All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 16, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:26
October 16, 2014, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings to you, music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists, sports fans all across the fruited plane.
I am Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchorman, America's truth detector, and the doctor of democracy.
It's a Ph.D., by the way.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address, lrushbo at eibnet.com.
Now, there are other things going on out there, and I don't want to miss them.
I mean, we're going to slip away from Ebola here for just a couple of minutes.
There are some other things happening, and I never want to have a single issue distract us from all the other things that might be, let's be honest, it might be trying to sneak a bunch of stuff by us while everybody's understandably focused, if not distracted, on this.
But before I break away, I teased before the end of the previous hour a comment Frieden made on charter flights.
Speaking of the nurse, Vincent flew from Cleveland to Dallas on a Frontier Airlines jet.
The director of the Centers for Disease Control, Tom Frieden, yesterday during a conference call with reporters, said she should not have traveled on a commercial airline.
The CDC guidance in this setting outlines the need for what's called controlled movement.
That can include a charter plane, that can include a car, but it does not include public transport.
Now, two things on this.
Why insult this nerd?
This nurse is not going to charter a plane to get back to Dallas from Cleveland.
Nobody's going to charter a plane.
Who thinks this way?
Drive?
Doubt it.
Bus?
Already off limits.
And I also thought, this is the second point.
I also thought the charters were bad and stupid.
We played soundbites yesterday of Dr. Frieden on with Megan Kelly on Fox News, in which she said, if you ban commercial flights, why not?
He said, you can't get workers in and out if you ban travel.
Well, she said, what about charters?
No, no, no.
You can't do charters.
Charters are much different than commercial.
You may not know the difference, Megan, but what do you mean?
A charter takes off, it lands, it does its business, and it then takes off and leaves.
What do you mean a charter's different?
We're sending troops to fight Ebola in Liberia.
They offline coach.
Now we're saying, now we're sending the National Guard.
That's the latest we're going to send the National Guard.
And by the way, lady, I'm going to jump the gun on something.
AP has a story they're waiting on.
It's going to run later this afternoon.
And it's about the five nations in Africa who are going to say that they think they've had a pretty decent amount of success in containing the disease there.
But that's not the lead.
The lead is they are going to credit the fact that they closed their borders.
The leaders of these five African nations are going to credit the fact that they closed their borders, that they had very strict border controls.
And that's how they feel they have been able to stop the wanton spread of Ebola from their countries.
As I see this story, these guys seem to be more concerned about the spread from their countries than anybody here is concerned about acquiring it from their countries.
In other words, they seem to be more responsible about it than people here.
You would think that leaders of these five African nations would get insulted if they heard people around the world say, no, the way we've got to solve this is to keep it there.
It would be understandable that these African leaders said, oh, what?
Yeah, just subject my population to it.
Yeah, well, screw you, man.
Well, no more.
But they're not reacting that way.
They're exhibiting a little bit more leadership, common sense, and responsibility than people in leadership positions in this country are.
She should not have traveled on a commercial airline.
The CDC guidelines in this setting outline the need for controlled movement.
Charter plane.
Drive a car.
But no, not public transplant.
These guys, they love to talk facts.
The fact is, if we had a ban in place, Thomas Duncan couldn't have simply hopped on a plane and brought this plague to the United States.
It really isn't any more complicated than that.
It really isn't.
But you see, to liberals, nothing is simple.
Everything's nuanced.
And there are layers and levels that we average people are simply not capable of discerning.
And even if we could discern them, we're not clever enough to understand them.
We're not smart enough to understand the nuances and the intricacies and all the variables.
No, no, no, not us.
We simply are incapable.
We're not qualified.
We're not competent.
We don't see all of the deeply woven webs that they see.
Because we simply can't keep up with them, you see.
And as such, they miss everything that's right in front of them.
Now, this is the most amazing thing that I have next.
It's a CI told you so.
And I will admit, even I am stunned by the timing of this.
I'm not stunned by the news or the data or the information, but I'm stunned by the timing.
