All Episodes
Previous Next
May 4, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:35
May 4, 2015, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
No, no, no, no, no.
What I would I got I got an email from some people asking about something that our wildlife caller mentioned about it quoted me as saying when something hasn't worked for 50 years time to try something new.
I was quoting Obama.
It was Obama when explaining why he was working with the Iranians to get a nuclear weapon or why he's doing foreign policy the way he's doing it or anything else.
It was Obama who said when you're well, what you're doing hasn't worked for 50 years, it's time to try something new.
I simply said, okay, well then let's have a new rule that says any city that experiences riots and has been predominantly governed, riots and economic tumult and distress, any city that experiences riots and economic collapse that has been predominantly governed by a single political party, then that party should be disqualified from participating in any solutions.
Under Obama's theory that when what you're doing hasn't worked for 50 years, it's time to try something new.
Well, the liberals have been running Baltimore for decades.
Liberal Democrats have been running Baltimore for decades, ditto Detroit, ditto any number of cities.
They should not be part of the solution.
What they're doing isn't working.
Time to try something new.
Capitalism.
I was just making a point.
I'm just taking the guidance offered by our president, Barack Hussein.
Oh, greetings.
Welcome back, Rush Lindbaugh, the EIB Network.
And it's great to have you here, 800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program.
I have other soundbites from Dr. Carson here, who did announce his candidacy today for the presidency.
He did so in Detroit.
Remember, he is the former director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University Hospital, which is in Baltimore.
We have three bites.
Here you go with the first one.
One of the rules in Sololinsky's rules for radicals is you make the majority believe that what they believe is no longer relevant.
And no intelligent person thinks that way.
And the way you believe is the only way intelligent people believe.
And that way, they'll keep silent.
Because I'll tell you something.
They don't care if you don't believe what they believe as long as you keep your mouth shut.
And that's what we have to start doing.
We have to start opening our mouths.
He's exactly where he's talking about pushback.
He's talking about actually opposing some of this stuff rather than acquiescing to it, which is what the Republican Party establishment, for the most part in Washington, has done.
Here's the next one.
This country was envisioned by individuals who wanted everything to be surrounding the people.
Of, for, and by the people, not of, for, and by the government.
And the government was to respond to the will of the people, not the people to the will of the government.
We've allowed the whole thing to be turned upside down.
We've gone far beyond what our Constitution describes, and we've begun to just allow it to expand based on what the political class wants because they like to increase their power and their dominion over the people.
And I think it's time for the people to rise up and take the government back.
And the final bite.
We've allowed the purveyors of division to become rampant in our society and to create friction and fear in our society.
People are afraid to stand up for what they believe in because they don't want to be called a name.
They don't want an IRS audit.
They don't want their jobs messed with or their families messed with.
But isn't it time for us to think about the people who came before us and what they were willing to do so that we could be free?
Nathan Hale, a teenage rebel, caught by the British, ready to be executed.
He said, My only regret is that I have but one life to give for my country.
You know what is remarkable about this, what is great about it, is he makes boils this down to its simplistic eloquence.
The founding of this country, how it was envisioned, what it used to be, what it has become.
And I hope it's effective.
You know, we all, and I think it will be with certain groups of people.
We've all sought ways.
Every one of us, I know you have, we've all sought ways to make gains or inroads with what is called a low-information voter.
We've all tried to find out how to reach these people.
So they make the assumption the low-information voter buys into big government, buys into the Democrat Party, buys in and supports all of this expansion for whatever reason.
They think it's compassionate, they think it's helpful to people or what have you.
And in fact, it's destructive.
And he has, Dr. Carson has one of the most basic and elementary techniques for explaining this.
I mean, this would suffice as a civics class for people learning it for the first time.
And it may be that's what's called for with certain people in the low information crowd.
This could be the exposure he gets, it could enlighten who knows how many millions of people.
Because he clearly says this, all of these things in a way that is not hard to understand.
And it's not confrontational or provocative or controversial.
Of course, until the left and the media get hold of it and get hold of him and start trying to distort his words and his purpose, which they have already done and will continue to do.
Now, I'm looking for something here right along the same lines, and I have mixed up my stacks.
Let me do this.
Let me do what I've got on the top of this before.
