All Episodes
Previous Next
May 25, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:45
May 25, 2015, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, standby audio soundbites two and three.
We'll get to them here in this segment.
Greetings, welcome back, Al Rushbow, meeting and surpassing.
All audience expectations every day, as usual, half my brain tied behind my back.
Just to make everything fair.
It's great to have you here.
The telephone number 800 282-2882, email address L Rushbow and EIB net.com.
How many of you people out there tuned in, paid the 99 or $100, or maybe some of you stole it?
Some of you millennials who want everything for free.
The uh Floyd Mayweather, Manny Pacquiao Packayo.
How do you pronounce his name, Brian?
Is it Pacao?
Pacquiao, Pacquiao, Manny Pacchio.
Did you watch it?
You didn't watch it.
It was the most boring, and I don't even including all the buildup.
I mean, it wasn't a matter of expectations being raised and not being.
It was boring.
It was dull.
You know, and I'm I was reminded why I have never been a big boxing fan.
It looked to me like Packayo Manny looked to me like he landed more punches that actually mattered.
But they said it was unanimous for Floyd Money Mayweather.
Anyway, that's not the point.
Jamie Fox, who uh portrayed Drew Bondini Brown in the movie about Muhammad Ali that starred Will Smith, and who also portrayed Ray Charles in that movie, sang the national anthem.
And I watched it.
You know, I can't hear that stuff, so I mean it all sounds the same note to me.
My memory supplies the melody, but it didn't seem particularly bad to me.
I mean, I have to be told if somebody has a good voice, because I can't detect that on my own.
So Monday, yesterday, I'm doing show prep and I see a story, headline, Jamie Fox gets clobbered for Anthem at Floyd Mayweather, Manny Pacao, or Pacquiao.
What is it again?
Pacquiao, Manny Pacquiao fight.
And I'll tell you my honest, you know, one of my honest reaction was I thought the reason he got clobbered.
Remember, here's Jamie Fox, African American, fight of the century, singing a national anthem just a couple of days after Baltimore was on fire.
And I thought he was going to get grief for singing the anthem.
As an African American.
I actually thought that if it was gonna get clobbered for anything, it'd be people criticized.
How dare you sing a song of respect for this country given what happened in Baltimore this week?
And in fact, I'll go even further.
I expected Jamie Fox to do something snarky during the anthem before the fight, because of what's going on in Baltimore, because we've come to expect this kind of thing.
Anyway, he didn't.
He played it straight.
He sang it respectfully, and he got clobbered because apparently the audience thought it was bad.
The audience thought his rendition was poor, not disrespectful, just he had no business doing it because he'd any more talent singing than Roseanne has.
Remember how she botched the national anthem of the San Diego Padres game one.
Anyway, let's go to Australia.
Here are these two stories.
We'll get the phone calls in the next segment.
I promise, if you're on hold, be patient.
You're there for a reason.
This is uh the Daily Telegraph first.
And this the uh the second story is actually an Australian news website.
This the uh UK Daily Telegraph reading to children at bedtime.
The Australian ABC, Australian something, Australian BC questions value of time honored practice.
The ABC.
You know, it doesn't spell out what that is.
It leaves it up, I guess the the reader is supposed to know what ABC is.
This is not the ABC Network, it's in Australia.
In fact, this even may be in the UK.
But if the point here is that reading to children at bedtime, some authority, some agencies questioning the value of this.
They're questioning whether parents should read to their children before bedtime, claiming it could give your kids an unfair advantage over less fortunate kids.
And then the next story is having a loving family and unfair advantage.
Asked a story on the ABC's own website.
Now, folks, this is exactly what I have warned of.
I have predicted for the 26 plus years that I have been hosting this program.
These people have been allowed to go completely over the bend of insanity.
This obsession with equality and inequality, as though there ought to be some giant, maybe not invisible, but very visible hand mandating equality of outcome, because that's the only thing that is fair.
And of course, liberalism creates all of these abject oddities.
Liberalism creates single parent families, for example.
Liberalism creates all of these screwball family arrangements and other things that give kids all kinds of problems growing up.
