All Episodes
Previous Next
May 25, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:22
May 25, 2015, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
I am Rush Limbaugh, executing assigned host duties flawlessly, zero mistakes, as you have come to know, love, respect, and adore.
The telephone number if you want to be on the program's 800-282-2882, the email address lrushbow at EIBNet.com.
One thing before getting to the Clinton or the Obama review of his appearance yesterday at Georgetown, there is this.
This kind of sets it all up.
And it's from the UK Daily Mail.
And I I think this is well, I withhold my characterization of it.
Let's give you the headline.
Poor people's DNA is declining in quality, say scientists.
Study reveals how stressful upbringings damage genes.
Stress can leave damaging, lasting imprints on the genes of the urban poor.
This is according to a new study that claims that poor people's DNA is declining in quality as a result of difficult upbringings.
Now, I is that even possible?
DNA as a result of sociological circumstance.
This story claims that not only is it likely it's happening.
Now these results are based on the finding that people in disadvantaged environments have shorter telomeres.
DNA sequences that generally shrink with age.
They have shorter telomeres than their advantaged peers.
The study looked at the telomeres of poor and lower middle class black, white, and Mexican residents of Detroit.
Now again, telomeres, if I'm pronouncing that right, telomeres are the protective caps on the ends of the strands of DNA called chromosomes, which house our genomes.
And by now I know I've lost the people in Rio Linda, but I'm nevertheless gonna persevere here.
In young humans, telomeres are about 8,000 to 10,000 nucleotides long.
How long's a nucleotide, Snertly?
And these nucleotides, they shorten with each cell division and as a result of stress.
Previous research has found that telomere length can reliably predict life expectancy in humans, and the study also found that low-income people, low-income residents of Detroit, no matter their race, have shorter telomeres than the national average length of a telomere.
It's chromosome inequality.
It's nucleotide inequality brought on by living conditions inequality.
Dr. Arlene Geronimus, a visiting scholar at the Stanford Center for Advanced Study, said to the Huffing and Puffington Post, which should give you a little insight here.
There are effects of living in high-poverty, racially segregated neighborhoods.
I'll tell you, this is a first for me.
That living in poor minority neighborhoods can make your DNA worse.
And in fact, can telegraph your future.
Now some of you I'm sure will remember this.
But my you know my first reaction to this, and I had many, but my first reaction to this was that this story can now be trumpeted by the left to validate abortion among poor people.
I remember when I first started getting involved on the radio as a as a participant in the abortion debate, both locally in Sacramento than nationally, is this program went on the air.
I began hearing all kinds of justifications for it.
We heard, for example, that it's actually an illness, and that w pregnancy is an illness, and that women, it's unfair that women are saddled with this, and uh sometimes abortion is a cure.
Now I'm not I'm not snerdling, no calls on abortion.
It's not what this is about.
This is about the left seeking yet again to advance its agenda while dividing the people of this country on any kind of line they can racial, economic, sociological, you name it.
This is despicable.
We also heard that not only was pregnancy was a sickness, but that a fetus was an unviable tissue mass.
We heard all kinds of excuses.
And one that we heard frequently was.
Well, would you want to bring a baby into that world?
Meaning one of poverty and uh dilapidation and thirst and socioeconomic uh disaster.
And this prompted a number of us to start doing research into famous people and find out what their backgrounds were.
And we found out tremendous number of famous experts, people who had become stars in entertainment, stars in medicine, stars in any, had many of them come from poverty.
Many of them had survived poverty or very bad socioeconomic circumstances.
And we were forced to do this because the left, in its continual perversion, was looking for any justification whatsoever for abortion.
And to call it something other than what it was.
And when I saw this story, that DNA, the poverty being poor and disadvantaged becomes part of who you are, becomes part of your DNA.
How do you escape your DNA, folks?
Does anybody, has anybody ever told you how to escape your DNA?
You can't, right?
Your DNA is who you are.
Your genealical history, that's who you are.
Your genome is yours.
No two DNAs are alike.
