All Episodes
Previous Next
April 21, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:48
April 21, 2015, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
The views expressed by the host on this program documented to be almost always right, 99.7% of the time.
That translates to Do Not Doubt Me.
Happy to be here, my friends.
Rush Limbaugh, the distinguished and prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
You've been able to count on it for over 26 years.
Never moisten our finger, stick it into the wind to see which way it's blowing.
We are what we are, we who were or who we are who we are, and we love hearing what we say, especially me, because it's right.
Telephone number 80082-2882.
If you want to be on the program, email address Lrushbo at EIBNet.com.
Where to begin, where to begin today.
It's we have a story that too many vitamins cause cancer.
Vitamin supplements have been discovered.
Too many vitamins can, I should say can.
It's from the uh the Daily Mirror in the UK.
Too many vitamins can give you cancer, according to major news study, which is a warning to the millions of people who take them.
Apparently, if you take vitamin supplements, you are at as great a risk for getting cancer as people who smoke cigarettes.
I will have the details unfolding on this right before your very eyes and ears.
Students at the California Polytechnic University recently held, I cannot use the word to describe what they did.
It's a family program, we have manners.
We are filled with proper decorum.
We have dignity in class on this program, so what I will say to you is that the students at Cal Poly, California Polytechnic University, recently held an excrement in.
For those of you in real India, a crap in to teach their peers about gender-neutral bathrooms.
They did this last Tuesday.
Members of the Cal Poly Queer Student Union began circulating a petition requesting that the university add gender diversity signs to existing all-gender bathrooms on campus.
And that kicked off a three-day excrement in to make the point.
This is what people, this is what parents are paying universities to permit and foster on campus.
Meanwhile, along the I don't want to envision it.
Don't bother trying to figure out how you execute that.
I mean, it is what it is.
They went in there, they sat down on the toilets, and they stayed there.
And they did it in shifts, and they called it an excrement in, only they use the common vernacular for it.
Um, trying to make a point.
It's what's happened is that gay rights is becoming passe.
I predicted this.
I predicted this many moons ago.
Gay rights has been around long.
Gay rights just doesn't get the blood flowing like it used to, because gay rights are making a lot of progress.
So now the gay rights movement is moving over to the transgender movement.
They are becoming the next minority that's put upon by an evil majority that is intolerant and unaccepting.
And their gay brothers and sisters are joining the bisexual crowd now.
And it they're just transferring the same movement, the same tactics, from militant gays over now to transgenders.
Which, of course, I mean, that's an even smaller subset of a dramatic minority.
And to illustrate, if you doubt me, Governor Kumo in New York went to Cuba.
He went down there on a fact-finding mission.
And do you know what his first conclusion was?
Cuba has a long way to go On lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender issues.
Of all the things an American could observe about Cuba, Governor Andrew Cuomo, does that not tell you where they expect to get their money from?
It tells you everything you want to know about the status of the gay rights movement that they're transferring now the energy and the protest apparatus to the transgender.
That's the next thing.
You people need to be on the lookout for this.
I mean, gay marriage is uh come to have been an accepted norm as any other accepted norm.
It's much less controversial as the culture has uh made moves to assimilate and acculturate that group.
But that group is political.
And that group needs a cause, and a cause needs a demon.
A cause needs a villain, so the cause is transferring itself now from the straight, well, I was gonna say the straight out gay community, but I can't moving here from the gay community and the controversies of discrimination against them now moving to the transgender,
they are the next accredited, aggrieved group that will claim grievance after grievance after grievance, and that's what the crap in at Cal Poly was all about.
It's not supposed to persuade you, a crap in's not supposed to persuade anybody, it's supposed to wear down the university uh administration and executive branch.
Okay, okay, you want to all be able to use the same bathroom, fine, just shut up.
That's the objective.
You all want to go to the same bathroom at the same time for whatever you want to do in there, fine!
Just leave us alone.
That's it's worked against the Republicans.
I'll give you two examples of how it's worked against the Republican.
The Corker Bill.
I finally, folks, have completed my research into this.
