All Episodes
Previous Next
May 5, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:44
May 5, 2015, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 Podcast.
Man, do we have some C I told you so's today?
Not just C I told you so's, but some proofs of predictions made long ago.
It's specific predictions and generic predictions.
Maybe the generics aren't even predictions, maybe just me defining for you what liberalism is and where it's headed and why things happen in liberalism.
And one of the most amazing things.
Do you realize in Australia?
Let me just give you a little teaser.
In Australia, the left is asserting that parents reading to their children at bedtime is unfair because not every kid has parents who can read or who will read to their children at bedtime.
And since not everybody can, they're going that they're thinking about banning, letting parents, you're laughing in there, and this is dead serious stuff.
I know it sounds hilarious, and these are crackpots, but these people are winning.
They are dominating.
They are intimidating, and they are this is how they get what they want.
But that's just half of it.
That's just half of it.
The other half of this is uh let me find it the having a this is the headline is having a loving family an unfair advantage.
This is also in Australia is having a loving family an unfair advantage to kids that don't come from loving families.
And so they are going to they're thinking about ways to penalize, well, not penalize, eliminate the advantages that loving families have.
This dovetails with the parents reading to their kids at bedtime.
Now let me take you back.
That's just the tease.
Wait till you hear the details of these two stories.
They they dovetail.
They're separate stories, but they dovetail.
You remember this has to be 10 to 15 years ago now.
A story out of half-baked Moon Bay in California when they banned homework.
On the premise that not every student had a decent home in which to do the homework.
Therefore, it was humiliating and embarrassing for some students, and they were dead serious.
It was humiliating and embarrassing for some students to be assigned homework because not every student had a home that was conducive to studying and learning, and so they wanted to ban homework.
Now there's all kinds of liberalism that's that's contained in that.
It's unfair.
Uh never elevate to equalize, but always penalize from the top down.
Never make people better, but always take the people at the top and bring them down so that everybody is equally disadvantaged, equally miserable or what have you.
This is who they are.
And I rem I know the reaction I'm gonna get.
I can see it across the glass here.
People laughing at the same thing when I warned you that the Sierra Club was coming for your SUV.
And you can't deny they tried.
Now they they failed on that.
People are turning in and selling their electric cars and hybrids in droves now.
But you remember the effort that was that was underway to demonize SUVs and to guilt trip people out of buying them and driving them.
And went so far forward even cancel a production of their big one, the expedition.
I think it was, but that's who these people are.
They are constantly on the march and they do not stop and they do not let up.
And now we've got Obama who is out there saying that, hey, let me tell you something.
My presidency is not going to end.
My project continues after my presidency.
This is Obama speaking to Democrat donors in New York.
And he's telling them how important everything he's done is and how he's not leaving it to chance that it can be overturned And undone.
His project will continue.
In addition to that, Obama, courtesy of Al Jazeera Network says that inequality facing minority men is behind the unrest in Baltimore.
Jim Crow laws, the effects of slavery, discrimination in American history have left minority communities in disagreement.
See, I told you so.
This is the chip on Obama's shoulder.
That I have warned everybody he came into the presidency with.
He was angry, irritated, upset, the unfairness, the unjustness, the immorality.
That was the founding of this country, and now whatever's going on in Baltimore would happen if Ferguson, uh, New York City, doesn't matter where it is, it's the result of slavery.
It is the result, lingering effects of slavery.
Jim Crow.
So I said yesterday, stealing from Obama, who said when dealing with Cuba, he said, Well, if we've been doing the same thing for 50 years, and it hasn't worked, don't you think it's time to try a different way?
Conversely, by the same token, the same political party has been running all of these cities into the ground for all of these decades.
Don't you think it's time to do something different?
And homework story 1994, half baked moon bay.
That's how old it is, and that's how that's an example of my memory.
Banning homework in Half Moon Bay, California, because not everybody had a home.
Conducive to study.
And now, you know, this this Obama thing, this he doesn't have a chip on his shoulder.
He's got a stack of chips on his shoulder.
Mrs. Clinton has come along, and here's the story on this.
This is from the uh what is this from?
This is uh USA Today.
Hillary flip flops for amnesty.