We can go out, DNA convicts people.
DNA is a unique identifier, unlike any other identifier we have.
And I've never heard anybody say that you can escape it.
And I've never heard anybody say that you can change it.
I mean, not with behavior.
I know that some people you can mess around with medicine surgery, surgical, who knows what.
Splicing.
I know that, but I'm talking just in terms of these people are saying that there's not doing anything medically to make this happen.
They're just living continuously in poverty, and that is affecting their DNA.
You know how ridiculous this is.
Until the last century, this is again part of the whole discussion of American exceptionalism.
Folks, I'm not making this up.
Until the last century, just about everybody in the world came from poverty.
The world.
Everybody in the world came from, was born into poverty.
Such was the average economic circumstance for most people.
I mean the vast majority.
This the story of humanity from the beginning of time has been one of tyranny and bondage.
The examples of free people with liberty are so rare that the United States is the first nation in the history of the world to so form itself and codify its existence on the basis that every human being possesses liberty and freedom with certain God-given, God-created characteristics.
Until that time, everybody was a subject of somebody.
Everybody was in their own prison of one thing or another, and most of the world lived in poverty, which just destroys the premise of this entire cert research story and news story to boot.
So what benefits the left for people to start believing that poverty is in your DNA, and you can't escape your DNA.
What's the point of pointing this out?
Why in the world would anybody even target this?
And then you start ask the usual question, who benefits from this?
And all kinds of answers start popping up to you.
Who benefits from the idea that people can never escape poverty?
Name me a political party.
Democrat Party obviously benefits.
If you think that people born to poverty can never get out of it, it destroys the whole concept of achievement, of hard work, of self-reliance.
Destroys all of that.
It destroys the idea of self-determination.
It renders meaningless the whole concept of freedom and liberty.
If you can't escape your DNA.
So what are we to do here?
If if if if people living in places like Detroit are forever condemned to poverty, what else does it let you do?
Well, it lets you then assign blame for that.
And who is to blame for people in poverty?
According to the drive-by media today, it's the Republican Party.
The Republican Party is responsible because they've stolen everybody's money.
The Republican Party cares nothing about anybody but the rich.
You know the drill.
So now you add to it that poverty is now part of someone's DNA.
Disadvantagedness is part of someone's DNA.
Then you have just established a never-ending requirement for the Democrat Party.
You have just established a never-ending requirement for the poor to support the Democrat Party, because the Democrat Party is the only party that cares about people in poverty.
So goes the conventional wisdom.
This is insidious.
This is absolutely outrageous, this effort being made here.
Let's just add this to the list of things that are tragically affecting all the poor people living in places like Detroit and like Baltimore.
Bad DNA.
Guess who gets blamed?
That's what's coming up.
Obama blames the rich.
And you know what Obama said when he was at uh Georgetown yesterday?
He said the problem really is rich people are removing themselves from areas of commonality.
The rich people, yeah, they're joining their private clubs.
And they're and they're they're living in their private neighborhoods.
And they never and they don't go to private or public schools.
Everything is private.
The rich are segregating themselves from the poor.
And it is absolutely atrocious in his belief, and he is going to now take this belief that the rich are purposely segregating themselves and punish them and force that not to be the case.
And that's some of what he said yesterday.
Now, I don't want to be misunderstood.
DNA is a specific thing.
I do believe that people trapped in a never-ending cycle of poverty with no role models to show them how to escape it.
I do believe it can be self-perpetuating.
I don't know about it becoming evolutionary, though.
As I say, if it were evolutionary, we would have never gotten out of it because prior to the last century, practically everybody came from poverty.
Especially as we define poverty today, everybody was poor compared to the way we define it today.
But this study says that difficult hard scrabble poverty upbringings have an impact on DNA regardless of race, that the DNA weakens.
And they will say all the more reason why we need government programs all the more reason why we need a compassionate Democrat Party.
Because it's impossible to lift people out of poverty.
See, that's the thing.
That's where it's headed.
We don't need conservatism.
Conservatism is a false premise.