I didn't want to jump the gun on it.
Andy McCarthy's exactly right.
It's worse than nothing.
The Corker bill is worse than nothing, and it is exactly what I assumed it would.
I've been doing some examination of the Corker bill because it's it's you know, Obama's out engaging in what is a treaty, but he doesn't want to call it a treaty.
In fact, he wants to call it non-binding his deal with Iran so that there will not be any Senate oversight.
Doesn't want any Senate oversight.
That's why all of these international agreements of late have not been called treaties.
It's to that they're just they're called executive actions of one sort or another.
It's an effort to sidestep the elected representatives of the people, in this case the Senate, from exercising its constitutional role in this.
You know, the Senate and the House have constitutional authority as well.
It doesn't all get vested in the president.
Too many Americans, however, think the Constitution makes the president the supreme leader.
And whatever the president wants, the president gets, and Congress is there simply to rubber stamp.
And if they don't rubber stamp, then it's controversial.
And the media and higher education and the culture at large have helped perpetuate this.
Now we have the most feckless Republican Party leadership in I don't know how long, which has chosen for six years not to fight back against any of this.
They have chosen to abrogate their constitutional powers for all of the reasons we've stated, and they're probably additional ones.
The primary reason they're just scared.
They're afraid of the media, they're afraid of criticizing Obama, they're afraid of what would be said about him, but it's worse than that.
It could well be.
Take a look at Obama, let me get to I don't want to get off too many tangents here.
But it would, it would not be difficult to conclude that many in the Republican leadership really don't want to fight back, really don't want a smaller and limited government, that what in fact they want is to run the government as big as it is, claiming that they can do it better and smarter.
But they like the power that comes along with this massive big government, and they want their turn wielding it.
And I think that's just as relevant an explanation as the fact that they're afraid of the media, and that's why they don't criticize Obama.
Back to the Corker bill.
What Obama's doing here is clear.
He is attempting to sidestep the Constitution, which has become a pattern and a habit.
And Corker and Menendez have crafted a bill in the Senate that for public consumption, we're supposed to think the Senate is asserting itself and is not going to be rolled over here and is not going to let Obama steamroll them, and they're going to demand a role in this.
And the media is dutifully reporting that that's what the Corker bill is.
But it isn't.
The way this would work, under the terms of the Constitution, and the way it has done has been done for for, well, since the founding of the country.
An international agreement like this is a treaty.
And once it's a treaty, it must be ratified by the Senate.
Whatever the president negotiates, whatever his executive branch negotiates, has to be ratified.
The ratification process requires, I know this is going to be news to many of you low information people tuning in, never heard this before.
The ratification process requires 67 votes.
The president goes out, makes a deal with Iran on nukes, whatever it is.
The Senate must agree with at least 67 votes for it to become not law, because it's not legislation, but for it to become binding.
If the president can't get 67 votes, it's Sayanara, bye-bye deal, whatever it is.
Iran nukes, you name it.
Well, Obama doesn't have 67 votes for this.
He does if it just straight up and down, if he did a treaty according terms of Constitution, you'd have six seven votes.
So since the Republicans do not really want to oppose Obama, because they are afraid to oppose them for whatever the reasons are, we have the Corker Menendez bill.
And the Corker Menendez bill shifts that 67 vote onus.
The way it works is very simple.
And this is this is undermining.
I mean, it's a straight-shot undermining of the treaty clause, if you will, in the Constitution.
Very simply put, ladies and gentlemen, the treaty clause, as I just splained, puts the onus on Obama to do a deal that will get 67 votes in the Senate to approve it.
In other words, it's up to the president to come up with a deal that 67 votes in the Senate, the elected representatives of the people ratify and agree with.
The Corker Bill does the exact opposite.
What ends up happening in the Corker Bill, that 67 vote onus is shifted to the opponents of the bill.
All Obama needs is 40 votes to get his deal with Iran instead of 67, because the Corker Bill requires that the opponents find 67 votes to disapprove the deal.
The supermajority appeal approval requirement for treaties is in the Constitution.