What I'm looking for here, ah, ah, here it is.
Here it is.
But I'm still going to put it aside.
There we go.
I ran across doing my home show prep over the weekend.
I ran across the following headline.
Meet the vagina voters.
I was intrigued.
I mean, I have to admit.
And then the subhead for this, this is in reason.com.
The women voting for Hillary because she's a woman are setting feminism back 100 years.
And here are some of the polls.
This is Brandon O'Neill, or Brendan O'Neill, is the writer of the piece.
And he quotes a prominent woman saying, Yep, I intend to vote with my vagina.
That was the third thing I read by intend to vote with my vagina.
Can you pull a lever with one of those?
Does anybody know?
Can you pull a lever with one of those?
Hold a pencil with one of those.
Brian, do you happen the idea?
You're married?
Well, I mean, that's what I thought when I saw that.
Intend to vote with my vagina, and this is somehow brilliance.
This is social awareness.
Here's a poll quote: She says her vote for Clinton will not be based on a clear-eyed, unemotional review of her political track record, nor will it be based on a clear-eyed assessment of all the possible Democrat candidates.
It'll rather be an expression of the intense personal connection she feels with Hillary as a woman.
They both have vaginas, you see.
Here again, the very thing the suffragettes street fought against, the idea that women are too emotional to partake in abstract politics.
By the way, that is one of the reasons women were not permitted to vote way back in the good old long ago.
Just kidding, folks.
You know me, just trying to stir the pot out there.
It is one of the reasons women were not permitted to vote.
They were thought to be too emotional and unable to attach intellectually to candidates and issues.
And they didn't want any emotion.
They wanted thought.
So here come the latest incarnation of the feminazis claiming the only reason they're going to vote for somebody is because they got a vagina.
The idea that women are too emotional to partake in abstract politics is bizarrely rehabilitated as a badge of honor.
I'm a woman, therefore I'm visceral, and I will vote for a woman.
Vaginas of the world unite.
The rise of vagina voting and the centrality of gender to the whole Hillary shebang shows how dominant the politics of identity has become in the space of just eight years.
Kate Harding is the woman in this story quoted.
Kate Harding is her name, the vagina voter in question.
She isn't only going to vote with her vagina, she's going to tell everybody about it.
I intend to vote with my vagina unapologetically, enthusiastically, and I intend to talk about it, she wrote in a publication called Dame.
Dame Magazine, pro-Hillary piece, Dame magazine written by Kate Harding.
Kate Harding thinks, I'm just quoting from the story here.
Kate Harding thinks Hillary would be a great president because, quote, she knows what it's like to menstruate, be pregnant, and give birth.
And that's all that matters.
That qualifies Hillary.
So you're going to pick your leader on the basis of biological functions.
The fact that she's experienced the same bodily stuff that you have.
Now, imagine if a man did that.
You know what?
I'm going to vote for Ted Cruz.
He knows what it's like to spunk off.
And he knows the pain of being kicked in the groin.
And I want to vote for a guy like that.
We'd think the guy's a kook.
We think he's an abject idiot, right?
I'm going to vote for Ted Cruz because you know why?
Because Ted Cruz knows how to go out and cruise for babes while downing some Brewskies.
Well, that's a simple.
Well, that's not bodily function.
Voting for Obama for racial reason, not bodily function.
That's a different kind of identity politics.
But a vagina does stuff.
And that's what this woman says.
If vagina does stuff, so because Hillary's got one, she's done certain things that this other woman, Kate Harding, has done.
That's the commonality.
As Sean Connery would say, this is pussy politics.
Remember that, Goldfinger?
Pussy, as in Pussygalore, one of the characters.
Goldfinger's number one aide-de-camp in gassing Fort Knox.
Anyway, the point of Kate Harding's pussy politics, as I think we should call this, biologism or biologism among some in the Hillary camp, is to say that it would be a brilliant symbolic breakthrough if the U.S. were to have its first ever female president.
Look, all this is predictable that the Democrats are going to go in this direction because you elect the first female president.
You can't criticize her.
She's historic.
Any criticism is sexist and now anti-vagina.
And I don't know too many men who are anti-vagina.
Maybe some.
Up next is Francis from Nashville.
