All Episodes
Previous Next
March 6, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:34
March 6, 2015, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Hey, you have one of those Kurig K cup coffee machines.
We got one in there.
You know what I'm talking about, right?
Do you have one at home?
Well, if you do, throw it away.
Junk it.
The inventor says he regrets making it.
Environmental damage.
I'm not kidding you.
I'm not kidding.
The inventor is on a guilt trip.
He wishes he had not invented the damn thing.
I'm not making it live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Just like God probably regrets creating elephants, given what happened to him at the circus.
Greetings.
It's just absurd.
I don't care where you look today.
You got the drive by's having orgasms over 5.5% unemployment.
Best it's been since May of 2007.
CNN, they can barely keep their clothes on reporting this.
Nobody knows the truth of anything.
And I've about had it with this Hillary story, but I really have about had it, because I know how it's going to end up.
I know exactly how this is going to end up.
And that is nothing is going to happen to her.
Ain't nothing gonna be happening to Hillary over this.
People have forgotten the pattern.
People have forgotten what actually happens in a Clinton scandal, because everybody's sitting around thinking maybe this is the one.
And there isn't going to be the one.
Greetings, my friends.
How are you?
Doing okay today?
Friday, open line Friday, Rush Limboy here to wrap up another busy broadcast week at 800-282-2882.
Open line Friday for those of you who are new.
Uh differs from Monday through Thursday in that uh on those days we tightly screen the program, and the callers have to talk about things that I would care about or do care about.
But on Friday's not the case.
Friday callers can call about anything.
With questions, comments, it doesn't matter what.
And it's just it's a it's an extended opportunity.
Uh you know, this program's a benevolent dictatorship, with me being the benevolent dictator.
It very tightly controlled.
No first amendment on this program except for me.
Except Woman Friday, then we kind of open it up and allow people to take the program if they want to in areas that we don't normally take it.
Telephone number again.
800-282-288-2.
This is ABC News out of Chicago.
Do you brew coffee using those Kurig K cups?
The man who invented it is ashamed of his achievement.
His name is John Sylvan.
And he told the Atlantic that he sometimes regrets his invention because it creates too much waste.
And it is bad for the environment.
He said, Yeah, I feel bad sometimes that I ever invented a K cup.
I don't have one.
I mean, they're kind of expensive to use.
Plus it's not like drip coffee's tough to make.
Okay, so how expensive is it?
Well, here's a comparison.
A 12-pack of Folger's K cups, for example, sells for about $6.72.
That gives you about four ounces of coffee.
In comparison, a 33-ounce container of Folger's classic roast ground coffee sells for about $8.
That's eight times the amount of coffee for nearly the same price.
So you see, the K cup maker ripping you off all to shreds.
But most Americans don't seem to care about the cost or the environmental impact of K cups.
The Atlantic says that K cup brewers are now in one in three American homes.
It's uh it's like uh cigarette for coffee, said the inventor.
A single serve delivery mechanism for an addictive substance.
Uh uh-uh-a, we've now learned that coffee's so good for us.
Anyway, it's just it's classic.
Here we have the inventor who has been overcome with guilt.
Overcome with guilt over his his his thoughts and destructive invention.
I I d I just It never ceases to amaze me.
When you watch, I got a nocious go grab that thing, and I we have one of these.
I was going to bring it in here and actually destroy it on the dino cam just to show my solidarity with the inventor of the thing.
Does anybody use it?
Do any of you use it?
You know, the only time I use it is if I'm first here and the coffee's not I refuse to make my own coffee.
I've risen above that.
Okay.
I refuse to make my own coffee.
So we got a K-cup thing in there.
And if I'm the first to arrive and I just want to make one cup until whoever makes a coffee gets here, that's when I use it.
And you know how often it happens?
Maybe once a month.
So I very seldom.
First time I ran into a K cup machine was in a hotel room in Indianapolis.
It wasn't that long ago, five or six.
I'd never heard of the thing.
I thought it was one of the most brilliant inventions ever.
And we immediately set out to try to secure the guys as an advertiser.
We found out they're a bunch of commie libs and there was no way.
And now we know.
Thank God Henry Ford didn't have this problem.