And since liberalism creates these things, they won't admit that, by the way, since liberalism creates these things, they now have to come up with a way of fixing what is the resulting inequality based on their own policies.
And the way they do it is to always punish the achievers, people who are successful, people are at the upper end of anything.
Income, grade performance, you name it, those at the top have to be brought down to be on a more equal and level footing with those beneath them.
So the sum of this story is that good parents who treat their kids the way good parents do may not be permitted to do so anymore.
Because it's unfair to kids that do not have good parents.
Good parents must now treat their children like bad parents have to treat their kids so that they don't confer any unfair advantages on their kids.
So like I say, instead of raising up all children by reading to them, we have to go to the very lowest common denominator for all children and penalize those who are doing things right.
Penalize those who are doing things good because it isn't fair that they can, and others can't.
Now, I'm sure that you're laughing.
Some of you are laughing at this.
I used to.
We used to do whole sketches, comedy bits, routines, and all kinds of satire about this back in the late 80s and early 90s, on the basis that this was so fringe, that this was so odd, that it was so tiny and unique, a part of our entire universe that nobody would ever take this stuff seriously.
And lo and behold, it's become mainstream in terms of liberal thought.
Now, this particular story, this is uh this is from England.
I have quickly researched this during while I've been talking to you.
And ABC is their public radio.
Evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don't.
The difference in their life chances is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those that don't, said British academic Adam Swift.
The ABC public radio presenter Joe Gilanese responded, this devilish twist of evidence surely leads to a further conclusion that perhaps in the interest of leveling the playing field, bedtime stories should also be restricted.
The ABC, British public radio has questioned whether parents should read their children before bedtime, claiming it could give kids an unfair advantage over less fortunate children.
And then the story on the ABC website is having a loving family an unfair advantage.
Should parents snuggling up for one last story before lights out Be even a little concerned about the advantage they might be conferring.
I'm not making this up.
They're trying to make loving parents feel guilty over the way they treat their kids, over the way they're able to treat their kids, including reading them one last bedtime story before lights out.
The story was broadcast on the ABC Radio National that has tackled the apparently divisive issue of bedtime reading.
And again, they quote the British academic Adam Swift.
Evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don't.
The difference in their life chances is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those who don't.
In other words, what this clown is saying is that parents, the kids whose parents read to them at night do better in life, even than the kids whose parents are able to send them to elite schools.
And therefore it's totally unfair if we have a family that's only a mother or a dad, and they're so busy they don't have time to read, maybe they can't read to their kids at bedtime.
It's unfair that this family over here that's uh well adjusted, well-rounded, can and does read to their kids.
We need to ban it.
I'm not making it up.
Half-baked Moon Bay, California, 1994, banned homework.
Because not all students had a home.
Some lived on the streets, some lived in orphanages, some lived in a didn't, all have an equal opportunity to do homework in a conducive atmosphere.
So the answer was to ban homework.
In other words, ban a part of the educational process.
And here is, and I'm I was mistaken about this being two different stories and one from Australia.
This is still England and ABC, the public radio there, is having a loving family an unfair advantage is an entire web page discussion.
And I'll admit something.
We thought it might be a spoof.
It's so ridiculous.
This bedtime reading thing being unfair and an unfair advantage.
And we don't like to get taken in by these satirical scammers out there.
So we looked further into this.
We Googled it, and I got this link to ABC.
And there's another more detailed story on it.
This is there's audio of this discussion on the radio at the link.
And the the is what this really boils down to, if you really want to know what this boils down to.
The way to solve this is a social justice problem, they claim.
Having a loving family is an unfair advantage is a social justice problem.
And there are people in this article who literally make the point the claim that abolishing the family and letting the state and government raise kids may be the only answer.
This is in the UK.
I erred when I said Australia first.
This is in the UK makes it even closer to home.
But liberals here, liberals in the UK, liberals in Australia, they're liberals everywhere and they're the same, no matter where you go.
And they're dead serious about this.
Now, admittedly, there are some of them who think it's a bad idea to ban or abolish the family as an educational institution.
There's some people here that will say it's a bad idea to abolish the family and let the state or the government raise kids for the purposes of education.
