politics is made up of adults?
How many of you think that politics has always been made up?
They may be wacko, but they're adults.
They're like your parents.
They may be dull and boring and unhip and uncool, but they're like your.
Okay, there's a story I just saw it on Fox.
The governor of Oregon's fiancé.
What?
Yes, she is a trip, but she is the governor of Oregon's fiancé.
She is a real estate broker working in properties that grow, buy, sell whatever marijuana.
The governor of Oregon's fiancé.
There aren't any adults anywhere anymore is the point, folks.
The number of adults, dependable, reliable bulwarks that you could always depend on to be rock solid, a solid foundation for decency, goodness know, they're dwindling.
They're dwindling away.
Because these people are growing up from what they were in their youth, and they're not maturing, and they're not disbanding it.
They're bringing the idle curiosities of their youth with them to their adulthood.
And it's just a massive change that is occurring at the highest levels of really important traditions and institutions.
Let me grab Jackie here in Paw Paw, Michigan as we head back to the phones.
I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the program.
Hello.
Thanks, Rush.
Dittos to you.
Thank you.
Rush, I'm a retired United Airline flight attendant.
And last week when I saw that the nurse down in Texas came down with Ebola and she had all that protective covering on, I thought about the flight crews that are flying these trips from Africa.
They're doing beverage services.
These people are drinking from plastic cups.
Right.
And they don't have anything covering them.
I don't know if the airlines, if they should say no more trips, or the flight attendants say, I'm not going to work it.
I don't know.
And another thing, too, is our president a couple weeks ago said it's very hard to get Ebola.
Well, now we know that's a lie.
And he lies.
He lied about IRS.
He lied about Benghazi.
He lied about Obamacare.
So I really don't believe him.
I think this is a really big problem, especially since I heard that doctor that was talking to you.
Yeah, for the guy from Washington.
So that's just my comment.
I worry about the flight crews.
I think everybody's faith in all kinds of institutions is challenged right now.
I think a lot of people are asking themselves, what can we count on that we used to be able to count on?
What can we depend on that we used to be able to depend on?
Things like common sense, the prerequisite, the safety and health of the American people come first.
If that's not true anymore, then, well, what's replaced it?
These are frightening things for people to ponder.
Some people don't know and don't care to actually delve deeply into what those answers are.
Back after this, folks.
Sit tight.
No, no, no, no, no, not trying to be a downer here, but you know me.
I'm the mayor of Rioville.
And I call them as I see them.
I tell it as I see it.
One big exciting broadcast hour remaining today.
▲
Export Selection