Doing the job that drive-by media is supposed to do and theoretically used to do.
And that is tell you what happened at places you weren't.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, the email address LRushbow at EIBnet.com.
And when I looked up this movie, The Giver, that our caller was talking about, I'd never heard of it.
Here is what I found about The Giver.
It is based on a book by Lois Lowry, and it tells the story of a perfect world where everyone is happy.
It is set in the near future following a great war called The Ruin.
A community in North America has lived in tranquility without the existence of emotions or color, as these would produce conflicts.
The citizens have also had their memories wiped.
The hero of the movie is an 18-year-old gets chosen to be the community's receiver of memories.
He enters into training with an old man called The Giver, hence the title of the movie.
And from the Giver, this 18-year-old named Jonas learns all about pain and sadness and woe and all the unhappy truths of the real world.
And 18-year-old Jonas quickly realizes that his community is fake.
That a utopia is fake, that it isn't possible.
This was the point of our caller who called our attention to the movie.
Now, maybe you've heard it, heard of it, or seen it.
Maybe I hadn't even heard of it, so I decided to go look it up.
And I don't know how I would characterize it, but it obviously is right.
I mean, there's no such thing as utopia.
Not to say you shouldn't strive for one, but see, you've got to temper realistic expectations.
And that's tough to do.
That's what the left candidate is still in constant search of a utopia where there's no pain, there's no suffering.
And in their ideal utopia, there's no death.
And there's no global warming, and there's no climate destruction, and there's no hatred, and there's no bigotry, and all of this.
And of course, none of that is possible.
And the problem, see, if you realize that, you are a quintessential realist.
And as a realist, you are going to be tagged as insensitive and mean-spirited and extreme.
And I'm going to tell you, folks, what this country needs right now is a dose of realism.
This country needs a dose of reality because there's too much living on the come.
There are too many false promises and false premises that are being advanced out there.
And this country is being blamed for not being perfect.
And if there's one thing, and it's hard to pick one thing, but if there were one thing you could say that's universally true about liberals, and Obama qualifies here, they all believe in the perfection of man.
And therefore, they all believe in the imperfection.
And they hate it, and they don't like it.
And they think that it's bad and wrong.
And so this never-ending quest for perfection, which is why they're never happy.
Which is why, no matter what they get, it's never enough.
Which is why, no matter how many cultural or political victories they get, it's never enough.
Every problem that liberals solve usually is just the beginning of a whole set of new problems.
Nothing ever is permanent.
Nothing ever gets done.
Nothing ever really gets solved.
And it becomes a self-perpetuating cycle or circle, which ends in a daily dose of reality that they can't accept.
So they're constantly enraged to one degree or another, or depressed to one degree or another, or unhappy to one degree or another, and constantly trying to explain it all away by being victims of mythical, invisible forces that are mistreating them.
And they utilize their political power to try to redress all these grievances and get even with people, and it becomes nothing more than a hate-driven ideology.
And that is what we are up against each and every day.
And the reality that life isn't perfect, that people aren't perfect, and there'll never going to be any more war, and there's never going to be any more racism.
The realist who acknowledges this, lives his life accordingly, is blamed as being one of the reasons why all of this imperfection exists.
And it just feeds off of itself.
Anyway, I had to tell you about that because I didn't know what the movie was.
I first thought she was asking me if I'd seen a Gipper.
And I don't think that movie was even called A Gipper.
But the movie Reagan was in.
I don't remember for sure.
Wasn't that Bozo or something?
No, that's a different Reagan movie.
No, no.
Yeah, Knut Rockne, but George Gipp win won for the Gipper.
But it doesn't matter.
And don't spend any time looking up title of the movie.
It doesn't matter.
It's a distraction.
I want to get to the last soundbite from my appearance on Fox News Sunday.
And by the way, this is not all of it.
You can see all of it at rushlimbaugh.com.
We've got it all there.
These are just edited for the audio soundbites today.
But the end of the interview, Chris Wallace hit me with what they call their lightning round.
He said, I'm going to mention a name or a subject, and I just want you to give rat-tat-tat answers in as few words as possible.
And I said, okay, ready to go.