But even those people still think that good families give kids an unfair advantage, and they measure that by familial relationship goods.
Some kids get more goods than other kids.
And that makes it unfair.
And of course, as liberals, the answer is not to help the kids who are not in good families.
They become the lowest common denominator.
They become the baseline.
Everybody must be made to be like them in order for everything to be fair and equal.
The natural tendency of the left is to punish success, to punish achievement, to punish anything that they believe gives an unfair advantage.
And folks, I'm not exaggerating.
It is who they are, and you're seeing evidence of it all over the country.
If you have the courage to stop and recognize it.
Here's a pull quote from the story.
In contrast, reading stories at bedtime gives rise to acceptable familial relationship goods, even though this also bestows advantage.
The evidence shows that the difference between those and the hear this quote again, who get bedtime stories and those who don't is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those who don't.
The devilish twist of evidence leads to a further conclusion that perhaps in the interests of leveling the playing field, bedtime stories should be restricted.
And there really are expert academicians and philosophers who are pushing the idea that being a good parent and reading to your kids and being loving gives your kids an unfair advantage in life.
You know, in the old days, and it wasn't that long ago, families like that were what you emulated.
Families like that were what you wanted to be.
Now we make fun of them.
Now we laugh at them.
Now we rip them.
Now we criticize them.
Take your pick, Nana Reed Show, Beaver Cleaver, that whole era, the the Ozzy and Harriet Nelson, we laugh at it.
We impune it.
It's not real.
It never was.
It used to be the way people wanted to live.
It's the way a couple getting married aspired to be.
You've heard the old saw, Mom and Dad, 2.8 kids, the white picket fence, station wagon in the garage.
Now that's an unfair advantage.
Now something needs to be done about that.
And instead of encouraging all parents to bestow this great advantage on their kids, they want the ones that do to stop and to feel guilty about it.
But what this is, folks, what I have been trying to pound home on a daily basis, the entire history of this program.
Liberals are hellbent on destroying traditions and institutions that have shown progress, greatness, that have helped define greatness as a society as a country.
Anything that is traditional, societal advantage, anything it's proven has got to be destroyed.
Like marriage.
It's got to be destroyed and obliterated, and the meaning rendered confusing.
And it starts with these idiots and academe, and it just filters out to the drive-bys who will pick it up, and then some elected Democrats are going to run around and start talking about things like this.
You wait, it won't be long before this hits.
You know, I just had a brilliant idea.
We need to start adding warning labels to rush revere books.
Warning, reading Rush Revere, time travel adventures, exceptional Americans could give your children an unfair advantage.
I like that idea.
Warning labels on the book, warning parents.
What do you think the takeaway is?
If you are a young parent just getting married and and thinking about raising family, and you hear this story, that reading to your kid gives him an unfair advantage.
Meaning you hear it's a good thing.
It's going to help your kid learn.
You'd be inclined to do it, would you not?
Ergo, warning labels or stickers on the rush review books.
Warning, reading this book to your kids could result in an unfair advantage.
I love it.
I know what'll happen when I propose it.
Here is uh Rosanna Mazzula, Montana.
Hi, Roseanne, you're up first.
It's great to have you with us.
Hello.
Ditto Rush for you and ditto for Catherine.
Hey, um, that thing about the the parents and the unfair advantage, it's not a joke.
And it needs to be taken very seriously.
I agree.
No, I don't mean you, I mean the people listening.
Rush, people, when you try to advocate for something, and you get a few words out and you stumble across a stereotype in their mind and they start saying, Oh, this is crazy.
Like when I talked to a girlfriend ten years ago about partial birth aversion, abortion.
It was so disgusting, she didn't believe it was true.
She said it was the conservatives making it up.
Right.
But that's what people with wild ideas tell not.
When you're protecting your children and yourself from them and you're advocating against them, their idea to begin with is so manipulative that when you protect yourself from it, you sound wild.
Um when we were kids, the unions protected the parents who were drunk.
So you'd go to school with kids who had things and middle class lifestyle because the union protected them.
But they want it better for themselves.
So they went to the community college, and then when they had kids, they did right by their kids because they want it better.
Not this pull everybody down into a bisque.