Conservatism claims to lift people out of poverty.
We've just proven you can't.
Poverty is in their DNA.
Yeah?
Well, if that's true, why is it in their DNA?
They live in cities run by you.
Not the point anymore, they will say.
That's old news.
It's not useful to assign blame anymore.
We now know that once you're in poverty, you are forever in poverty because of your DNA, and that means we know that you cannot lift yourself out of it, which means conservatism is fraudulent.
That's where I think all of this is headed.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have a question.
I have a question about telomeres and DNA and poverty.
And once you're in poverty, your DNA changes and it means you're condemned to it so forth.
What happens to people who in 2008 and 2009 were in the middle class and hoping for an upward arc, their economic lives.
And after six years of the Obama administration, they have fallen below the poverty line.
What about middle class people who end up in poverty because of Obama policies?
What about their DNA?
I mean, they haven't been poor.
They were not in poverty until Obama came along.
So does their DNA change once they end up in poverty?
And by the way, did a little research on this.
Find this fascinating, as do I. This researcher from Stanford got in gear.
There actually is a scientific and historical term for the claim that environment can cause inheritable changes in DNA in a single generation.
The name for this, the historical term is lysynchoism.
Capital L, Lysynchoism.
Lysynco was a guy.
He was Joseph Stalin's house biologist.
He was a freaking communist.
And he's the guy that came up with the idea that environment can cause inheritable changes in DNA in a single generation.
Lysynko.
And it has a term lysynchoism.
Now the obvious appeal to progressives is thus understandable.
A former communist biologist comes up with this.
This makes it all perfectly clear.
Let me grip to the phones here because if I don't get started on the phones, it's going to be a while because really I haven't even gotten to 10% of what I had planned here yet today.
Jane in South Lake, Texas, I'm glad you called.
It's great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Hi, Ross.
Thanks for taking my call.
You bet.
I was listening to you talking about the continued violence in Baltimore, and it just struck me that if Mrs. Obama had already tweeted something along the lines of hashtag stop the violence, hashtag stop the killing, this would all have ended.
Well, you mean like it worked in Nigeria?
Exactly.
For the Boko Haram.
Because they clearly have brought the girls back.
Uh, clearly they haven't.
Uh none of the girls not back, more of them have been kidnapped and more of them have died.
No, that it's a great thought out there, Jane, but the hashtag wasn't needed.
They didn't need the hashtag.
The situation in Baltimore's fixed.
All these shootings, you're not supposed to hear about them.
The situation in Baltimore's fixed now.
There have been charges brought against the cops.
Marilyn Mosby's in charge running the show.
There's going to be a trial.
The cops have been told to restrain and withdraw.
Prince went in there and did a concert.
And uh that's it.
Problem solved.
And the evidence of the problem having been solved is that you haven't heard, except on this program, of the between 25 and 50 shootings since the riots.
Not one of them committed by a cop.
The way the left works, everything's image, everything's showbiz, everything's PR, everything's buzz.
They solved that problem.
A Michelle Obama hashtag was necessary.
She was free to go to the museum and rip it.
Hi, I'm at this wonderful museum.
And all I can think about is even though I'm African American and I'm first lady.
All I can think about how is all the African Americans that live a block or a mile from here would not be welcome.
I haven't stopped to ask why am I welcome?
If all the African American children within a mile of this museum are not welcome here and would never think about coming here, then what am I doing here?
I'm African American and I'm the first lady.
How did I end up here?
Why do I want to come here?
Maybe I don't want to come here.
They asked me to come here, but I think this is not a place for me, so I'm going to come here while standing here and tell people it's not a place for me.
Well, that's the logical progression for me.
To the people at Comedy Central, that is piling on.
That's making fun of.
That's joking around.
That's being disrespectful.
Lysynchoism, by the way, if you look it up, I'm sure let me spell it for you, because I know a number of you want to research these things on your s on your own.
L-Y, S-E-N-K-O, Lycinko.
Lysynchoism is also synonymous with scientific fraud.