And he started out with, how worried should Republicans be about Hillary Clinton as the Democrat potential Democrat nominee in 2016?
Not very.
She can't sell a book.
She can't fill an auditorium.
The hype finally is over.
Well, that was quick.
He said quick.
He said, Okay, good.
I'm glad you're taking direction.
Barack Obama, when we last talked, I was looking at our interview from 2009.
You called him a man-child who doesn't care about the country.
Do you want to take any of that back?
No, I think everything I told you 2009 has been validated.
All of this that has happened has happened on purpose.
It's been his strategy.
It's been his agenda.
And he's well into it, Chris.
I mean, there's nobody stopping him.
Everything he wants is pretty much getting done.
On the Republican side, you have been quite critical of former Florida Governor Jeb Bush.
What's your problem with him?
Quiet.
What's your problem with him?
And who do you like on the Republican side?
Well, no, that's a loaded question because I can't mention everybody.
And if I leave some people out, they make them mad.
I think Jeb, the Republican Party is totally absorbed in this comprehensive immigration business.
And Jeb is out there claiming the only way he can get nomination is to somehow run against the base in the primaries.
I think the Republicans have demonstrated, they know how to lose the White House.
And it's time to change direction, change strategy.
They've got that down pat.
And they're not going to win by continuing to do the same thing over and over again.
And that is nominating moderates from anywhere, but particularly from the Northeast.
That's just not the answer.
They've demonstrated that.
You might say, well, what about George W. Bush?
Well, okay, I would beg you to remember George W. Bush ran as a Reaganite.
He ran pretty close to Reaganite.
He fell off the rails in 2001 when he started using liberal lingo, claiming that we shouldn't balance the budget on the backs of the poor or some such thing.
But Reagan, I mean, Bush W actually ran, I mean, cited Reagan a lot.
He did not run as a moderate.
Jeb, this is kind of ironic because Jeb, in terms of all of the sons of George H.W. and Barbara Bush, Jeb Bush was always thought to be the most conservative of all of them.
And now somehow he has morphed into what people think is the most moderate of all of them.
I got a note from a friend who said, you know, my favorite line from your appearance in this show?
And I said, no, what was it?
He said, well, when Chris Wallace toward the end said, he's sorry, he ran out of time because he just loves listening to you talk, is when you said, so do I.
I do.
I had to inject it when given the opportunity.
Okay, let's see.
$466,000 on a new federal study, some CyberCast news service.
It's actually $466,642, federal dollars, to study why do fat girls date less and risk more.
I got it.
The National Institutes of Health has awarded $466,000 to McGee Women's Research Institute and Foundation in Pittsburgh to study and compare the intimate relationships of fat and non-fat girls.
Mounting evidence demonstrates that weight influences intimate relationship formation, i.e. dating and sexual.
And obese girls consistently report having fewer dating and sexual experiences, but more sexual risk behaviors, i.e. sex without condoms, once they become sexually active.
No studies have actually examined whether the interpersonal skills and intimate relationships of fat and non-fat girls differ.
And there's a good reason for that.
It doesn't take a dime to answer this question.
Sturdley's putting up his hand.
Don't go there.
Don't go any further.
Big red stop sign rush.
Don't go any further.
I don't have to go any further.
Nearly a half million dollars to find out why fat girls date less than non-fat girls?
I'll tell you what this is.
It's very simple.
This is a bunch of scientists who are just parasites.
They attach themselves to the federal government, the federal TET, if you will, and they're going to suckle from it as much as they can.
And they're the ones that are going to get fat.
They're going to get fat off these huge sums of money, making a nice little life for themselves off the tidbits.
This is not serious science.
This isn't anything for which we need to spend a half a million dollars.
But a bunch of academics have concluded that nobody has scientifically or academically examined this phenomenon yet.
And as such, we need to know definitively.
We can't rely on our instincts.
We have to know definitively why it is that fat girls date less than not fat girls and why they risk more when they do start having sex.
And that question, why do obese women engage in sex without a condom being used more often than non-fat girls?
How would you answer that, Snerdley?
And remember, and remember, and I'm not, what would you say?
Well, that's partly it.