I want to take you back to me on this program just yesterday when I explained my never-ending quest to figure out why, despite its never-ending failures, people continue to, even if they abandon the Democrat Party or liberalism for a while, they always go back to it.
Been trying to figure that out all of my life.
Here is a brief synopsis of what I said.
People are fed up with the Democrat.
They're fed up with Obamacare.
They're fed up with foreign policy.
They're fed up with everything.
Just fed up.
So they can vote for the other guys.
They're not voting for conservatives.
By necessity, they're voting Republican, but they're not voting ideologically.
I've been doing a lot of thinking about this.
Eight years of Reagan, and yet the voters easily fooled to returning to liberalism.
There was no protest when the liberals came along and started raising taxes and making everything worse and destroying jobs, what they always do, wrecking the culture.
There were no protests.
People voted for it.
And my conclusion is that voters never, other than Reagan, the lone example, never affirmatively vote for conservatism because it's never really presented to them.
It's presented to them by me and Fox News on some occasions and others in the so-called new media, but it's not presented to voters by the Republican Party.
There are a few now and then.
Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio come to mind, but not the party.
Voters never affirmatively vote for conservatism because it's never really presented to them.
What happens is liberals, Democrats are rejected for a time because people are fed up and they're mad like they are now.
But after a certain passage of time, they feel it's safe to go back.
They return to liberalism.
So even after demonstrable eight years of overwhelming economic prosperity, wealth creation, entrepreneurial activity, after eight years of the Reagan administration, people eventually abandoned it, went back to voting liberal Democrat, and ended up voting the same things that required the eight years of Reagan to fix it.
And I've been trying to, why?
Why does this happen?
And part of the answer is that conservatism is always a protest vote, like it's going to be in this election.
I'm not trying to be a downer.
I'm the mayor of Rielville.
The Republican Party is not out presenting an alternative.
The Republican Party is not out presenting an agenda.
They're not defining what's wrong with the Democrats.
They're not defining what Obama has messed up.
They're not informing people who Obama is or who Harry Reid is or Pelosi.
They're not doing any of that.
They're not tying the failures that are rampant in this country to the Democrat Party.
They're not tying the failures to Obama.
They're not tying the failures to Harry Reid.
And so the people, they never hear it.
They just get mad at the Democrats every so often and decide to vote for the other guys.
But it's always a protest vote.
It's never, and I have, it really has, it's a disturbing thing.
Such a golden opportunity has been on our plate particularly since 2010.
When Obamacare and the spending went through the roof and the Tea Party was created and we had vast majorities of Americans opposing Obama on pretty much everything, it was made to order for the Republican Party to forge a connection with that group of people, a majority of Americans, and create a new political majority based on that opposition.
It would have required the Republicans explaining what's wrong, why Obamacare isn't going to work.
No matter what's done, it can't work.
Explain what liberalism is.
Explain why they can't find jobs, but they have $200 million in student debt or $200,000 in student debt.
Explain why all these things are going wrong and then tell people how they can be fixed and say, this is how we did it in the 1980s, and we can do it again.
That doesn't happen.
So people are left to vote for the other guys.
So the Republicans are never, yeah, man, I can't want those guys.
They've got some great ideas.
No, it's always, they're the other guys.
You heard all that.
So I got up today and I'm doing show prep, and there's a story in the Washington Post.
Mind-boggling, the timing of this.
People think Democrats understand them.
They're going to vote for Republicans, but they think the Democrats are still their favorite party.
Democrats are likely to lose the Senate in three weeks, at least according to just about everybody.
And their brand hasn't been worse in at least the last 30 years, according to a Washington Post poll.
Yet through it all, they remain the party that Americans empathize with the most.
It's almost as if Democrats are the party people would like to vote for, but they just can't right now.
My gosh, this is exactly what I said.
It is exactly what I said.
They vote for them, they get mad, and then they return when they feel it's safe.
It's almost as if Democrats are the party people would like to vote for, but they just can't right now.
What in the world does that mean, you might ask?
Well, the post-ABC poll asked people three empathy-related questions.
Number one, which party better represents your own personal values?
Number two, which party is more concerned with the needs of people like you?
Number three, which party better understands the economic problems people in this country are having?