Thank God Steve Jobs never had this.
Can you imagine if Jobs had come, oh my God, throw away your iPhone.
I feel so guilty over inventing the iPhone.
It's nothing but an environmental hazard and disaster.
And I don't even use it.
All right, folks.
Little did you know.
The whole idea, the societal norm, quote unquote, of eating three meals a day is racist.
Senior editor at Mother Jones wants you to know that you should stop eating three meals a day for reasons, including the fact that it's racist.
And she actually uses the word racist.
Dogmatic adherence to meal times is anti-science, racist, and might actually be making you sick.
Proclaims the subhead to Kira Butler's Wednesday article titled Why You Should Stop Eating Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner.
Here is her reasoning.
When the Europeans, it's always their fault.
It's always the fault of the Europeans.
And wait till you hear what Calypso Louis said in a sermon the other day to his troops at the Nation of Islam.
Actually, it's not much different to what Obama is doing, but when Calypso Louis talks about it, it sounds much more extreme and uh and dramatic.
Okay, here's her reasoning.
When the Europeans came over to the United States, they ate three meals a day.
Whereas the Native Americans ate in a less restricted fashion.
A practice which Kira Butler claims the Europeans consider to be unrefined.
So here we have these white Europeans.
They show up here in the new world, which is just fine.
It's pristine.
You have the Native Americans, the Indians, and they are at one with nature, and they aren't doing anything except killing each other now and then.
And they're abusing the buffalo, but we don't talk about that.
Had there been elephants here, they would have abused the elephants to boot, but the elephants hadn't arrived here yet because Ringling and Brothers hadn't brought them over.
So we're just a Native Americans, just the Indians, and they were flawless.
They were perfect.
They were just the absolute perfect inhabitants of the New World.
And here came Columbus and the Gama and all of these evil white devils.
And they brought with them a bunch of sordid habits, a bunch of destructive traditions, all encapsulated in racism.
So when the Europeans came to the U.S., they ate three meals a day, and they looked at the Native Americans eating only when they felt like it, and they thought that was unsophisticated.
And they thought that was unrefined.
And they thought, my God, this place is inhabited by a bunch of savages.
So we're gonna have to bring them into the new world.
Kira Butler offered excerpts of an email interview with Abigail Carroll, who was the author of the book, Three Squares, The Invention of the American Meal, as she proved her point.
Said the eating schedule of the Native tribes, remember now those who were entitled to be here, they were perfect.
They were of color, and they were pristine, and they uh didn't destroy anything.
I mean, they were just ideal.
And so the eating schedule of the native tribes was less rigid.
The Europeans took this as evidence that the natives were uncivilized.
This is in an email from this Abigail Carroll to the writer of the Atlantic story named Kira Butler.
She said that Abigail Carroll told her that the Europeans believe that civilized people ate properly and boundaried their eating, thus differentiating themselves from the animal kingdom where grazing is the norm.
You see how this all plays out now.
The white Europeans a bunch of superiorists.
The white Europeans, a bunch of elitists.
They came over here, and what they do, they immediately began judging what they found.
And as they began judging, they began to be critical of what they found.
And this is when the roots of all modern evil began.
Basically, if you organize your eating around breakfast, lunch, and dinner, you are perpetuating the racist better than Native Americans are savage animals.
You are perpetuating the racist idea that Native Americans are savage animals.
That is in the Atlantic.
This it's not in some cockeyed kooky, obscure publications, mainstream publication.
It's going to be cited by some college professor or a series of them, and you're going to have people running around actually articulating this.
They're going to end up believing it, and it's going to become yet another indictment of white Europeans, and uh therefore the information will be used to discredit the entire discovery meme and narrative of the new world.
All right, the unemployment numbers, uh, ladies, it's just it's getting comical now.
The unemployment rate reported today, five and a half percent, the best it's been since 2007, and of course it's all because of Obama.
His economic policies, yeah, they took longer to uh to impact people, but they finally are now starting to take root.
And it's come to pass that the Obama economic policies were the right thing to do, as evidenced by the unemployment number five and a half percent.
Here is CNN, they can barely keep their clothes on over there today, reporting this.