But somebody just shouted in my IFB because they're really happy to be there.
And they don't want to blow it.
And hey, wait, did you have a condom?
Could bring everything to a screeching halt.
Is that your theory?
Is that your theory?
That's your theory.
Okay, that's somebody in my ear saying that to me.
For that, of course, not I.
I have much more sensitivity than that.
Okay.
Well, anyway, just so you know, I, Sterling asked me if I think the scientists take this seriously.
I think if you ran into them and saw them, you would think that's the most serious thing in their world.
I think they put on the airs.
I think they put on the act.
I think they make it look like it is the most important research being done at the moment.
Damn right.
Private, they're getting paid half a million bucks.
Privately, they do the gruber when nobody's looking.
You know, after they got the money and nobody's looking, they look at each other.
Can you believe we just scored half a million dollars to answer this?
I mean, that's in you do the grouper when nobody, the gruber, by the way, is admit how you're screwing people.
That's basically what to do, a grouper, is you come out and you admit how you're lying to people, how you're screwing people, and how you're relying on their stupidity to get what you want.
These guys are doing all of that after the lights go off, after they got the money.
But in public, if you ever saw these guys, I'm sure that they are as self-important as any scientist you have ever encountered.
And I bet they go so far as to wear white schmocks, smocks, robes, whatever, when they appear in public.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is a found this at Powerline, our buddy Ed Morrissey, who I once awarded Blogger of the Year at CPAC.
I got to present Ed Morrissey with the Blogger of the Year award.
He used to do Captain's Quarters, and he then joined Michelle Maulkin when she owned Hot Air.
No, this is not Morris.
It's Powerline.
This is a different guy.
I'm sorry, Ed.
I didn't mean to get you with the wrong guy.
This is Power Line.
I saw this.
But everything I said about Ed Morrissey is still true.
He's just in hot air, which used to be owned by Michelle Malkin.
Now I think it's – I don't know who owns them anyway.
Anyway, it doesn't matter.
They came across a message from an interim dean at Columbia Law School.
Let me take a break because I've got a break coming up, and I don't want to stop myself a minute into this when it's going to take me a couple of three minutes to explain this.
Basically, no, I'll just wait.
Just hang it.
Be right.
White comedian Paul Shanklin, a member of our independent contractor staff here at the EIB Network, said, hey, I saw the movie, The Giver.
He said, it's a great movie.
The best lesson from the movie is watching how vicious the utopian regime gets when challenged with reality.
Amen, bro.
I mean, you would think this a conservative movie until you see who stars in it.
Meryl Streep and Jeff Bridges.
But that's who's in it.
But he said that the utopian regime just gets vicious when they are confronted with the fact that they've constructed a fake community.
Anyway, this is not a parody.
The dean at Columbia Law School has said that any student who is struggling with the emotional aftermath of the lack of indictments in the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases will be excused from taking finals if they are suffering emotional breakdowns.
In accordance with these procedures and policy, students who feel that their performance on examinations will sufficiently be impaired due to the effects of these recent events may petition the dean to have an examination rescheduled.
And the post is filled with comments from people who've been at college during tumultuous events, who've never been so bent out of shape by it all they couldn't take a test.
And who people who can't believe it.
But stop and think, folks.
It's just another sign of the further corruption and deterioration of toughness and reality and being able to face it in our country today.
Adversity as well.
Okay, so you don't get what you want.
And something that doesn't even affect you.
You're going to school in New York, Columbia, you, you're upset that the cop in St. Louis didn't get indicted.
You're so distraught, you can't take your tests.
You're so emotionally distraught and distracted, it would be unfair to make you take the test until you get right with the world again.
Now, what people think is going on here is it's just a bunch of people who'd rather go out on a protest march or screw around rather than take the test in the first place.
However, I believe that there are probably a bunch of people that are emotionally unbalanced because I remember when, remember when John Kerry lost in 2008?
And right down the road here in Boca, there was some sort of therapy office that started for Democrats who couldn't cope with the fact that Kerry lost.
I'll tell you what happens, folks, is what happened, these little darlings, and every college student, of course, is considered to be the total future of America.
Oh, the little darlings in college, they're just so important.