Yeah, this is this is this is kind of odd.
Hillary Clinton, it says here, looking to unload some more baggage from her campaign van today.
Presumptive Democrat nominee campaigns in Nevada, where her campaign told several news outlets that she will embrace a full and equal path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
Now, in 2008, the reason people are calling this a flip-flop.
In 2008, Hillary was not even a supporter of the mainstream Democrat position of allowing illegal immigrants to have driver's licenses.
She wasn't in as a result, she wasn't even close to supporting amnesty.
See, back in 2008, it's not that long ago.
In 2008, it was okay to be opposed to amnesty.
You know, the American people had just the year before 2007.
Bush had tried it once again, the Republican leadership in Congress, and the people of this country just robustly defeated it.
Just blanketing Washington with faxes and emails and phone calls.
You remember them in 2007, the House of Representatives, Republican House broke from Bush for the first time on this.
Well, on two or three different occasions in the House of Republicans right in there because it just, I mean, the rules of the day, Republican House, Republican president, you do not go against your president.
Whatever he wants, you help him, you get it done.
But in 2007, all of that went out the uh went out the window because Bush's term in office was expiring, and the House of Representatives made a huge break.
I will never forget it was incredible 2007, and the American people banding together to defeat Amnesty for the second or third time, and it was just overwhelming.
And with that fresh in her mind, Hillary Clinton wouldn't get anywhere near supporting amnesty if she sought the Democrat nomination in 2008.
She wouldn't.
She wouldn't even support the concept of a full and equal path to driver's licenses.
In 2008.
Well, 2008, six, seven years ago now, and times are different.
She perceives the body politic in the Democrat Party to be different, and now she's done a flip-flop, and she full blown all the way amnesty.
Stephen Dynan points out that Clinton isn't just reversing herself, but the tough immigration policies put forward by her husband.
People forget, because there was so much else going on.
Bill Clinton had some of the how would you phrase it?
It had some of the toughest anti-illegal immigration laws on the books.
Essentially, he enforced the law.
Clinton Clinton was known for it.
It was but this, as I say, was so much else going on during Clinton's presidency that that never did really hit the radar.
But it has been noted now that Mrs. Clinton has broken with her husband on two things.
He gave us the hundred thousand new cops.
It was Bill Clinton who told us for crime to be reduced and for the streets to be made safe.
We needed more cops.
We need federally sponsored cops.
We need federally paid for cops.
And he proudly sang the praises of his hundred thousand cops program.
Well, Hillary's blownettes mitarines by joining a Democrat chorus saying the problem in the cities is slavery, Jim Crow laws, and racist cops.
And now she is, according to the news, she is uh splitting with her husband on immigration.
I don't the idea that Hillary's flip-flopping on this.
I if if people expect that to hurt her, I think it's time to wake up.
It's not even going to be seen as a flip-flop.
The people voting for Hillary, as we as we noted yesterday, are voting for her because she has a vagina.
We had the story yesterday.
Remember that?
It famous female infobabe said, I'm voting with my vagina.
Which led me to picture that, you know, how that happens.
But anyway, it's strictly sexual gender-related identity politics.
People supporting Hillary Clinton, she could say anything and do anything other than join the Republicans on something.
And it won't matter.
She's not going to be accused of hypocrisy.
She's not going to be accused of flip-flopping.
And we can amuse ourselves all day long noting these inconsistencies with Mrs. Clinton, but I mean, that is.
She's I think she's the most boring, the most cheated on woman in America.
I don't get what's compelling about her at all.
I don't get what's interesting.
I don't see her as competent.
I don't see anything her supporters do.
I'm just telling you that any notion that Hillary's flip-flopped on amnesty is going to hurt her, get over it.
There's nothing like that that's going to hurt her.
She's going to help her with a Democrat base.
Which she may end up needing, depending on who else in that party actually gets going.
How about this?
And I have the pictures to back this up.
The Chikoms, a central, a town in central China.
A city, actually, in central China, decided they wanted to increase tourism.
The way they decided to do it was to set up a tourist attraction, which was shoving and pushing pigs off of a bridge 20 feet above a river, and watching them race, i.e., swim to the finish line.