Well, how could it not be?
It traces back to communism.
It traces back to a mass murderer, Joseph Stalin.
So if you want to look it up on your own, you will see that.
Quick time out, my friends, but much more as there always is in just a few minutes.
Don't go anywhere.
It turns out that lysynchoism is also defined as the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objective.
Like global warming.
Lysynchoism is the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process, which is exactly what the Libs are doing, claiming that DNA becomes poverty is converted to your DNA, and it becomes part of your...
Gina, it's absurd.
By the way, we've got new information on the train derailment, the Amtrak train.
It turns out that the train was speeding.
The train was going too fast for the turn.
Uh-oh.
This means human error is a real possibility, and it may not be the fault of the infrastructure.
So we've got to get out in front of this.
Train was speeding.
Engineer not saying anything.
Somebody at the regime is going to get to him and fix it so that he will not admit speeding because this has got to be the infrastructure.
They've got a brand new crisis here.
And to prove it, here's Josh Earnest at the White House Press Secretary.
A reporter said, Are there any conversations going on between the White House and Capitol Hill about Amtrak funding.
Is that not automatic?
Is that not actually...
Here we have a train derailment, and before anybody knows why or what's the cause, we immediately need more money.
And why do we need more money?
Because the Republicans have been stingy.
The Republicans have underfunded it.
Just like they've underfunded the war on poverty and underfunded everything else, the Republicans don't care about people on trains.
Do not laugh.
That is the narrative.
That's the template.
Here's Josh Ernest.
Well, we've been very clear about what we believe is the appropriate level of funding for uh Amtrak in the president's budget is um I think what's nearly a billion dollar increase in funding for Amtrak.
Republicans, unfortunately, are currently considering legislation uh at the committee level that would actually cut funding from Amtrak's budget by, I believe a quarter of a billion dollars a year.
You see how this works?
It's so convenient.
We have a train derailment, and at that very moment the Republicans are holding committee hearings on reducing Amtrak funding.
And Obama, meanwhile, at the same moment is trying to get a billion dollars more for Amtrak.
And for infrastructure, what a great guy Obama is.
Oh man, is this guy a best president we've ever had or what?
And are those Republicans a bunch of mean spirited butts?
Those creeps, we just hate them.
They don't care about people.
All they care about is their rich friends and themselves, and this is the way it goes.
And in fact, it's probably human error and speeding, which and never mind, we don't have, we don't have a billion dollars to increase Amtrak spending.
In case anybody's noted, we are $18 trillion in debt.
We don't have any money.
Practically everything we spend is money we don't have anymore.
But it doesn't seem to matter to anyone.
Barack Obama, yesterday at the Georgetown University poverty conference.
President Obama suggested that people of faith should focus more on helping the poor instead of focusing on divisive issues like gay marriage and abortion.
During a panel discussion on poverty at Georgetown University, Obama specifically referred to his own Christian faith.
He said, I think it would be powerful for our faith-based organizations to speak out on this in a more forceful fashion.
He admitted that his wish might sound self-interested because he had disagreements with Christian and Catholic organizations about gay marriage and abortion.
He argued that churches should spend more time pursuing powerful ideas, such as helping those in poverty in order to attract more followers rather than getting all tied up in gay marriage and abortion.
Now wait a minute, isn't abortion the foremost sacrament in the church of liberalism?
Gay marriage running a close second here?
How can Obama want to give up such core tenets?
Could it be because he believes the abortionists and the gays have won now and he can move on?
Time to get back to basics, i.e., income redistribution.
So the churches are not doing enough to help people in poverty.
This is his message.
The churches are sidelined now.
And by the way, when he says abortion and gay marriage, he means opposing it.
They need to stop opposing it.
These churches are wasting time opposing gay marriage.
It's going to happen, it has happened, it's the fate accompli.
And just stop opposing abortion.
People want it.
It's the law of the land.
You're wasting time, you're wasting money opposing abortion.
Meanwhile, the poor are getting poorer and they're staying poor.