And then when you had church women like my mother, they would sit and say, I'm inviting stones over for dinner, their mother's always running around instead of taking care of them.
I don't care if you like these children or not, you're gonna be nice, because then I know they have one good meal a day or a week.
That's what it was that a community took care of them.
But they don't know.
Exactly.
I know exactly what you're talking about.
This is when people in the community came together to help people who were disadvantaged, things weren't working out to help them do better, not to make everybody else join them in mediocrity.
Exactly right.
Folks, could we also assume that if you feed your child well, you are giving your child an unfair advantage.
And if you are feeding your child well and others can't, should you be forced to eat a Michelle Obama design screw a lunch in order to make everybody feel equal in eating the same rot gut.
Hmm.
Welcome back, my friends, Rush Limbaugh.
Talent on loan from God.
So I wanted to find out who is this clown.
This sociologist that is encouraging people in the UK to accept the idea that families reading to their children at bedtime is unfair.
Who is this guy?
Adam Swift is who is quoted in these stories.
He's a British political philosopher and sociologist who specializes in debates surrounding liberal egalitarianism.
He has been director of the Oxford Center for the Study of Social Justice, and has held visiting positions at Harvard, MIT, the Australian National University, and the University of Wisconsin at Madison.
He is currently working on developing a liberal egalitarian theory of the family.
That's who's pushing this.
One wacko, one lunatic, one extreme leftist, who is obsessed with this perverted definition of fairness and equality.
And who is determining that parents who can read to their kids at night are giving them an unfair advantage.
And of course, all this is rooted in the idea that nobody should be any different.
We should all be the same.
We should all turn out the same.
But of course, we're not all the same.
Every damn one of us is unique.
We are not like anybody else.
By design and by definition.
We all have different talents, characteristics, abilities, albatrosses, liabilities, differing levels of ambition.
We have different degrees of health, genetic codes.
Some of us have a good one, some of us have some problems.
Nobody's the same, and these people are obsessed.
Nevertheless, with enforcing uniformity on everyone.
Under this misguided notion of fairness and equality.
Bastardization of the word and definition of equality and fairness as well.
Here's Elaine in Sheldon, Illinois, as we head back to the phones.
I'm glad you uh waited, Elaine.
Great to have you with us.
Hello.
What an honor, Rush.
Um, I just got so impassioned when you were talking about that report.
We have 13 children.
We have read to all of them.
Now we read to the grandchildren.
We have five married, one in college, seven still at home.
It crosses all socioeconomic backgrounds.
A mother doesn't even have to know how to read to open a book with pictures and point at the pictures and read to a toddler by pictures, which is what a toddler would want anyway.
And yes, it does bond the parents with the kids, but it just boiled my blood.
I pulled the car over, parked it, and thought I've got to call him because it's just so ludicrous.
If this man claims to be educated, he's an educated fool.
And I I don't use the word fool, so that was kind of harsh, but that doesn't even make common sense.
Of course not.
Everything you've said about this report is right on.
It's ridiculous.
Except one thing.
It's real, and you'd better believe it, because this guy's dead serious, and he is an accredited Ivy League level academician.
He is considered to be among the most qualified and brilliant and scholarly in this study, and as such, you mark my words, the trail here, what's gonna happen is that this will be picked up in the United States somehow, some way, NPR or some related type agency.
Then it'll drift over to some democrat politician in the right community who will go public with the idea, much like Biden stole from Neil Kinnock, his uh speeches and so forth, you'll have some sort of a maybe not even theft, just a sharing of the idea, and it'll be rooted around election time, and it'll be aimed at whoever comes up with the idea claiming to have all this love and compassion for the poor, and we're looking out for the poor.
And it's not fair, you don't have the same advantages, and so I don't know they'll come up with the idea to pu penalize parents here who read to their kids, uh although they're well, it could.
It could manifest itself that way.
More likely what'll happen, like you just said even a parent who can't read, who is illiterate, could still share a book of pictures with a kid.
Yes.
Well, what you're what what a typical liberal would say in response to that would be what's easy for you to say, but what if that poor mother, because of the unfairness and the inequities of the American economic system, isn't even home when her child goes to bed because she's working her fourth job of the day, flipping burgers without health care.