Naturally, the animal rights activists in the United States are outraged by this.
And the people that try count saying, wait a minute, before you criticize us, you better stop and realize pigs love water.
If you were as filthy and stinky and dirty as pigs are, you would know that they love water.
To which the American animal rights activists, well, they may like water, but they don't like being jumped, forced to jump off a platform 20 feet above it and then swim.
I've got the pictures here.
It looks to me like the pigs know what to do.
They're actually diving.
They've got their front hooves out in front of them, and they're they're they're diving, and then there's pictures of them swimming after that.
I mean, it does look cruel, but so far no pig has objected.
The pig story, the pig story is in the UK telegraph.
Well, we'll link to it at Rushlimbaugh.com.
I'm not going to take the time to hold these pictures up on the ditto cam.
They're too much time to zoom and why not do all that myself.
That would take an invaluable showtime.
So if you want to see it, we'll link to it at Rush Limbaugh.com.
I mean, it it looks mixed emotion.
You laugh at it, think it's cruel.
The pigs are numbered and they do swim after they don't drown.
They jump off a 20-foot bridge or thrown off, actually, they're forced off.
And they're diving.
I mean, they literally look like they're dying.
One of them looks like he's doing a belly flop here, but the others are diving.
And then they surface and they start swimming the finish line that tourists make bets, and there's a chance to win some money on this.
It's a tourist attraction of the Chicons in a central Chicom City.
The Washington Post has a story.
I mean, and these are just teases for what's following on the program.
There's a theme for today's program, and that is everything I've told you about liberalism is being demonstrated.
It's on parade in the drive-by media today.
All you have to do is notice it and take note.
A Washington Post story today is very, very worried about all of the new skyscrapers going up in Manhattan.
The reason they are very concerned about all these new skyscrapers going up in Manhattan is that they are for billionaires.
They are residential towers, one of them, the Nordstrom Tower, is going to be the tallest in the city, residential tower, maybe in the country, residential, not business.
And it's going to have uh, you know, Nordstroms and other stores on the bottom floors, and the rest of it's going to be condos, living space.
And it's going to open in four months, and it will exceed by a few feet the current record holder, highest skyscraper, residential skyscraper in the city.
And it's uh stands to reason that these condos cost way more than your average ordinary middle class American would ever even earn in a lifetime.
And they're being snapped up left and right.
The buildings are going to be fully occupied before they open.
A penthouse apartment at one of these buildings, 75 million dollars.
And it's not particularly big.
It's the view.
But that's only half of the problem.
You know what the real problem is?
Shadows.
All of these skyscrapers are creating shadows.
And they are blocking out precious light.
The middle class is getting shafted yet again, this time, by skyscraper shadows.
These new buildings are changing more than the city's famous skyline.
They will also transform New York far below, further darkening city streets and casting long shadows that'll sweep across Central Park.
Together, these towers and new additions in neighborhoods undergoing a building boom from San Francisco to Toronto to even low rise DC have revived a long simmering urban tension.
That is between light and growth, between the benefits of city living and its cost in shadows.
For cities, shadows present both a technical challenge and an ethereal one.
Shadows change the feel of space and the value of property in ways that are hard to define.
And get this, they are a stark reminder that the new growth needed in healthy cities can come at the expense of people already living there.
And in some ways, stand by now, wait for it.
In some ways, shadows even turn light into another medium of inequality.
A Resource that can be bought by the wealthy and eclipsed from the poor.
So you see, not only are the rich building these skyscrapers and living in them, these skyscrapers are creating shadows that the poor and the middle class must live in.
They are light deprived.
Their days will be comprised of even more semi-darkness and less light, and this is yet another sign of inequality.
Light inequality.
That the Washington Post says results from the construction of these major skyscrapers.
They go on to detail all the 3D graphics that architects, designers, and builders have used in order to make sure as best they can that the resulting shadows, particularly in the fall and winter, when the shadows are longer, uh affect as few people as possible.
There's even a GIF file in this story, which depicts the shadows, their depth and their length in Central Park now versus when these buildings are complete in the month of September, when the shadows began to get longer.
And of course, as you can imagine, the people living on the ground and not in the skyscrapers are getting screwed.