And the reason it is because we should not be making lasting agreements with other countries, even friends, unless there is a strong consensus, the arrangements in the national interest.
But the Corker Bill turns that presumption upside down, and it requires supermajority disapproval for an arrangement with an enemy regime, plainly not in the national interest.
Now, some people have by the way, and there's also another little problem.
The Senate has to act within 30 days.
There is no such limit in the treaty clause.
The Senate can take years to ratify.
There are many treaties, like the Law of the Sea, you name it, that have yet to be ratified.
And presidents have proposed years and years ago.
The Corker Bill puts a limit on the Senate.
30 days in order to come up with 67 votes to say no.
So the onus, essentially what the Corker bill does, instead of Obama having to get 67 votes that agree, the Corker bill says the Senate has to come up with 67 votes that disagree.
That's like coming up with a veto proof vote or majority on a bill.
That rarely, rarely, two thirds is a lot, and nobody has, neither party has two thirds.
So you add in a 30-day limit and it makes it worthless.
It's nothing but buzz.
Nothing but PR.
It's nothing but a vehicle that is supposed to send a message, courtesy of the media, that the Republicans and the Senate is not permitting itself to be steamrolled by the young president.
He's going to have to work to get no, he's not.
It's a rubber stamp.
It practically guarantees it.
As I say, we can debate the reasons why this linguini spined reaction exists.
We've posited all the theories that there are.
The other example here, and you know, we've talked about this before, and that's the Supreme Court case on subsidies, Obamacare.
The upshot of that is it could well be, depending on the Supreme Court decision in this case, which is going to come in June, which is going to be sooner than some of you get your Apple watches.
That's how quick it's coming.
I mean, this decision could essentially rip the guts out of Obamacare.
The subsidies, if the court finds that the federal government cannot provide subsidies, and the law says they can't, that only the states can.
Well, a majority of the states do not have subsidy program because they did not sign on to Obamacare.
That's why the government moved in to set up their own subsidies at healthcare.gov.
That's unconstitutional because it's not in the law.
If the court finds that that's actually what happened here, that the government, Obama broke their own law, that's without subsidies, money, this bill can't survive because people can't afford what the new cost that hell they can't afford it now, even with the subsidies in half the cases.
So then, as we head to the break, here's where we are.
Let's imagine that the court just rips the guts out of Obamacare, but it's an entitlement now, and it's been enforced for some years, and there are some people getting subsidies that would then lose them.
Does the Republican Party want to be seen as the entity taking all of that away from people?
Not the court, not Obama, but the Republican Party.
And so there are numerous stories out there today how the party, the Republican Party, is planning its own substitute Obamacare that is Obamacare-lite, that'll provide, that'll reinstitute the subsidies that the Supreme Court wipes out.
It's bad.
It's just, it's really...
you Okay, trying to make the complex understandable.
Here it is in a nutshell.
If the Supreme Court functionally repeals Obamacare, it means all of the states where people are getting subsidies in the federal government are going to have their subsidies eliminated.
They will have been declared illegal.
That's a majority of people now getting subsidies, who, if the court rules against the regime, they're minus their subsidies.
So the Republicans think that they have got to act immediately to replace them.
So the court is going to rip the guts out of Obamacare, and the Republicans think for their own political future and viability, they've got to reinstitute subsidies of some form or another.
Rather than take it as an opportunity to repeal the whole bill, which they've all said one way or another in a campaign they intended to do.
They are fashioning legislation that would reinstitute subsidies that would get Obama's vote, not a veto.
Here's Reuters.
Some experts see bipartisan potential and key elements of what Republicans like Orin Hatch and Paul Ryan have discussed to date.
The refundable tax credits in both of their plans would be available to those who pay little or no tax, similar to the Obamacare subsidies for low income Americans.
Reuters says that One difference is that the Republicans would allow the tax credits to be used to buy insurance in the private market, which is an approach they say will help drive down costs, insurance costs, and give consumers more options because under Obamacare the credits can be obtained only for the state or federal online exchange or enhanced.
Hey, it's not it's not going to be like Obamacare, in my opinion.