Francis was here late on Friday, Open Line Friday, and we didn't have a chance to connect.
So we call back.
And we've got Francis with.
Hi, Francis.
How are you?
Hey there, Rush.
You know, my belief in your brilliance is not based only on the fact that you agree with me 96.7% of the time, but your imitation of Bill Clinton is even better than mine.
So there you go.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
That's saying something.
Gay marriage.
See, here's my take on this.
You said on Friday that less than 2% of the adult population is gay, and an even smaller number than that wants to get married.
So I say, who cares?
What do we care if some very tiny percentage of the population wants to get married to each other?
How could it possibly be a threat to traditional or heterosexual marriage just because a few gay people want to get married?
That's the first thing.
I don't understand why anybody really cares about it.
The second thing is bakery.
Suppose the gay couple goes in and the baker says, I'm not going to bake you a cake because on religious grounds, I don't think gay people should get married.
So the next couple comes in, and it's a black man and a white woman.
They say, we're getting married, and the baker says, well, I'm sorry, but my religion says that if God wanted more than one two races, he would have made them.
If the baker has to sell the cake to the interracial couple, what's the difference?
Goes back to your first question.
If for millennia, marriage has been an institution about specific things.
It has not been an arrangement of convenience in the here and now to satisfy surface, specious desires.
Marriage has been a commitment.
You can say it works or doesn't.
You can say that it's not always perfect.
I don't care how you want to rip it, but marriage is what it is.
Marriage is a union of a man and a woman, which has, whether you want to admit it, agree to it or not, one purpose to propagate the race,
to create bloodlines and family lines, family being the key word, for the express purpose of giving people the best opportunity to be raised in a good way so as to be prepared to meet life as an adult.
That's what marriage is.
The definition of the word is a union of a man and a woman.
It is exclusive.
It is monotonous, monogamous.
Now, not everybody obeys.
Understand that.
But institutions are not rendered useless simply because some people fail them.
An institution is what it is.
Just because some people do not follow through it doesn't mean the institution is flawed.
If you're going to come along because desires of the moment leave people to think that they are excluded from this and this is unfair.
And so we're going to redefine what marriage is.
That's the problem people have with it.
Marriage is a specific thing, and it has specific purposes.
Now, your question, hey, it's only 1%, 2% of the population.
What is the big deal?
It is a recognition that the institution of marriage, defined through the millennia, has a definitive and worthwhile uplifting, demonstrably proven to be uplifting purpose.
You can go anywhere you want and look at results of the human civilization where such arrangements haven't been made.
And you can, there's no question the stats, the children of a mother and dad family, mom and dad, female-male relationship do better in life than single-parent kids, all that.
It's all rolled into one.
Your analogy to interracial marriage is, I don't think it works.
I don't think it's relevant because we're not changing the definition of marriage in an interracial marriage in any way, shape, manner, or form.
You simply, the skin color of the participants doesn't do anything to the institution.
It doesn't change it.
It doesn't dilute it.
It doesn't water it down.
It doesn't make it meaningless.
But the marriage of people of the same sex totally wipes out the meaning of the word.
And once again, we are allowing institutions of millennia and tradition to be diluted and perhaps even eliminated in terms of their real true meaning in order to satisfy wants and desires of convenience in the moment.
If you looked at every institution, well, hey, you know, only 1% of the population has a million dollars.
Why not tax them at 75%?
What's the big deal?
Raise their taxes, 75%.
You do that, and pretty soon everybody's going to be paying a 75% tax rate.
doesn't stop the fact that it affects so few is not the way to look at because that's not what now look at the certain now Now we have people in the UK who want to marry their dogs.
Now we have people who want to get married to two or three different people.
And there are people that care about the institution, that consider it valid, valuable, worthwhile, meaningful, relevant, and productive.
And they're worried about it being watered down and diluted to meaninglessness.
And in the process, they're worried about the whole notion of respect for it crumbling as well.
Your attitude happens to be the majority opinion, though.
That's how it is coming to pass.
Your attitude, hey, if two people love each other, what difference does it make?
Who are you to say people who love each other shouldn't be able to get married?
You know, the old, so I could use one of your techniques back at you.
Well, gay people are not prohibited from getting married.