They're getting screwed by light inequality.
The rich will have all the light they want.
The rich in the daylight.
They'll have all the light, they'll have all the views, they'll have everything, as much as they want.
The poor and the middle class will be light deprived and will have to live even more of their lives in the shadows.
I guess this is the rich trying to show the middle class what the illegals have to put up with, living in the shadows all these years.
It is uh $95 million penthouse, not $75 million penthouse at 432 Park Avenue.
The building will be just shy of 1,400 feet.
It'll remain the tallest residential building in the western hemisphere until the Nordstrom Tower goes up four blocks away.
Between them are a few more audacious development, all part of a race for ever taller towers to distinguish luxury living in an increasingly crowded city.
So the richer building higher.
They're getting further and further away from the middle class and the poor.
And as a result, they are now unequally getting more than their fair share of light.
And casting the middle class and the poor down on the streets into the shadows.
Light inequality, the consciousness raising article today in the Washington Post.
Now I tell you what I am going to do.
I just turned a ditto cam off and I'm going to zoom in here.
I'm going to show you this GIF.
It's not action because I printed it out.
On the left side, when I pop this up, you'll see a computer rendering of the shadows in Central Park before these buildings go up at four o'clock in the afternoon on September 21st, which is, of course, uh the beginning of the fall.
And it's the it's it's Central Parks, you'll see the southwest and southeast corners of Central Park, Central Park South.
And on the picture on the right is after these two new skyscrapers, actually more than two go up at the same time, 4 p.m.
September 21st.
Okay, let me see if I can now zoom in a little tighter here.
All right, let me see here now.
There you go.
Let me flick it on, and there we are, ladies and gentlemen.
See, that is from the Washington Post story.
See those longer, taller shadows on the right.
That's after these skyscrapers go up.
That's light inequality.
You're looking at it right there.
The shadows on the left are what it is now on September 21st at 4 p.m.
But after these buildings go up, look at all of that inequality.
Look at all of that unfairness.
Look at all those shadows.
Central Park South, totally in the shadows on September 21st.
Actually, it is now too, but we're not supposed to notice that.
Light inequality.
Now, the fact is, it's probably the case.
It may not be constantly true, but it's probably the case that many of the people that buy these condos and these new buildings are not even going to live there very often.
These things are being bought by oligarchs from Russia and new gazillionaires from the uh from the Chicoms who need places to park their money.
You ever heard of the CEO of Oracle named Larry Ellison, namering a bell?
Larry Ellison has more money than he knows what to do with.
And he is parking it in real estate.
I think he has something like 30 homes.
And he maintains them all.
He bought, he bought one really fashionable old line mansion in Newport on what was Mansion Row back in the Gilded Age.
And he keeps it up.
He's never been there.
He's owned it five or ten, he's never been there.
I know because my friend lives next door.
Well, not in a mansion that big, but I have a friend that lives next door.
But he's got places, but he just bought an island.
That's just what he's doing to park his money.
And that's what these condos are for.
These are for these oligarchs, these are these uh Russian head honchos and these chicoms that are just have all this wealth, and they need places to park it.
They'll be there occasionally, but they're not going to live there around the clock.
That's that's another aspect of this.
Now there may be exceptions.
There may be media moguls in New York who will buy one of these condos and make it their primary residence.
Don't misunderstand.
But these are primarily vehicles for the Uber wealthy to park their money in places other than the stock market.
At real estate, which theoretically never ever loses its value.
That's another I'm just, I couldn't care less about that.
The only reason I mention this to you is because we found a new inequality in America.
It's light inequality brought on by skyscrapers for the rich, which is forcing more and more middle class, average middle class, and poor people to live in the shadows while we're gonna be bringing the illegals out of them.
So the theme today, all of this inequality can't do homework because not everybody has a home, can't read in Australia bedtime to your kids because not every kid has a parent who can read.
Not every kid has a family.
In Australia, they are also not just thinking of banning bedtime reading, uh they are also planning on doing something about the family in general because the headline of the story is having a loving family an unfair advantage.
Dead serious story here.
I mean, people that wrote this and quoted in this, and it's a long story, they're dead serious about it.
This is who the left is.
I have been warning people for all of these years, this is where we're headed.