And despite their overall heading for a shellacking in this election, Democrats lead on all three of these measures by between 8 and 14 points.
In fact, their edge on the first two questions is bigger than it has been in the last five years.
Those first two questions, again, are which party better represents your own personal values?
Democrats at an all-time high?
Well, higher than they've been in the last five years.
Which party more concerned with the needs of people like you?
Democrats, higher than they've been throughout the last five years.
People are going to vote against them, but they'll eventually feel it safe to go back to them.
Remember the exit poll, 2012 presidential election.
Question cares about people like you.
It was Obama 81, Romney, 19.
Despite their overall deficit, in the 2014 campaign, Democrats lead on all three of these questions, which means, well, I don't want to say we're doomed, but that's 60 years of media, 60 years of Hollywood, 60 years of the news media, 60 years of the educational system, propaganda has paid off.
Cultural branding, this notion that the Democrats care and that they feel and that they're concerned overwhelms the Republican Party.
This might explain why the Republicans fall prey to these traps.
You know what, we got to be for amnesty.
That way the Hispanics will like us too.
When you leave aside empathy, however, leave aside empathy and focus on issues.
That's where the GOP shines.
On the size of government, the GOP leads 40 to 33.
On the economy, GOP leads 42 to 37.
On immigration, GOP narrowly leads 40 to 37.
But even on immigration, people don't want what the Democrats are offering.
On the budget deficit, Republicans 43, Democrats 34.
On the Islamic State, on dealing with terrorism, Republicans lead 42 to 28.
And yet people still think the Democrats are the party most like them.
Their values.
The Democrat Party shares their values.
Democrat Party cares about them.
Democrat Party understands the excrement pile that is their life and wants to help them shovel some of it away.
Republican Party doesn't care that their lives are a bunch of excrement piles is what they think.
So when it comes to which party more Americans feel personally connected to, it's clearly the Democrats.
When it comes to which party they see better addressing the current problems in American government, it's the Republicans, at least for now.
The issues appear to be more important right now than emotional connection, which is what happens.
The issues have become a serious problem.
And so the Democrat voters are going to vote for the other guys.
But they don't know why.
They're not doing it affirmatively.
They're just mad at the Democrats.
It's time to give somebody else a chance, whatever.
But after a while, maybe 2016, when Hillary gets a nomination, if she does, they'll feel it's safe to return.
This Washington Post story is eerie.
It is uncanny how it makes my points from yesterday.
If I didn't know better, I'd say they heard my show, went out and did a quick poll last night and wrote a story about it.
I mean, it's that uncanny.
So you see, even if Republicans win in a landslide, it isn't going to be a mandate because the Republicans just don't get it.
They're really not what people want, even though they may win in a landslide.
It's just a protest vote.
Now, there are solutions.
I went through the solutions yesterday.
There's a way to fix this.
The Republicans had a golden opportunity to fix it in this election cycle.
I got to take a break back after this.
I'm going to grab a quick phone call here.
I'll explain again, like I did yesterday, what the Republicans can do to reverse this, at least get started on it.
There is an answer.
Here's Sarah in Overland Park, Kansas.
Welcome.
It's great to have you on the program, Sarah.
Hi.
Well, hello, Rush.
I love you.
You're the man.
Thank you.
I've been trying to get through for years.
I've been a fan forever, my family, all of us.
And of all the things for me to call about, I am so happy you mentioned the Kansas City Royals.
I've been waiting because I know about your connection.
And I have to tell you, it's just amazing in this city right now.
It's electric.
It's like it was a bet back in the late 70s, early 80s, mid-80s when the Royals owned the town, when the Royals defined even the self-esteem of the city.
I mean, they owned it.
Everybody.
I mean, the city was totally united based on the Royals and their fortunes.
And it was a great time.
It was a great period in the city's history.
And you're saying it's back now, huh?
You know, I was two years out of high school in 85, and I was a big fan.
I've always been a baseball fan.
Politics and baseball are my two favorite things besides my daughter.
And I just, so I was away at college when they wanted an 85.
And, you know, baseball is just, it's just America.