Up first is Christine Romans, who is their economics reporter.
Sometimes a good headline is just a good headline, Carol, and that's what this report shows us.
When you look within these pages and pages of tables, you see an American economy that is creating jobs again across the spectrum.
The trend here has been good.
Jobs added consistently, month after month.
The unemployment rate, really important milestone here for the unemployment rate, 5.5%.
It's been trending down for a year, the lowest since May 2008.
I'm sorry, I thought that was 2007 at first, but they're saying May of 2008, which still works because that was before Obama was uh was even elected, and then the uh uh question, Carol Costello was doing the interviewing here of the edit uh the economics reporter Christine Roman.
She said, Well, what about the underemployment numbers, huh?
What about that, Christine?
I'm so glad you asked.
You hear a lot, especially people who criticize this president who say the real unemployment rate is double digits.
The underemployment rate, that's people who are working part-time but want to be working full-time, people who are sort of sidelined in the labor market, that's falling too.
It's 11%.
It is higher than the stated unemployment rate, a 5.5%.
But all of those rates are starting to fall.
Anybody who thinks that we really have an unemployment figure of five and a half percent, that that accurately reflects the employment circumstance in this country is a fool.
Because if you do, you would have to agree that there is simultaneous robust economic activity, causing robust economic growth.
And that just isn't there.
It is occurring in a couple of industries, fracking and high tech, but it isn't there.
Here are the real numbers once again.
And remember the unemployment rate that is reported, this 5.5%'s called the uh the government calls it the U3 unemployment rate, and it does not count the people who have given up trying to find a job after being out of work four years.
It doesn't count those people.
If you're not actively seeking a job and you don't have one, you're not counted as unemployed.
The labor force participation rate is hovering near a 37-year low, and it has been for the past 11 months.
It is 62.8%.
62.8% labor force participation rate.
That's the percentage of eligible workers actually working.
62.8%.
And they want us to believe the unemployment rate is 5.5%.
The only way that you have we we've lost almost a total now since Obama became president of 4 million jobs.
They've just been erased.
So the universe of jobs against which we're measuring unemployment and full employment is much smaller.
So it's easy to lower the unemployment rate to 5.5% when the universe comes down as well.
Bottom line is this 92.8 million Americans are not working.
And they want us to believe that we have an unemployment rate of 5.5%.
Now people are going to believe it.
It's being reported, it's widespread, it's all over, and everybody is going to accept the low information crowds are going to accept unemployment's great, the economy's great.
Just preparing you for that, but I want you to know the truth.
Also, a record number of women are not in the labor force.
And by the way, these are not my numbers.
They come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
56 million 23,000 women aged 16 and older were not in the labor force.
Prostitutes not counted, of course.
Well, they're not.
So it's actually a little bit more, but we don't know how many more.
Not only was that number 56 million, 23,000 a record high, but it's also the first time the number has exceeded 56 million, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Now to be counted as not in the labor force, one must not have a job or have looked for a job in the past four weeks.
In January 2015, there were 55 million 756,000 women not in the labor force, which means 267,000 women dropped out of the labor force since January 15th.
But that unemployment number, man, really coming down 5.5%.
Right on, dude.
Okay, we have another Hillary Clinton stack here, folks.
And I'm not going to get into any great detail.
I just want you to know what we have in the stack today.
One of the stories is how we're not hearing anything from the Republicans on this.
And have you noticed not too many Republicans are piping up about this?
And people are starting to wonder why, such as in the National Journal.
In Clinton Woes, Republicans see opportunity and peril.
And of course, the implication is the Republicans have several people doing the same thing or have done the same thing, and the reason the Republicans can't pipe up about it is because that would be hypocritical, so they're just kind of taking it slow and seeing how it pans out.
Fox News headline, Clinton created multiple email addresses on private server.
From ABC News, Clinton was in violation of State Department policy for nearly six years.
From the Daily Caller, Hillary's State Department was cited nine times for improper email abuse.
Nothing's happened to anybody as a result of this, folks.
They've been cited, everybody knew it was going on, and nothing happened to anybody.
The White House is known since 2010 that Mrs. Clinton.