They're so special.
They've been coddled and they've been protected their whole lives.
They've never been on a losing team because the humiliation, we wouldn't let them experience that.
They have been shielded so well that they need to be guarded from the emotions of grand jury decisions.
This is a law school, folks.
And we're back.
Great to have you.
Well, Rushbo here, the cutting edge of societal evolution.
Steve in San Jose, California, as we head back to the phones.
Great to have you, sir.
Thank you for waiting, too.
I appreciate it.
Sure.
Hey, Rush.
Why is it that the liberals always say if we be nice to the terrorists, if we understand them, understand their grievances, empathize with them, and be nice to them, they'll like us in that same technique, as you've been pointing out all morning.
No matter how nice we are to the liberals, try to appease their grievances, they'll never like us.
Well, that's an interesting question.
Let's break this down because explaining this is going to be maybe splitting some hairs.
But I'm going to do my best.
As we were discussing earlier, the Republicans are probably as guilty of this as liberals are in one sense.
The Republicans are afraid that if they criticize Obama, that the American people are going to hate them.
That if they shut down the government, even after winning last night elections, that the American people are going to hate them and call them out.
So they're going to be nice to Obama, and they're going to support amnesty so they can show all of these people that they don't hate them because the left is out there telling everybody that Republicans hate them.
They're telling women that Republicans hate them.
And they're telling Hispanics that Republicans hate them.
And anybody else that cares to listen, they will tell them that Republicans hate them.
Republicans, rather than react with common sense and say, how utterly ridiculous, act on it and try to do things to prove the Democrats wrong.
No, we don't hate you.
Look at us.
We're for amnesty.
No, we don't hate you.
This war on women, no, no.
Why, we even marry women, and we're not the ones that abort our baby girls.
And it never seems to work.
Never seems to work.
But for the left, it does.
It works every time they try to deploy.
They constantly keep the Republicans on the defensive with this.
And they've convinced the Republicans that they are hated.
And they've also convinced the Republicans that any criticism of Obama is going to send these precious independents that are voting for Republicans and drugs running right back to the Democrats, who are what?
Mean-spirited extremists, some of the meanest, most caustic people in politics.
Yet the independents are going to run to them with open arms.
It's a trick.
It's a lie.
Now, on the terrorist front, here come the liberals.
And they really do believe that the terrorists hate us because it's legitimate.
They believe terrorists are bombing us because they've got a legitimate grievance.
We have supported the enemies of terrorism, Israel, to be specific.
And they really believe, because they are good people, that if they convince the terrorists that they too dislike America, that the terrorists will then leave us alone.
And I am convinced that that's what drives the left on this.
I think one of the reasons Obama runs around apologizing for this country is to be on the same page with our enemies because he thinks that's going to mollify them.
He also has the added bonus of being able to rip the country, which also serves other purposes that he has.
But you might find a contradiction here because it is true.
We have bent over backwards to show every minority, civil rights, feminism, unions.
I mean, the people that have been bitching my whole life about things still are, no matter what's been done to modify them, no matter what.
And there have been legitimate efforts to make repairs.
A lot of them, the grievance industry has succeeded in getting a whole bunch of legal and policy changes.
And it doesn't seem to matter.
They're still running around today acting like nothing's changed since the day this country was founded.
Now, that's all political.
Never being happy, never being satisfied is the recipe for always getting more.
I don't, folks, this is human nature.
Sadly, it works with way too many people.
And I think in this case, where the left actually employs it, they find common ground in the fact that the people they're trying to mollify basically, well, it's just like the Iranians today.
The Iranian foreign ministry issued a release or a statement ripping the United States for its inherent racism.
And if you didn't know it was the Iranian news agency, you would assume it was Obama.
You could have assumed it's Dick Durbin or John Kerry or any of these other Democrats.
You can't tell the difference, except we were told the Iranians are the ones that said it.
And back in the 2012 presidential campaign, I couldn't tell the difference between what Ahmedini Zad was saying about the Republicans in America and what Obama was saying about it.
Now, to some, that's a controversial observation.
It's controversial because it happens to be true.
And it's one of those things you're just not supposed to say.