Well, we've got public libraries with free books, too.
That's easy for you to say, but still means that the parents who have a good job or two good jobs and can read to their kids at night, therefore have the economic ability and the freedom and the time to do it, whereas this poor mother that you're describing can't.
That'll be what it's not that she could and and doesn't, it'll be that she can't because she's too set upon, put upon by the unfairness in our society.
Anyway, she's probably not at home, she's at work, uh, or she's uh such some sort of social problem that she has and so forth.
Somebody's gonna pick this up and run with it for the express purpose of using it as a campaign uh weapon to establish whoever uses it as committed to fairness, committed to the case.
If they would just substitute the television time that their little ones are watching and look at a book in the evening, it takes so little effort.
It's so little effort.
Anybody can look at a book with a child.
I've been dead dog tired, and I've never asked the government to do anything for us, even with a big family.
People assume that, but we're also wacko because we don't have a television, had a one month and thirty years, and just figured it wasn't worth it.
But your books ought to be put in these kids' hands that are getting a little bit older and can read.
That's the kind of program I'd like to see is getting a rush rush history book in their hand.
Complete with warning label.
Warning, this book could give you a kidding.
No warning is needed, man.
That's what they need.
I just appreciate you.
Well, I appreciate th thank you.
Thanks very much for the call.
I uh I really do uh appreciate your thoughts on that, and I thank you very much.
Um, the uh see now you're just showing your insensitivity.
Now I get somebody said to me over the IFB.
Hey, if they can't read, they can go get the audio versions of books and they can play the audio to their kids.
With what?
We're talking about poor people that don't even have an iPod and don't even know how to do that.
What are they gonna do?
Go get the audio to a book where at Amazon they can't afford Amazon, they're poor.
These people can barely afford pank and pranks and beans.
Which, by the way, don't I you may think all this is a bit of an exaggeration?
Try this.
Former United Nations, Secretary General Kofi Annan wants people to eat more insects.
Because it's better for the environment and your health.
Keeping meat consumption to levels recommended by health authorities would lower emissions and reduce heart disease, cancer, and other diseases, Kofi Annan told the UK Guardian on Sunday.
And of course, there are alternative sources of protein.
For example, raising insects as an animal protein source, he said.
Insects have a very good conversion rate from feed to meat.
They make up part of the diet of two billion people and are commonly eaten in many parts of the world.
Eating insects is good for the environment and balanced diets.
You think I'm making this up?
This the former head honcho at the UN, who is suggesting again, under terms of equality and fairness, egalitarianism, with the added benefits of helping prevent climate change and global warming.
Eat insects for your protein.
What is it with these people?
Seriously, what is it with these people?
Yeah, Michelle Obama serves scraps of inedible food to school kids, supposedly for their health.
And now here comes fellow traveler Kofi Annan asking us to eat bugs, to feed bugs to our children because it's healthful and will help save the planet.
And it wasn't it just last week of the the week before that we heard from the Food and Drug Administration.
The Obama administration wants to encourage people to continue to eat food beyond the expiration date because we're wasting way too much food, and this food is perfectly fine beyond the expiration date.
So go ahead and eat it.
Especially if it's in a can.
How could it possibly go bad?
Expiration dates are arbitrarily too short.
So go ahead.
So what do we have after six years of Barack Hussein O. We discover that some on the left would have us use one square of toilet pood, a toilet paper, which is uh what's her face, uh Cheryl Crow.
Eat out-of-date food, substitute insects for meat and protein, hate the police who protect us from criminals, give up our doctors, give up our once affordable health insurance, pay higher taxes.
Grant amnesty to 15 or 20 million illegals.
What am I forgetting?
There's a long list of things that this current regime is attempting to force upon this country under the premise of what?
Transforming it.
Making it greater.
Stunning.
Quick time out, back with more after this.
Don't go away.
And welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh, an excellent role model for the youths of America.
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
And that is no mean feat.
800 282-2882, if you want to be on the program.
Here's John in Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Great to have you.
And hello.
Hello, sir.
It's good to talk with you.