Was it 2001 or since last Saturday?
The White House is known for months that Mrs. Clinton was doing this.
And nobody said a word.
Everybody's been aware in government of the State Department violations, and nobody said a word.
And even after these sites, nobody's really been punished other than one guy, Hillary demanded that one guy, an Air Force General be let go.
Internal cable from Clinton State Department office barred use of personal email.
The rules were clear.
A lot of people did it, including Hillary.
Nothing happened to any of them.
Ron Fournier, with his fifth, fourth or fifth piece on the Clinton this week, writes how she can fix this.
Details in that and much more are coming up right after this.
It's open line Friday.
Rushlin bought 800 282-2882.
We'll be getting into phone calls quickly, hopefully in this hour.
That is my intention.
One other point that I always make that I fail to make in reporting how many Americans are not working.
92.8 million Americans not working, however, they are all eating.
Used to not be that way.
Wasn't that long ago that if you didn't have a job, you didn't eat regularly anyway.
Of course, that's not the case now.
We have nearly 50 million Americans on food stamps alone.
And with other welfare benefits thrown in, and now the disability act encompassing so many other types of crazy behavior that more and more Americans don't have to work to eat.
More and more Americans don't have to work to have a phone.
More and more Americans don't have to work to be able to have a television set and pay for cable.
In fact, more and more people don't even have to be employed to afford a K-cup machine.
And while they use it, they destroy the environment, according to the inventor.
Now we just had the news from the Atlantic that if you eat three square meals a day, breakfast, lunch, and dinner, that you are racist.
That the habit, the tradition, the behavioral idea of three meals a day was brought to this country, brought to the new world, North America, by evil white racist Europeans.
And that when they arrived here, they found Native Americans at one with nature who grazed.
They basically ate when they felt like it or when they wanted to, or when they had something, and that was it.
There were no such things as structured meals.
According to this wacko writer at the Atlantic.
And the white Europeans came and they saw that and they said, Wow, what a bunch of unsophisticated rubes.
Who in the world just eats when you have to?
And so racism led to the imposition of three square meals, which no doubt led to the obesity epidemic.
We'll get this.
Mother Jones, more American white women are dying prematurely.
The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a case that could result in more than eight million people losing their health insurance.
This is the subsidies case, King versus Burwell.
And by the way, more on that today, as the program unfolds.
The next day, after oral arguments, the Urban Institute released a new report showing again just what's at stake in that case.
As they attempt now to guilt trip the justices, as they attempt to manipulate the justices in the case, large swathes of the population have become so unhealthy that death rates are rising among a group long thought to be the healthiest American citizens, white women.
And those numbers will only continue to skyrocket without a continued move toward universal health insurance.
You ever heard anything more incongruous?
More outrageous and devoid of any common sense, all because of a Supreme Court case, the decision of Which might gut an Obama program.
And so let's bring out all the ammo we've got.
Let's pull out all the stops to save this bill.
Now, there's one key element of this.
You may have heard this opinion on somewhere else, but it just struck me the other day.
This subsidy case, King versus Burwell, if you look, and I've mentioned this before, if you look at this case strictly on the merits, it's a slam dunk.
There is no way the administration wins this.
Absolutely no way.
If this were just a clean environment and there weren't any uh attachments, emotional or political on either side of this.
If this were just a statute that the Congress had passed, uh it would fail.
This in a in a sane world in which we don't live, by the way.
This would be an eight to one or nine to nothing slam dunk, throw the law out.
That's how easily decided this is.
However, and what would happen normally in a case like this?
The Supreme Court would say to the legislature, in this case the Congress, look, you got this wrong.
Uh this is currently you have to send this back.
You have to fix this.
The court would say it's not our job to fix it.
We can't write the law, we can't rewrite the law, we can't write statute.
See, this is old-fashioned stuff, this is the way they used to be.
But as it stands now, you wrote that the only people that can get subsidies are people in the states that set up exchanges, and only, well, 37 states didn't.
And so the people in those 37 states are not entitled to subsidies by virtue of your own law.
The federal government setting up subsidies was illegal, according to your own law.
So you can't do what you're doing.
You cannot offer subsidies from the federal government.