It's not a literal subsidy, it's a recognition they should have this credit.
They're going to get the money.
The money is going to be wiped out because the bill is going to if the court rules this way.
And the Republicans are.
We've talked about this, folks.
We've talked about it.
The Republicans, they they lose by winning, in many of their minds, because they then become the party of blame when people in states getting subsidies from the federal government have them taken away.
A chance to totally repeal a bill and start over and fix this.
Looks like it might be punted.
I'm sorry.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I got more in the vitamin stuff coming up here just a second.
I'm still setting the table for the program today.
Do you see where Iran's foreign minister, Javad Zarif, has an op-ed in the New York Times.
I kid you not.
The Iranian foreign minister is considered an ally by the New York Times op-ed page.
You see, ladies and gentlemen, there is so much controversy over the Iran nuclear deal that Obama's putting together, the New York Times hoping to facilitate things for Obama, offers op-ed space to the Iranian foreign minister, Jabad Zarif.
And when you when you skim this thing, it looks like a regular editorial from the New York Times editors.
Just like what old Mahmoud Ahmedini Zad used to say rotten things about America.
It's not exactly like your average Democrat on a campaign trail.
Well, I'm not kidding you.
This op-ed by the Iranian foreign minister, reads like it was a standard New York Times editorial.
And it's incredible.
They've given space to this guy as an ally to help promote the deal.
And naturally, the enemies are Republicans, anybody else who opposes Iran getting nuclear weapons.
And the good guys are anybody and all people on the side of Iran getting nuclear weapons.
Now, are you ready for this?
Because speaking of Iran, Eli Lake, who is now at Bloomberg News, used to be over there at the Daily Beast back when Tina Brown ran the place, but he's now over at Doomburg.
Eli Lake, a former, he's a Clintonista.
And Democrat, well, he's he's shown Democrat leadings in for in what is it.
And he is reporting at Doomburg News, and I've seen this at the Huffing and Puffington Post today.
In fact, I've seen this a number of places today.
Bloomberg News via Eli Lake is reporting that Barack Obama has known that Benjamin Netanyahu was right all along when he claimed that Iran could make a bomb in two or three months instead of the year that Obama has been claiming.
Now, of course, Obama was just saying that about it taking a year for domestic consumption.
This is a huge admission.
Netanyahu comes to the United States, makes a speech criticizing the existing Iranian deal as he understands it before a joint session of Congress.
He's routinely lamb-based by the Democrats and by the drive-by media.
One of the things he claimed was that Iran is within months.
They have more centrifuges than anybody knows that they have, and they are continuing to use them, and they're ramping up.
They're not years away.
They're not 10 years, they're not 13 years.
They are months away from being able to make a bomb.
And Eli Lake at Bloomberg is reporting that Obama has known that all along.
Apparently Obama's known all along that Netanyahu and the rest of the experts were right about Iran only being a couple of months away from a bomb.
But the regime only officially admitted it in a report a couple of weeks ago.
But by the way, it's not, he said versus he said, the regime's now admitted it.
The Huffing and Puffington Post.
One of their subsidiaries did a fat check on Netanyahu's speech.
As an aside, it is one of the absolutely worst pieces of writing, whether it's journalism or opinion or whatever.
I mean, it is an absolute mess.
You can't, I read through it five times, and I had to consult other sources to find out what they were saying.
But they did a fact check.
And the bottom line is that Netanyahu did not lie.
They started out hoping to prove that Netanyahu was full of it and was lying through his teeth, the joint session, and they found the opposite.
And among the things that they fact-checked and found to be true, and now the regime is even admitting it, Iran's only months away from enough enriched uranium because of all the centrifuges they have to make a nuclear bomb.
And again, Obama has known all along that Netanyahu, the rest of the experts were right.
They only officially admitted it in a report a couple of weeks ago, and they're only really admitting it because they think it'll help them sell the deal to Congress.
This is why they've been explain this.
Now all of a sudden, the idea of Iran getting a nuke in three months, that's bad.
Whoa, oh.
Last week, last month, Iran getting a nuke in a year.
Iran getting a nuke in ten years.