But when the Democrats employ it themselves and you think they're going on the defensive, the commonality is America is the problem.
And they really believe that if they forge a relationship with enemies of America on the same basis that the left forms relationships, that they think they can mollify and show these enemies that we're on the same page.
And there's no reason to attack us, bud.
I mean, there's no reason.
We've got as many problems our own country as you do.
Hell, folks, we've even had, there was a CHICOM guy that came over.
He was appearing somewhere at the State Department.
This is during the Obama presidency, in the first term.
And I paraphrase this and I forget the exact details, but it's a human rights conference and the way people mistreated around the world.
And the U.S. delegates stood up and actually said to the ChiCom guy, now we understand we have no moral authority to preach to you because we have a horrible human rights history too.
Now, the CHICOM guy was not modified.
He was ticked off.
He was insulted because they don't think they violate human rights.
But this State Department Obama guy stood up and tried to forge common ground with the CHICOM by telling him, hey, you know what?
We do it too.
And we really can't preach to you about it.
And so we're not going to.
And he thought the ChiCom guy would love him and embrace him.
And hey, we made a new friend.
He said, the Chikom guy is, who the hell are you talking about, bud?
You telling us that you're as bad as we are?
Screw you.
Your problems are not our problems.
Who are you to say we violate human rights?
Screw you, buddy.
And this guy didn't know what to do because he just thought he had forged a relationship.
Understand the way the left does it and tries to get away with it.
Understand the common ground or the area of commonality.
And that is America is the problem in the world.
And they reach out to people who share that view and try to forge relationships, even our enemies, and think if they acknowledge the left, if they acknowledge the same view of America that the enemy does to one degree or another, that they can mollify the enemy.
Even though they see what it does to the Republicans, they don't see that they're doing it to themselves because they're good people.
My memory, sometimes even I marvel at it.
It was 2010.
It was Michael Posner, who is the, or was, assistant secretary of state in 2010.
And he admitted to a ChiCom representative that we also were violating human rights with Arizona's new immigration law.
And he admitted that we had no right to preach to them, so he wasn't preaching to the ChiComs about violating human rights.
And to show that we're all the same and we're equally good, why even the U.S. violates human rights?
I'll never forget it.
That's two years into the regime.
That's a second year into the regime.
I'm doing everything at the time in my power to try to convince people who they've just elected.
And that was just one of many examples that I remembered and tried to cite.
Here's Ted in Las Vegas.
Hey, Ted, great to have you on the program.
Hello.
Thank you, Rush.
I've been wanting to call you for a year.
I've tried a couple of times, but wasn't able to get through till today.
Well, here you are.
Yes.
I was one of the people who responded on the polls as to who we held accountable or who was responsible for the government shutdown last year or last time.
And I said that I thought Ted Cruz and the GOP were.
But what they didn't ask, and this is what the danger in polls is, is that I was happy that they did that.
This is one of the reasons why I'm considering backing Ted Cruz for president, because he had the guts to say, no, we're not going any further.
As a matter of fact, we need to step back.
That's the point.
This is an excellent point.
They never do tell us how many people say the Republicans are responsible for a government shutdown are in favor of it.
Exactly.
They just make the assumption that nobody would be in favor of a government shutdown.
Why, who in the world in their right mind would ever want our precious government to stop working for a day or two?
That is an excellent, excellent point.
You remind me of something, by the way.
Boy, I'm going to get in real trouble saying this.
No, I'm not going to.
I ran into a guy recently who was a big Romney guy.
So in 2012, to start a conversation, I said, so look, give me the insights.
Romney running again.
He said, I don't know.
I don't know.
But I'll tell you who I like now.
I said, it's not Romney.
Well, no, I love Romney, but he's not a guy anymore.
He told me Rick Perry.
And I thought, this is fascinating to me.
And you know what he said?
We need fighters.
We don't have any fighters.
Cruz is a fighter.
This is what reminded me of Little Story.
So anyway, Ted, I appreciate the call.
I wish I had more time to plumb your mind even more, but I don't.
That's it, folks.
We have reached the conclusion of today's excursion into broadcast excellence, but we never really wrap it up.