I was, my family and I were at the game on Tuesday, the third game, and I've never seen anything like it in person.
People were singing God Bless America with Singer in, what, seventh or eighth inning.
Nobody knows the words to that song.
It was just people were crying and taking off their caps and just so into it.
Is there a hangout?
Hold your thought right there.
I misread the clock when I took your call.
I thought I had a minute more than I do.
I've got to take a break, but don't hang up.
Don't go anywhere.
And welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh, Cutting Edge of Societal Evolution.
Now we return to Sarah in Overland Park, Kansas.
It's great to hear you talk about this because these are exactly my memories when I was there.
It's just the Midwest, and it's heartland of America.
You've got decent people.
And I made the point, Sarah, watching these games on television.
It was so refreshing not to have to talk about concussions and not to have to hear about spousal abuse or suspensions or fines or whether some player came out and what does that mean?
What's going on with the commissioner?
It was just baseball.
It was just the way it used to be.
It was kind of like a throwback in a way.
And the games were good.
It was all good.
And those players, the players on that team are all solid-looking kind of guys.
Everybody has their vagaries and proclivities, but I can understand everybody getting behind the team.
It makes total sense.
It's the way it was the last time the Royals were a dominant championship team.
Yeah, I agree with you.
And it's just, that's just baseball to me.
And I think, you know, I truly believe America is rooting for this team.
They've struggled for so long.
And I think Dayton Moore is a genius.
I think Ned Yost has managed this team very well.
And I think they've both been very patient, as has the owner of the Royals.
Well, you might, yeah, okay, we'll grant patience.
Yeah, we'll see.
We'll see.
We'll chalk it up to patients.
Well, they're great players, and I think it's different than other teams, too.
I think the Royals and the general manager want to hire players who really want to win, that they have good character.
They work hard.
It's just been a real struggle.
They just have worked hard.
Here's what's happened.
I'll explain it to you in a nutshell.
The Royals simply can't pay players what the Yankees, the Angels, other teams can.
Well, they're a small market.
I don't the smallest, but they're a small market.
And they don't have local revenue like other teams do.
And despite the revenue-sharing tax, it doesn't even begin to make up for it.
They have, however, a great scouting department.
They sign young players.
It is amazing the quality of the young players that have come up to the Kansas City system.
And once they show their wares and they reach their free agency period, they're gobbled up by other teams.
And the names are legion.
Carlos Beltran is one.
Johnny Damon is another.
These were all Royals.
And in this case, what happened is this team gelled while it's very young.
This team came together while it's very young before anybody's had a chance to test free agency and split.
It really is amazing timing when you get down to it.
And there was something else that happened this year.
Some fan, the Royals have a fan in South Korea that's absolutely a rabid fan and went through hell or high water to get there in Kansas City to watch a game.
And his story made the news and he ended up meeting some of the players, became a local celebrity while he was in town.
And that almost coincides with the team's reversal of fortunes.
Not entirely, but they had so many great human interest stories this year.
When I worked there, I'll just show you a little thing here, and then, Sarah, I have to move on.
But when I worked there, every year you hope you make playoffs.
Because there's nothing better.
The postseason is fun.
The excitement, the place is packed, the town's buzzing.
It's just, it's the best.
And during a season, you see things, I did.
I saw plays, late-game heroics, home runs that made me think this is a season of destiny.
Turning an unlikely double play in the ninth inning in Texas.
I'll never forget one of those.
I got on the phone when I still used the phone back then.
And I call somebody who said, this is this year.
This is our year.
We're going to make it.
You see that play?
And I saw so many of those things this season with the Royals that made me say, even during the playoffs, that this team is destined.
And so far, it's proven out.
And so the World Series opens Tuesday night in Kansas City at Kaufman Stadium.
And town is going to be buzzing.
There's no question about it.
It's one of the best restaurant towns.
It's one of the best dry cleaner towns.
It's, I mean, it's one of the best highway towns, best airport towns.
It really is.
So, Sarah, I'm glad you're all jazzed about it.
I'm sure that I'm sure the whole town is.
That's the great thing.