Iran getting a nuke in thirteen years.
Why, that was wonderful.
That was great foreign policy.
That was great diplomacy.
That was the brilliance of John Kerry.
The sanctions had worked.
They had brought Iran to its knees.
They had retarded their own progress toward a nuclear bomb because of the pressure exerted by our brilliant young boy president Barack Obama.
Now we find out, and that's why everybody needs to ratify the deal, Senate needs to go along, the corker bill, get it, get out of the way, what have you.
It's a great deal.
We ought to get it done because we are now in charge.
Inspection, you know the drill.
Obama, if we can inspect it, we can stop them, we can do this.
They promised that they'll stay a year away from making a bomb.
That's what Obama said.
Now the regime has admitted that they're only two to three months away, and the reason now they're using that to pressure everybody else into agreeing with Obama on the deal, because now apparently Iran getting a nuke into three months.
Why, that's not good.
This is 1984.
This is Kafka-esque.
This is Rod Serling extraordinaire.
The common sense thing it has long been abandoned, and that is Iran doesn't get nukes.
And every elected official in this country has staked a claim to that, including Obama, until the day of reckoning, where now we don't have any business telling them they can't have a nuke.
Who are we?
What if somebody would have told us we couldn't have a nuke?
We don't have the authority, moral or otherwise.
We don't have the right to tell the Iranians whether you have a nuke or not when everybody knows the Israelis do.
That's our new foreign policy.
We don't have any moral authority because we're not the good guys.
We're not the bad guys, we're just another bunch of guys.
We have a country, they have a country, other guys have a country, a couple of women have a country, snakes over there have a country.
We're all in it together, but none of us are the good guys.
We're either all the good guys or we're all the bad guys, but there isn't anybody exceptional, there isn't anybody stands to cut above, there's nobody with moral authority over the rest of the world.
Nope, nope, nope, especially not us.
So now the fact that the regime is admitting that Iran is only months away from weaponizing a nuke bomb.
That is now being used To forge agreement in the United States with Obama.
Now we need Obama, you see.
Now we need the deal.
At two to three months, we need to slow that down.
We need the old deal that Obama negotiated it said they're going to stay a year away for the next 10 years.
And maybe by the end of 13 years they'll be the fully ramped up and go nuke.
But now that it's months, I mean, this is just it's insulting.
And so they are now doing this.
They think it'll help them sell the deal to Congress.
Now you think about this, and I made this point yesterday.
Obama has been saying for years, and I said it again on Sunday, that climate change is a biggest threat facing the planet.
All the while he knew that Iran is just a couple months away from a nuclear bomb.
Okay, got to take another brief time out at obscene profits I'm out here on the EIB network, Rush Limbaugh with talent on loan from God back after this.
And the cutting edge of societal evolution.
Rush Limbaugh 800 282-2882, here you go.
It's from the mirror UK.
Taking extra vitamins does more harm than good and increases the risk of cancer and heart disease.
A major study is revealed.
Around 18 million Brits take supplements thinking they're getting a health boost, but research has found that they can have the opposite effect.
Dr. Tim Byers, one of the world's top cancer experts, examined research papers spanning 30 years, and he looked at three widely taken over-the-counter pills and supplements, vitamin E tablets, beta carotene, folic acid, and he warned against exceeding the recommended daily amount.
Dr. Byers said we're not sure why this is happening.
And that's par for the course with cancer.
Nobody really knows.
Oh, they'll tell you they do.
Yeah, smoking.
Guaranteed, except it isn't.
But this is not going to sit well with the health Nazis, all these people out there downing and gobbling vitamins, thinking they're warding off the common cold and other diseases.
Possibly now, potentially.
And hey, you know, I know, I know I've always said that you get one of these or two of these medical reports a week, and then a month or two or a year later they all say sorry, sorry, we were wrong.
From oat bran to butter to you name it, caffeine, all of these things that were going to kill us now aren't.
So I know this fits in the category, but I'm going to use this because I love the point that it makes.
I love goosing the health Nazis.
I just do.
Because the health Nazis preach it everybody.