Thank you very much.
I'm glad you called.
Well, thank you.
You know, talking about uh Kofi Annan, you know, just gave me a thought, said, I uh really thought that this is a great point that we can use on our liberal friends, meaning that any of these that want to say that they're all out for saving our world, they will have to eat insects.
And if they don't, they'll be exposed for a fraud.
Wait now, run that by me again.
This is a way you want to you want to try to persuade liberals of something by repeating what Kofi Annan said to them?
Well, no, I don't figure that I can persuade the people that really believe that they're liberals, you know, and love the planet and buy their electric cars and all that stuff, but it's a great way to expose them at a fraud, as a fraud.
I don't see all of my friends that are liberals going out and eating insects.
And if they're not really wanting to save the world, then they won't eat insects.
Well, you know what they would say, they would they you know here's the thing.
And I realize the temptation.
You hear a story like this.
I mean, it happens to me too.
You hear a story like this that you think, aha, finally one of these idiots is overstepped it, and now I can help demonstrate to my liberal buddies just how stupid what they think is.
Just how crazy what they believe is.
So the next time I run into my liberal buddies, I say, Did you hear what Kofi Annon said?
And they'll say, Who's Kofi Annan?
Because they're liberals.
And you will say, Who's Kofi Annan?
Why, he's a former Secretary General United Nations.
He used to run the world at the UN, and they'll go, Oh, do you win?
Wow, cool.
No, what did he say?
He said the best thing that you could do to stop climate change would be to eat insects.
Well, your liberal buddy is gonna think you're lying, or that you have misunderstood, or that you are misstating what he said.
They will not believe, they will think that you're lying to them or trying to entrap them.
Even if they go on to learn that you've told them the truth, that they will not permit what they believe to be discredited by you by virtue of some extremist little news item you've brought to their attention.
They will come back at you and say, well, if you look at what he said, it said it's one of the things that we could do.
And he pointed out that poor people have to eat insects.
It doesn't mean you have to eat insects to save the planet.
You can.
But there are other things that you can do to save them, and I do.
I drive a hybrid, I make sure that I don't take a shower for any longer than 90 seconds.
They'll come back at you with all of the great things they do to save the planet, and then they'll turn it around on you and accuse you of not doing anything because you don't care.
I you're I don't think uh you can shame these people.
They have to come to these conclusions themselves.
And even if what you tell them changes their mind, they're never going to give you the satisfaction of knowing that you did it.
They're not going to say, wow, is that right?
Man, he's an idiot.
They're they'll find a way.
Most of these people change their minds.
Now, I do have, and it's been demonstrated, I do have the ability and power to force liberals to see the light and change their minds.
Many of them over the years have called here and admitted it, acknowledged it, and even thanked me.
But most of them have to do it on their own.
Something happens and they and they learn it with the stimulus, maybe, if something is something said to them.
But I found most of them rigidly uh positioned, unalterably positioned, rooted in their belief system, because their belief system is not really what they believe.
Their belief system has been constructed As a way of shielding them from what really is.
Most liberals want to live in a fantasy world of a potential utopia that's just around the corner.
And they construct these little cocoons in which they live.
And if you come along and poke a hole in it, you are not enlightening them, you are threatening them.
And they respond in kind.
They're not rooted in reality.
I mean, who could be I mean, who in the world could actually think that it's a good idea, for example, to ban moms and dads reading to their kids at night because it's not fair they can while others can't.
What must you be?
What must you think?
How must you think, if you believe something like that's a good idea?
That's why I say, look, the the the ultimate objective here, and it's getting harder and harder every day.
Not bring them in the fold.
That isn't going to happen.
What has to happen, they have to be defeated.
They have to remain the minority they are.
And that's proving problematic because we don't have a political party right now that wants to push back against much of this.
So I just checked my email, and that's an interesting uh couple of emails.
Why are you not talking more about Marilyn Mosby and uh the DA, the state's attorney in Baltimore and the charges against the cops?
I don't know, folks.
Well, I pretty much called what it was on Friday and Monday, but if you want to, I'll add some things to it.
I think there's a seminal point to this that people are missing.
▲
Export Selection