Appreciate the call very much, and best of luck.
Here's Joyce.
We head back to Pittsburgh.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
Good to talk to you again.
Thank you very much.
My question that Mr. Shirley and I were discussing is we keep hearing about the nurse that went from Cleveland to Dallas.
Why is nobody saying how on earth did she get from Dallas to begin with to Cleveland?
There's another flight there.
Well, yeah, this came up yesterday, and these are the obvious questions that everybody's asking.
She had come in contact with the Ebola patient.
He had died.
What is she doing flying?
Everybody says, where are the controls?
Right.
And not only did she fly from Cleveland back, but golly, she exposed another plane full of people on her way up.
Yeah.
And it took them five days to take these planes out of service.
You know, now they're sterilizing the planes and doing all that.
They're trying to track down the people that were on those planes.
132 passengers, I think, on the flight from Cleveland, two days.
Right.
And how long can the virus live outside of the body, you know, on the plane in upholstery and everything else?
And how many different crews of the church goes on and on?
If they're telling us the truth, the survivability of the virus is hours.
It's, I think, between three and five hours that it survives on a tabletop, for example, or maybe on currency, on money, for people that still have some of that.
It's, you know, you can, they're telling us it's really, really hard to get, and we can only hope that they're shooting us straight on this.
Well, I don't know about you, but there's nothing that I trust that comes out of Washington anymore.
Yeah, well, I've been that way for a while.
But because, no, no, it's not personal.
It's because I know that this bunch especially politicizes everything.
And don't forget, gang, this is also the party of Ram Emmanuel, who said, never let a crisis go to waste.
The ultimate political comment, and there was part two to that.
The reason you never let a crisis go to waste is because it allows you to do things that you otherwise couldn't do, which means government power.
A question from the official program observer.
What is it?
If the virus only survives on surfaces for a few hours, why are they sterilizing the planes?
Well, if both are true, they're sterilizing the planes for public relations.
They don't want to have to put this plane out of service.
These things are expensive.
They don't want to have to send this plane to the desert in Arizona and park it forever.
So they're going to go through the motions of sterilizing it.
By the way, do you know what kills Ebola on surface?
Bleach.
Bleach.
Bleach kills it.
So they're bleaching things and all that.
So both could be true.
The virus could only have a lifespan of hours on a surface, but for public relations consumption or whatever, they would still wipe down the airplane no matter what.
Just to let everybody know.
Yeah.
Well, people don't know that they've been on this plane, for example, when they go.
Oh, so what are you saying?
They shouldn't bother sweeping down the airplane then?
If people don't know which airplane they're getting, yeah.
No, it's not a waste of time if they're really doing it.
This is one of these things that you have to do for show, even if that's the only reason.
If you've got 132 people that were on that plane and you're trying to track them down and you want to keep that plane in service, you have to realize some journalist is going to find out what airplane that is.
And there will be stories saying what flights and routes that airplane is being used by Frontier.
And people, if they find that out, won't take that plane.
Certainly, you have to know that the media is going to get to the bottom.
If they didn't sweep this plane down, there would be an all-out full court press to identify it.
No, I'm saying in this case, the media would love to take out Frontier.
Not Frontier specifically, but if no effort was made to wipe down this airplane, let's say it's Abdullah Airlines.
I don't care what it is.
If no effort was made to wipe down this airplane and the media saw that, then they would find out, okay, is this plane still in service?
And if it is, what routes is it on?
And they would write stories telling people.
They have to do it.
Whether the virus didn't survive in there or not, they've got to do it.
It's only common sense.
I got to take a bit of time out, my friends.
Time is starting to get away from us here.
I got to get my arms back around some discipline here.
So hang on.
Don't go away.
And we're back.
Jim in San Antonio, Texas.
Great to have you, sir.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Russ, can you hear me?
Yeah, barely.
You throw a real clue.
Okay.
What I was going to say was about the tobacco plant and how they get their cure, for lack of a better term, for the Ebola.
It's not a simple process because it doesn't really come naturally from the tobacco plant.
The tobacco plant is merely a vehicle for making these antibodies that they make.