It's that slam dunk.
But one of the great obstacles of this bill is they can't send it back to fix it.
They can't they don't dare send this bill back to Congress.
This bill, remember what it took to pass this bill.
It took budget reconciliation, it took lying to Bart Stupak, it took all kinds of extra-constitutional and oddball techniques.
There's not one Republican vote for this bill.
The bill has changed because of waivers and uh Obama executive actions in the years since he signed it into law.
They can't, the normal remedy for something like that is out of the realm of possibility.
They can't send it back.
If Obamacare ever ended up back in Congress for a revote, it'd be the end of it.
And so the political pressure has mounted.
They have to fix this at the court level.
And that's why all these stories now, that's why all of these stories about imminent doom.
And now we've got, it's gotten a point where American white women are dying prematurely as it is.
And if the court denies the subsidies provided by the federal government to people in 37 states, why white women are going to be dying at even greater numbers and at even more rapid rate.
I mean, it's absurd.
It's an insult to everybody's intelligence.
Those numbers will only continue to skyrocket without a continued move toward universal health insurance.
So we've got white women dying prematurely, and the only fix is government growing and growing and growing and totally in charge of health care.
Absent that, white women are going to die prematurely, and after that, African American women are going to die prematurely.
You see, ladies and gentlemen, for several decades, life expectancy among white women had been on the rise because life wasn't fair here.
But not anymore.
According to Urban Institute data, between 1999 and 2013, white women's death rates increased by nearly 12%, from 126 deaths per 100,000 babes, to 140 deaths per 100,000 babes.
Such a wholesale and systematic reversal in life expectancy trends is extremely troubling, as we stroke our chins and try to explain this as we exhibit our troubledness.
Researchers say that an extreme indicator suggest large health declines in a broader population and an indication that income inequality may be taking its tall.
Oh my God, do you see what's happening here?
Income inequality is killing white women prematurely.
And the very thought that federal subsidies in Obamacare might be taken away could kill even more white women even more prematurely.
And they point to other countries that have seen similar reversals in longevity trends, and they aren't pretty comparisons in Russia with its epidemic of alcoholism.
And it teeming industrial revolution era London, the Charles Dickens chronicled.
Women are dying rampantly prematurely.
The Urban Institute researchers attribute the rise in U.S. deaths among white women to a number of factors.
The largest is the sharp spike in overdose deaths.
And that jumped from 3.3 to 15.9 deaths per 100,000 babes between 1999 and 2011.
But even went out to spike overdoses, white women's death rates are rising, and the only fix is more national health care and a continuation of federal subsidies.
Both on the line as the Supreme Court did this is mainstream news now.
I'm telling you, this is Mother Jones.
I mean, to the left it's uh it's mainstream news.
Now you may say, why do I spend time telling you about this?
Because you think it's oddball, it's kooky, it's extreme, it's fringe, and it is.
What I've learned is over all these years, this stuff is what your kids end up being taught.
In school, professors, teachers gobble this stuff up.
Mother Jones and Ard and publications like it are almost like a Bible in the left.
And whatever's in there, they automatically believe it.
There's no curiosity.
There is no real intelligence in academia anymore.
And people are going to end up believing this.
You're going to encounter this some sometime down the road, you're going to encounter somebody who actually gonna start telling you know that white women are dying prematurely because Supreme Court can't be what?
What did you say?
Yeah, and they believe it.
And you're gonna think, when did we start losing the country?
It's just I don't know, to me, it's it's it's just sad to see this kind of wanton stupidity and ignorance willfully spread throughout the society.
Back with more after this.
Don't go away.
Wait till you hear how the New York Times treats the Department of Justice report on Ferguson, Missouri.
Wait till you hear how the New York Times treats the Justice Department report on the gentle giant and the cop, Darrell or Darren Wilson.
Wait till you hear it.
It's coming.
Well, what can they say?
Okay, here's no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Not if you read the New York Times, the cop was not innocent.
That's the if you read the New York Times, the cop was not innocent.
And if you read the New York Times, hand up, don't shoot, may have really happened.
Here's the headline.
Ferguson Report puts hand up to reality test.