And so they're taking these vitamins and these supplements, and here is scientific research, which is believed, is it not?
We have a consensus on global warming.
So if you're going to believe that science, you gotta believe this.
People who take more dietary supplements than needed, supplements than needed, tend to have a higher risk of developing cancer.
We found that the supplements were actually not beneficial for health.
In fact, some people actually got more cancer while on the vitamins, said Dr. Byers.
Folic acid supplements are thought to be taken by more than 230,000 pregnant British women every year, because it can supposedly help prevent spina bifida and other birth defects that affect the brain and the spine.
But one study examined by Dr. Byers' team found that too much folic acid increased the chances of getting cancer by 56%.
Two trials of beta-carotene supplements found that taking more than the recommended dose Increase the risk of developing lung cancer and heart disease by 20%.
Now here you have how many people do you know or have heard of who have lung cancer, never smoked?
And everybody scratches their head.
How in the world did that happen?
And the first thing people think of, erroneously, is secondhand smoke.
That isn't true either.
We may now have a cause.
Beta carotene supplements.
How does this sound, do you think to people?
Beta carotene.
I mean, that's that's what's in carrots.
Remember, everybody who has eaten carrots has died.
Never forget that.
Extensive research.
Beta carotene supplements found.
Two trials found that taking more than a recommended dose increased the risk of developing lung cancer and heart disease by 20%.
Meanwhile, another trial of 35,000 people between 2001 and 2014 in the United States found that taking too many vitamin E tablets increased the risk of developing prostate cancer by 17%.
percent.
The human body is designed to get our vitamins from our food.
See, this is the thing.
Food is a necessity.
We all must eat it in order to live.
And food is what?
The essence of nature.
And in practically every food we eat, or in every bit of sunshine we stand in, we're gonna get every vitamin that we need.
How do you explain the fact that people who never take vitamin supplements are just as healthy as people who do?
You get plenty of vitamins just with a normal diet.
Anyway, I know this is a matter of I'm not you know me.
I'm freedom of choice and laissez faire.
If you want to OD on these things, you have at it.
I don't care.
I'm not one of these people that thinks I've found the right way in it.
You must, when it comes to diet, personal habits, stuff like that.
But if you're out there thinking that this is making you healthy and you're warding off disease, it may be doing just the exact opposite out there.
And I would be remiss as your host if if I did not take time and go to great pains to point this out to you, just like we we moved into into fast action on uh on uh keeping our own kids safe, the soccer charity that we founded, because head injuries are far greater in soccer than even in football than people knew.
They doubted that at first, too.
You remember?
Have you seen this tirade, the manager of the Cincinnati Reds lashing out at the media covering his team?
He's had it.
He just had it.
We've got the audio soundbite of this.
That's it on the vitamin.
What it says here, I've given you the news.
I've told you what's in the news here.
I've given you every relevant passage from the story.
Dr. Byers said we are not sure why this is happening, but the evidence shows that people who take more dietary supplements than needed tend to have a higher risk of developing cancer.
And these are studies of thousands and thousands of people over many years.
It's not a select group of 1,200 people sampled for a couple of months.
These are extensive and exhaustive studies.
You looked at me odd, do you think if just eating a normal diet you're going to be vitamin deficient?
Really?
Most people are going to be vitamin deficient.
Well, well, but the stuff you eat accommodates.
A fast food diet, every vitamin you need.
Just because bad, just because you think that food's bad for you, like if fat, There's plenty of vitamins in all the fast food and all the junk food.
There's still vitamins in it.
What makes it junk?
Sugar.
Sugar and carbohydrates is what make junk food junk food.
Anyway, I can take a break here, folks.
Uh, this is probably gonna stir it up.
Um I know how the this this is the kind of thing just gonna infuriate people.
And I understand how this works, so we'll see.
We'll be back here in just Also, my friends, the uh Republican presidential candidates continue to zero in on Mrs. Clinton, and Mrs. Clinton is attempting to ridicule them for doing so.
And some people on the Republican side are starting to get linguiny spines about doing this.
▲
Export Selection