One of the defining things about liberals is when they see inequality, they never seek to resolve it by elevating those at the bottom.
They want to punish, in some cases, really punitively people at the top and bring them down.
They don't want independent people.
They don't want self-reliant people, which is why, do you hear the latest number?
The 20%.
Almost 21% of all jobs in the city of Baltimore are government jobs.
And the national average in a city comparable to Baltimore, is I think 15% of the jobs are government jobs.
In Baltimore, it's 20%, almost 21%, and climbing.
And even at that, Baltimore is ravaged by inequality And poverty, but the president says this is not Baltimore's fault.
And this isn't a Democrat Party's fault.
And it isn't the people's fault have been running Baltimore.
No, no, it's the lingering effects of slavery and the Jim Crow laws.
So he made this apparent in a speech to fundraisers.
Dana Milbank at the Washington Post today attempts to destroy Ben Carson after his presidential announcement yesterday on the basis that Ben Carson has an over-the-top ego and is a disaster waiting to happen on the campaign trail because he simply doesn't know what he's saying half the time.
He's inexperienced.
And he's ready to implode.
Now, no bank is a midget in more ways than one, mental primarily.
This is a classic example.
You would never get a story written by a Democrat anywhere close to this.
The headline's actually Ben Carson's over the top ego.
As though Obama doesn't have an ego.
You'd never get a story on his ego.
You would never get a story on Bill Clinton's ego.
They never even stop to think of it.
It wouldn't even notice it.
It's just natural.
Bill Car Bill Ben Carson.
Yeah, he's got this really, really over the top ego, man.
He's really not in touch with anybody.
He really thinks he's hot stuff.
And this is based primarily on his campaign video.
So it's just the latest Republican the drive-by's are out to destroy.
Then there's this folks from Breitbart results of the nation's report card released this week by the National Assessment of Educational Progress show that only 18% of eighth graders are proficient or above in U.S. history.
And only 23% are proficient in civics.
Now, it should be noted that you have to be able to read in order to learn history.
Just listening won't get it done because you never know who's telling you about it is being truthful.
But the saddest thing is that many of those who are rated proficient in history have probably been taught a bunch of psychobabble.
Probably a brand of Howard Zinn's Hate America First History.
Despite hundreds of billions of dollars poured into the education programs in the United States via the U.S. Department of Education, the nation's report card states that eighth graders' average scores in U.S. history, geography, and civics demonstrated no significant change since 2010 when the students were last assessed.
And just think of all the money that Obama and the Democrat Party have poured into the teachers' gonna say teachers' union, I mean education.
The stimulus bill alone sent the teachers' unions untold billions of dollars.
It was disguised.
Rebuild schools and roads and bridges, but we now know, looking back at vast majority of them went to teachers' unions, part of the Democrat Party's very well-constructed money laundering scheme using the unions to do so.
Well, how does it work?
very simple.
We haven't yet gotten to the stage where Barack Obama can just go write a check to the Democrat Party from the U.S. Treasury.
So how do you do it?
How do you get the money from the U.S. Treasury to the Democrat Party for campaigns and who knows what else?
It's very simple.
You come up with a stimulus plan.
That's the money from the Treasury.
Except it isn't.
Well, it is, but it's money from taxpayers.
There's no stimulus.
There isn't any new money.
There's no money that hasn't been spent laying around.
It's going to be injected into the economy and cause all kinds of spurts of growth.
It's money that first has to be taken from the private sector before being plowed back into it.
It's a net zero.
There is no stimulus.
But what happens is you write a check for $800 billion, you start dispersing it, the majority of it goes to unions, teachers' unions, and Other public employee unions who what pay dues?
Where do the dues go?
The dues go right to the Democrat Party via campaign donations made by union chiefs.
That's the circuitous route by which the money from the Treasury is laundered and ends up as clean money in the Democrat Party.
As I say, Obama can't just go write a check for the Democrat Party for 800 billion, but he can get one for the stimulus.
And he can lie about all it's going to do.
It's going to create jobs, rebuild roads and bridges and schools and paint this and paint that.
In fact, most of it, 80%, goes to unions, who remain employed during a recession.