And it's a complex process.
And so it takes months.
And that's the problem.
And they're having to scale it up, obviously.
They only had what they had, and they used it all.
So how long is it going to take?
That's a good question.
I would estimate, and I'm not intimately familiar with the process.
I know it in general, but I would say months.
And it's not a trivial cost, obviously, but that's not the issue right now.
No, I'm sure.
So the substance is not naturally found in this special tobacco plant.
No, no, no.
You have to introduce the genes to make the antibodies.
It's actually more than one antibody.
It's a mixture.
You have to introduce it via a virus that's then put into the tobacco plant.
Then the plants grow.
Then you harvest them.
Then you have to get it back out again, which is a non-trivial.
That's a multi-multi-step process to purify the material.
Right.
And so that's why it's not instantly.
Well, this leads me to another question.
Okay, you've got some scientists, some engineers, and they want to come concoct treatment for Ebola.
What in the world steers them to a specific tobacco plant as holding the answer?
Well, like I said, it's not, the tobacco plant is merely a vehicle for growing these antibodies.
Okay, so you could use anything.
You could use turnips?
Well, sort of.
Not exactly, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.
They do use, for instance, when you want to grow these large molecules, a typical thing they use is what's called cho cells, which stands for Chinese hamster ovary cells.
They also use yeast to grow these various things.
And so you put in the genes you want, and that produces the compounds you want, in this case, antibodies, or in other cases, proteins that aren't antibodies.
But this is, you know, a non-trivial thing to discuss in a minute.
All right.
Well, we're getting, so technically, I can't keep it.
The bottom line is we just can't produce this stuff fast.
Not quick.
If you want to, there's a Wikipedia thing.
It's called ZBAP, Z, like Zebra, M-A-T-P, and that's the thing.
And it gives you a pretty good overview for people that want to research it.
Okay, I appreciate that.
Thanks very much.
I'm sorry I could not understand a word he was saying.
It's because of his phone connection.
So you all might have heard more than I did.
I was following on transcription.
But what I basically picked up was that it takes a long, long time, that the tobacco plant is just the vehicle for this thing, and it's not a mass-produced process yet.
And takes a while.
I want to tell you about, have you ever heard of Dr. Paul McHugh?
You haven't heard of Dr. Paul McHugh?
Well, you, odds are will, fairly soon.
Dr. Paul McHugh is the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital.
He is its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry.
Dr. Paul R. McHugh, M-C-Capital H-U-G-H.
Again, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry.
He says that transgenderism is a mental disorder that merits treatment, that sex change is biologically impossible, and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder.
Dr. McHugh is the author of six books and at least 125 peer-reviewed medical articles, made his remarks in a recent commentary in the Wall Street Journal where he explained that transgender surgery, such as addadictomies, is not the solution for people who suffer a disorder of assumption.
That is, the notion that their maleness or femaleness is different than what nature assigned to them biologically.
He reported on a new study showing that the suicide rate among transgendered people who had reassignment surgery is 20 times higher than the suicide rate among non-transgendered people.
Dr. McHugh further noted studies from Vanderbilt University and London's Portman Clinic of children who had expressed transgender feelings, but for whom over time 70% to 80% spontaneously lost those feelings.
While the regime, Hollywood, Time magazine, promote transgenderism as normal, Dr. McHugh says, quote, these policymakers and the media are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by treating their confusions as a right in need of defending rather than as a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment, and prevention.
He basically says it's time to stop looking the other way at what is an obvious mental disorder and allowing these people who are mentally ill to force society to make decisions everybody knows are wrong.
It's an illness.
We're treating it like it's a right and something that we all need to understand and that we're doing a disservice to people who are suffering a mental disorder by treating it as normal and trying to assign it normalcy.
You'll probably be hearing about this guy, I would think, down the road, Dr. Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist in chief Johns Hopkins Hospital, current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry.
Okay, folks, one big exciting broadcast hour remains, and we will get to it el quicko.
Still have some more things on the Ebola side to tell you about.
And other things have nothing to do with Ebola as well.
▲
Export Selection