And note that it's none of his fault.
Nothing to do with his policies.
Oh no!
This is the fault of religion.
Churches, religion, religious people so selfish, so preoccupied with discriminating against people, that they have wantonly allowed more and more people to become poor.
And enslaved in poverty.
That's what he said.
That is what he meant.
At the event, focused on overcoming poverty at Georgetown.
President Obama took a shot at Fox News for propagating the narrative that the poor are sponges, leeches, don't want to work, are lazy, are undeserving.
We're gonna have to change how the media reports on these issues, the president said.
Or at least we're going to have to change the one media outlet that doesn't report things the way Obama wants them reported.
So here we have the biggest class warrior to ever occupy the White House, and that's saying something.
But it's true.
We have the biggest enemy of achievement, the biggest enemy of liberty and freedom, the biggest enemy of independent economic achievement and advancement, ever to occupy the White House, now claiming that a cable news network with an audience topping out at four million.
And I don't mean that as an insult.
I just want everything to be in perspective here.
Fox News is far and away, number one.
But the daily audience for Fox at its peak is around four million.
That's huge in their niche.
Do not misunderstand me here.
But Obama wants to blame a cable news network that reaches four million people for all of the poverty and all the discrimination?
It's Fox News that makes fun of the poor and criticizes the poor by calling them sponges and leeches, people that don't want to work, lazy, undeserving.
I can assure you that is not what is said at Fox News for crying out loud.
I want somebody to produce somebody who has used those words.
In a news story, in a Fox News reported story.
I don't know what analysts have said, but even at that, people don't talk that way anymore.
This is something Obama remembers having heard or in his biased preconditioned mind.
This is what he thinks people think of the poor.
But people don't talk about the poor that way anymore, and they haven't in this country for a long time.
Not at the level of cable news.
Sponges, leeches, don't want to work, lazy, undeserving.
We could turn that around, by the way, if you wanted to.
The poor are not sponges, they're not leeches.
They do want to work, they're not lazy, and they are deserving.
Okay, of what?
I mean, what what's standing in their way?
See, Obama wants you to be Fox News is standing in their way.
He's president of the United States.
He's got a checkbook.
If he wants to, he can spend a billion dollars on Amtrak.
If he wants to, he can ignore the Constitution and flood the country with unskilled, uneducated, poverty stricken people who are going to stay in poverty once they get here by design, so they will constantly vote the Democrat Party.
Obama has 25 gazillion times the power Fox News has, or any radio talk show has.
If Barack Obama wanted to, he could write everybody in poverty a check for a thousand dollars instead of spending it on Amtrak or whatever.
But somehow, the limbaugh theorem comes into play once again, and Obama is an innocent bystander.
While more and more people get sucked into poverty, he's out there doing everything he can to stop it.
He's out there making sure that the powerful forces of greed who want people to be sponges and leeches and undeserving continue somehow to relegate them to poverty.
I don't know how it's happening, but the Koch brothers are making sure people are poor and they're making sure they're steered to poor poverty and they stay there.
Meanwhile, Obama, the president of the United States, with a checkbook that nobody will stop him from using, is powerless to do anything about it.
So powerless he had to convene a conference at Georgetown University to sit around and whine and moan with a bunch of other liberals about the plight of the poor, all the while exempting himself from any role, any responsibility when virtually every economic circumstance in this country today is attributable to Obama policies.
Do you know that the Obama Health Care Exchange in Hawaii is about to implode?
The health website, healthcare.gov in Hawaii is about to implode and go out of business.
It was given 205, I don't know, million dollars, billion, I forget what it is.
Whatever it was given a huge amount of money, it's gone.
They haven't registered anybody, there are no sign-ups.
It's an absolute total disaster.
And of course, it's all the fault of the rich.
Somehow.
So here's the most powerful man in the world sitting around complaining and whining with a bunch of other impotent liberals, winging their hands and so upset and crying about the poor, and it's all the fault of Fox News.
And then he said we're going to have to change how the media reports on these issues.
Really?