Anybody, man or woman, if they want to marry each other and get married.
Nobody's being denied the chance to get married.
Now, you would guffa at that.
You would poo-poo that, but it's the same analogy as your intermarriage, interracial marriage example.
That would be my answer to you.
I mean, these things to a lot of people do matter because of the future implications contained.
And we will be back.
Look, folks, it really isn't complicated.
Marriage, like every other word, has a definition.
It is the union of a man and a woman.
And very, very importantly in this instance, in most cases, it happens or is supposed to happen under the eyes of God.
Uh-oh, religious component.
Uh-oh, religion is the enemy of the left.
Uh-oh, anything we can do to blow up religion, we'll do.
Therefore, make marriage nothing more than an agreement.
God's got nothing to do with it.
There isn't anything really serious going on here.
Just two people that love each other saying so.
Why not?
Additionally, marriage was never established to discriminate against anybody.
But you wouldn't believe that if you listened to the advocates who want to change what it means.
But marriage was never, nobody ever thought about it discriminating against anybody.
Just what it was.
I mean, there's certain activities that are what they are.
And no matter how much you try to change the definition, you can't change what the activity or the institution tradition is.
It was never established to discriminate against people.
It had much loftier goals.
Marriage had a much, much loftier purpose than discriminate.
It was not even a factor.
And then there's this.
When you boil this all down, I don't care what you do and I don't care how you arrange things.
Every single one of us has a mother and a father.
I don't care what you do.
I don't care what changes in definitions of words and whatever inroads you make in society, but there's nothing you are ever going to be able to do to change that.
We all have a mother and a father.
And if we start screwing around, well, we already have, with the definition of marriage and all this, then there are going to be a lot of people who aren't going to know who both of their parents are.
And that's true.
I know.
I know some people adopted parents or adopted kids for circumstances.
I know.
I know the exceptions to everything.
But it's undeniable that we all have a mother and father, no matter how else we try to tell ourselves that we're going to change and we're becoming more enlightened.
You can't wipe that out.
You can't erase that fact.
And that fact results from biology.
And there's nothing you can do to wipe it out until somebody comes up with the artificial womb.
Anyway, here's Mike in Raleigh, North Carolina.
You're next.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
I hope you, Catherine, and your pets are well.
Well, we are doing great, sir.
Thank you.
Oh, that's awesome.
I have the answer to last week's question, I do believe, on why 1% can make the political agenda.
Yes, I'd be interested in your answer to this question.
It was posed last, what was it, Thursday or Friday?
Thursday and Friday.
Thursday and Friday.
Right.
Let me read it.
The question was, how can essentially 1 million people come to dominate the American political system and culture on the issue, this case, gay marriage?
How can 1% of the population succeed in intimidating the vast majority into acquiescence?
You have an answer.
I have an answer.
Just like the government has taken over energy, health care, mortgages, the banking, their next move is to take over religion.
And believe me, religion is a big business.
Well, it can be.
I'm not sure I follow you, though.
What government wants to take over religion?
Oh, absolutely.
If they can make laws and be able then to tax or penalize, as they will, if religions don't follow the laws they make, they have now taken over that aspect of our private life.
Well, yeah.
What I see more than that is actually the attempt to eradicate religion.
Why would you eradicate something you can make money off of?
Well, for political power, if you can eliminate a religion's tax-exempt status with its churches, then you eliminate donations to the church.
You eliminate the church.
The church ceases to exist.
And if they're your political enemy at the church, how are you going to make money off the church?
You're talking about taxing them and forcing them into all kinds of punitive financial arrangements in order to stay in business.
Just like the coal industry and everything.
Sure, put regulations on them.
You have to accept gay marriage or you are no longer a religious organization.
Oh, I see.
That's how you're relating it to gay marriage.
You will accept gay marriage and you will perform gay weddings or else.
Well, that's it.
They're going to take away the tax exempt status.
Exactly.
Exactly.
That's what I'm trying to say.
Okay, so your answer then, the reason the 1% can do it is that they have the Democrat Party-run government behind them.
Absolutely.
That's exactly right.
And the more they take over the private sector, the more powerful they become.
Because that's where the money is.
Follow the money.
Follow the money.
All right.
Well, Mike, I'm glad you made it through.