Everybody else is losing losing their jobs.
The union members stay employed.
They continue to pay dues.
The dues end up being cycled back to the Democrats in the form of contributions, and that's Obama can write a check for $800 billion in the Treasury, call it a stimulus, and have at least half of it go to the Democrat Party.
Simple.
That's exactly what happens.
There wasn't any money spent on education.
Here we have just if I may be self-serving for a moment.
Only 18% of eighth graders proficient in U.S. history is exactly why we are doing the Rush Revere, time travel adventures with exceptional American series on American history for kids age 10 to 13.
This is exactly why we are doing it.
By the way, folks, speaking of the Rush Revere, time travel adventures with American, exceptional Americans, the children's book history series, I got an email note from Eric Erickson Saturday night.
I was minding my own business, as usual, wasn't bothering anybody.
And I got a little beep at a notification on my Apple Watch.
By the way, people keep asking me, so what do you think of it?
Folks, it is it it's turned out to exactly what I thought it would be.
I'm using it exactly as I thought I would.
I use it for basically two things.
To notify me that I have received either an email or a message when my iPhone isn't nearby.
On the golf course, or even sitting here, I can get a notification, look on the watch, at least found out, find that somebody sent something to me, and then I can check the phone later.
And as I also knew, given a choice between the watch and the phone, I'll go for the phone every time.
It's bigger, it's faster.
This is version one of the watch.
It's pretty slow.
It's really cool.
The things you can do on it.
You can answer the phone, you can make a phone call.
The battery life is fine.
Uh it's just slow.
It's a version 1.0 device.
But I haven't had any problems with it.
Uh I don't make phone calls or get them, but I've tested it, and it works fine.
I just got a buzz now.
Let's see what this is.
Ah.
Catherine just sent me a little note say, yeah, revere.
So I now know that rather than have to wait till a commercial break to see that I got a note from my wife.
Watch just buzzed, actually, the tactic feedback.
It didn't buzz, it tapped my wrist.
I have the speaker muted so as not to be a distraction for you.
And it popped up, and now I can either reply to it here, which I think I'll do.
Siri on this thing is perfect, so.
Oh, I hit the dismiss button by mistake.
I'll reply to her later.
Anyway, it's exactly what I thought it was going to be.
I'm using it exactly as I thought I would.
And I the point is, if the phone's right nearby and the watch is on, I'll do the phone first every time if it's there.
But it's perfect on the golf course or at times like this when I can't do the phone first.
Anyway, this note from Eric Erickson.
He said, My kids' book order through scholastic is due on Thursday.
He's got kids in school.
And he has to order the books, according to the kids' curriculum.
So he just went online to the Scholastic Reading Club and our website to place an order for his kids' books.
And he says, Look what I see here.
The most recommended book by fourth grade teachers is Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims, and it's beating Dr. Martin Luther King, no less.
He says, Well done.
Thanks, Eric.
So I looked at this and I said, Well, hot damn, it's absolutely correct.
He's right.
Scholastic Reading Club, fourth graders, teacher recommendations.
Number one, most recommended by fourth grade teachers, Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims.
And this is this is mainstream stuff here.
So that's that is hopeful.
That is actually good, especially when I run across the story.
Only 18% of eighth graders are proficient in U.S. history.
I just got another message from Catherine which says, Ha, babe, because she heard me talking about the note from the watch.
So now I'm gonna reply to it.
Very cool, isn't it, sweetie?
Question mark.
Send it and it's gone.
You know, there's something else about this watch.
Siri on the watch is flawless.
There's obviously a new Siri system, software rev version, server system, what have you, but it has in over a week yet to make a dictation error.
Now, there's a it's it's recognized, it's confused words uh that have similar spelling but the same pronunciation, but it is not goofed up in a substantive way at all.
It's really, it's really stunning in that regard.
Gotta take a break.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
Have you ever asked yourself why is it we never hear how the people who fought to preserve slavery or who enacted the Jim Crow laws had good intentions?
Why do we never hear that?
They must have had good.
They were Democrats.
Do you realize that slavery was a Democrat thing?
That preserving slavery was a Democrat thing.
The Jim Crow laws were a Democrat thing.
▲
Export Selection