Well, how does he propose that?
How do you change the way the media reports on things?
Do you command them to report a certain way?
Or do you call members of Fox News executive team to the Oval Office and try to persuade them that they're wrong to see it Your way.
Well, how do you make a news network stop reporting the news the way they are and start reporting the news the way you want it to be if you are president of the United States.
So we've got the biggest class warrior ever to occupy the White House, claiming a cable news network with an audience of four million people is stoking class warfare.
Fox News doesn't have to tell anybody how hard it is out there.
Fox News doesn't need to tell most people what it's like to struggle in the Obama economy.
You know why?
Because they're living it.
Most of the people in this country struggling in the Obama economy don't need anybody telling them.
They know full well what's happening.
And their problems have nothing to do with budget cuts because there haven't been any budget cuts.
The problems are entirely traceable to Barack Obama policies.
Every single one of which is geared toward taking things away from people who work for a living and giving to the people who don't.
The people who don't work for a living, however, do one thing that's crucial.
They vote.
That's what the money is for.
An excellent role model for the youth of America, Rush Limbaugh, behind a golden EIB microphone.
We go to Vancouver, Washington.
Bob, I'm glad you called.
It's nice to have you here.
Hello.
Thanks, Russ.
It's nice talking to you.
Thank you, sir.
Um I'm just curious.
Um in uh the 1990s, uh Clinton was pushing the NAFTA trade agreement and he got pushed back from the Democrats.
Now we have a Barack Obama, who's also a Democrat, as we all know, and he's pushing uh Pacific trade deal.
And I'm just wondering why or why is it, and if uh Barack Obama were in the Senate, I suspect he'd be opposing it too.
So why is it when they be when do Democrats become president they uh want to push some kind of trade deal?
Well, there's more to that, or more to this than that.
This is not just about Obama would oppose it if he were a senator.
Actually, we don't know that.
And the real problem here is, and I I I don't even I don't understand how this bill has gotten anywhere as far as it has.
Nobody's allowed to read this, folks.
You have to make an appointment to read it downstairs in the Capitol.
You cannot, well, you can take notes, but you can't take your notes out.
You cannot tell anybody what's in it.
Jeff Sessions is uh getting as close as anybody to divulging the contents of this thing.
This is the most outrageous piece.
It's being conducted the same way Obama's doing the Iranian nuke deal.
No details permitted.
And people are asking, you know, you've uh you raise a valid point that the liberal Democrats in the Senate hate this thing and despise it, and the news stories are the Republicans are trying to save it, which just adds to the confusion here.
A question about why Obama supports it.
It's it's a little bit more than a wild guess.
We we know some of the reason why, and that is in parts of this trade deal, is uh parts of it are a huge payback to Hollywood and Wall Street donors.
In the in the case of the Hollywood donors, the trade deal includes of some intellectual property uh protections and exclusivity,
which content creators and artists, writers and so forth, directors, producers are profoundly interested in and have given Obama a lot of money in order to accomplish.
The Wall Street people those people have a vested interest.
They have donated gazillions of dollars to Obama on the basis of open trade barriers and uh favored tax policy.
But w we don't really know much about what's in this.
I I uh I tried finding out details of this.
You know where I had to go?
But the only place that you can go right now is uh is WikiLeaks, where they have leaked elements of it.
And you might some people have posted some things at Wikipedia, and I frankly don't trust Wikipedia, because anybody can put anything on Wikipedia that they want.
So you have to be very careful here.
I think the best evidence that this is something you ought to be against is precisely who's for it.
And that's that is Obama.
And the Liberal Democrats, that the opposition here is, particularly the Elizabeth Warren opposition, is its own little political dynamic, too, which requires explanation, and I have it.
By no means are we through with analyzing Obama's speech at Georgetown yesterday.
He also said that wealthy Americans are society's lottery winners.
Just like Dick Gephard once said way back a long time ago.
Then he also complained about all of you people that send your kids to private schools and go to private clubs.
And he's going to change that.
▲
Export Selection