They were four words that became the national rallying cry of a new civil rights movement.
Hands up, don't shoot.
The slogan was embraced by members of Congress, recording artists and football players with the St. Louis Rams.
It inspired posters and songs, t-shirts, and new advocacy groups.
But in its final report this week, clearing the police officer Darren Wilson of civil rights violations of Mr. Brown's death, the Justice Department said it may not have happened that way.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. cast doubt on the hands-up account, even as he described Ferguson as having a racially biased police department and justice system.
Cast doubt?
Holder admitted it never happened.
He didn't cast doubt on it.
He admitted it never happened.
He admitted that it was all a lie from the start.
They quoted all of the witnesses who lied about it, and they had all the witnesses who said they were intimidated by the lying witnesses to try to change the truthful version of what Happened.
Of course he went on to claim the liars were justified.
Holder did.
He did.
He claimed the liars were justified since they were only trying to lynch an innocent man because of the color of his skin, which Mr. Holder considers to be social justice.
Here's the next pair.
This is the New York Times.
It remains not only valid, but essential to question how such a strong alternative version of Vents was able to take hold so swiftly and be accepted so readily.
So here let me do this without my comments.
My comments confused you, I'm sure.
In its final report this week, clearing the police officer, Darren Wilson of civil rights violations in Brown's death, the Justice Department said it may not have happened that way.
The Attorney General cast doubt on the hands up account, even as he described Ferguson as having a racially biased police department just system.
Now just remind you, he didn't cast doubt.
He said unequivocally it didn't happen.
There was no hands up, don't shoot.
But then they quote Holder as saying, it remains valid, in fact, essential, to question how such a thing, hands up, don't shoot, was able to take hold so swiftly and be accepted so readily.
So here's something that didn't happen, that a bunch of people lied about and made up.
And here's Holder admitting that what was lied about and made up didn't happen.
Now saying, but it's so serious a possibility that we must examine how the lie began.
This is a variation on the the old saw, it's not the nature of the evidence that matters, it's the seriousness of the charge.
And this is something that liberals own as a strategy.
So here, let me strip this away.
In real life, there was never hands up, don't shoot.
The gentle giant never tried to surrender, the gentle giant never put his hands up, he never gave up, he never tried to surrender, he was not murdered in cold blood, none of it never happened.
Civil rights coalitions, the media, recording artists, all these people cited, invented it, made it up in a means of trying to indict and convict the officer.
Holder issues a report, admits it didn't happen, but then says, it's such a serious allegation, we must examine why it was made.
And he concludes that the allegation, though false, is such a serious one that actual events in Ferguson made the allegation come to life.
In other words, Ferguson's so racist in and of itself, and the Ferguson Police Department is so racist in and of itself, independent of this incident.
That when the incident happened, the racism that's inherent there gave birth to this belief of hands up, don't shoot.
And because of that, we have to investigate this.
We have to examine why this alternative reality, false though it was, came to life.
It is the biggest cop out.
This is this is another lie, compounding other lies.
There was no hands up, don't shoot.
The people that invented that did so out of a political objective with a political objective in mind.
It was the civil rights coalitions.
Everybody knows how that got started.
And the Justice Department admits that it didn't happen, but boy, that's a serious thing to accuse somebody of so we better look into it.
So the New York Times takes all this and writes of the report and the incident that it may as well have happened.
It's such a serious thing.
It may as well have happened.
That's why the headline, Ferguson Report puts hands up to reality test.
No, the Ferguson Report blew the smithereenes out of the lie, is what it did.
It didn't put it to a test.
It didn't hold out any possibility that that was partially true.
But if you read the New York Times, you are going to end up thinking that Ferguson was so racist, the police department was so racist, intrinsically and natively, that it was natural for somebody to think the gentle giant had surrendered because people are surrendering all the time and still getting shot in Ferguson.
That's the New York Times version of this report.
Got to take a break here, folks, but we've got much more as we always do.
Don't go away.
Yeah, the nature of the evidence is that there was no hands up, don't shoot.
But the seriousness of the charge is so much more important than the nature of the evidence.
We must look into why such an allegation arose when it never happened.
▲
Export Selection