I appreciate that.
Your answer is close to most people, when they answer this, I did it by email.
Most people answered that, well, this 1% is bigger than 1% because when you look at where they're concentrated, they're in media.
They're in Hollywood.
They're in all of the opinion-making industries in the media, for one thing.
And they have the power of the Democrat Party pushing their agenda.
So the fact that they're just 1% of the population is actually irrelevant.
If it had to come up with a consensus answer, adding every aspect that emails I got on this, said that would be it.
You have added a new one.
What's actually going on here is the state attempting to wrest control of religion in order basically to take money from them in order for their continued existence, pay up or go out of business.
Interesting.
Okay, folks, I was looking for something earlier here, a relationship to Dr. Benjamin Carson.
That's not a direct comparison or relationship to Carson.
It is to what I said in playing the soundbites of Dr. Carson, particularly his soundbite explaining welfare and its destructive aspects.
I made mention of the fact that it was offered in a simplicity that might actually make inroads with the low information crowd.
It might actually, if they hear it, it might register with them.
It was a compliment.
Now, at the same time, when you talk about the low information crowd and what they think and how they act, you know, I read my tech blogs.
It's a hobby.
It's purely a hobby.
But in the process, as I have mentioned on previous occasions, it has now become a political education for me in terms of helping me to understand where millennials are when it comes to current political issues in the country and Republican branding and ultimately how to make inroads, how to get to these people to change their minds.
Because let's face it, we're all seeking ways to do that.
All of us, one way or another, are trying to find ways, devise systems that would reach the low-information voter and wake them up.
So I have a story here.
First story from thehill.com: the headline, GOP, GOP representative, introduces a bill to gut the EPA.
Now, you and I agree that the Environmental Protection Agency is out of control.
It has been entirely politicized.
It is being used to punish and harm people in traditional energy businesses.
And it's a totally destructive agency now, and environmental protection is the last thing that it's about.
It is just like every other government cabinet-level position, it's about promulgating and promoting a Democrat Party agenda and growing government.
And here's the story: a House Republican wants to cut 13 programs at the Environmental Protection Agency, including all of its grants and its ability to regulate ground-level ozone and carbon dioxide.
When the EPA was granted the ability to regulate CO2, that cleared the decks for them to start punishing anybody they wanted for destroying the planet or anything else.
The EPA is a it's become a rogue agency, and presidents from Reagan on have sought to shut it down and end it because it's destructive and it is punitive.
It is an attack on free market economics, it will lead to economic stagnation.
It's EPA is just a bad bunch of business.
Now, the Congressman is Sam Johnson, Republican, Texas, introduced a bill called the Wasteful EPA Programs Elimination Act, which he said is a money-saving measure.
He cited a Heritage Foundation forecast that it would save $7.5 billion over 10 years.
He said, as a fiscal conservative, I believe Washington should be respectful of taxpayer dollars and live within its means.
American taxpayers certainly don't need to be paying for the EPA's empty and unused buildings and its wasteful programs.
This bill does right by the hardworking people in my district and across the country as part of my ongoing effort to get our fiscal house in order.
The EPA is the agency that is doing Obama's bidding by trying to put the coal business out of business.
The EPA has freedom to enact whatever regulations they want without any of it going through Congress and actually becoming law.
And it's in the hands of political leftists and operatives who have converted the EPA simply into an engine and a dynamism to expand their agenda.
Okay, it's a good move.
Cutting the EPA is like anything else in government.
It's bloated.
It's overpowered.
And it needs to be cut back.
On one of my tech blogs reporting on this, the headline, the Republicans' new budget proposal is a big middle finger to earth science.
The GOP is trying to eviscerate NASA's Earth Science Program, reminding us yet again that the anti-science, climate change-denying congressional Republicans responsible for doling out science dollars don't give an excrement about our planet.
That is how young millennials of a certain age interpret this Republican bill.
It's a divide that just, I don't see how we bridge it.
I got to take a break.
Folks, that's it.
We're out of time for today.
I didn't get to everything, so I'll carry it over, as we say in the golf course, to tomorrow.
And I'll mix it with whatever happens between now and then.
And we'll be ready, revved and ready.
See you in 21 hours.
▲
Export Selection