All Episodes
Previous Next
June 2, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:56
June 2, 2015, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, I am still, folks, I'm hell-bent here.
I got so much to do in our remaining busy broadcast hour, so we're going to get right straight to it.
Great to have you.
800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program.
And the email address, LRushbo at EIBNet.com.
First off, a first, a CNN poll.
More people now blame Obama's policies for the current problems in Iraq than blame George W. Bush.
Just hot off the presses.
CNN poll.
I don't have anything other than the numbers here.
I have no, I don't know if it's CNN orc, CNN Whale, CNN Shark.
I have no idea who did the poll other than CNN.
I don't know who their co-pulster conspirators are, but more people now blame Obama's policies for the current mess in Iraq than blame Bush's policies.
And this comes on the heel of Obama saying that he's done more to put the image of the U.S. back together again and make us loved and respected and adored than at any time in recent memory.
Freaking crock.
Okay, telephone numbers 800-282.
2882 if you want to be on the program.
Folks, do you remember over the course of many years in the past, my expressing grave concern to you over the rise in popularity of social media?
And not because it's a competitor here.
I don't even look at it as that.
My concern has been for the impact on our culture, the impact in our country.
And I know many of you are going to remember this.
Some of you who have forgotten it will remember it when I mention it to you.
The biggest problem or fear that I had associated with social media was what I saw as this overwhelming quest for fame on the part of people.
And it was leading them to do things, to say things, to engage in things for the express purpose of getting noticed because they so desperately wanted fame.
And it is directly proportionate to the rise in entertainment media.
Entertainment media is known for something that's, I think, unique in all other media.
Well, maybe sports media has the same thing.
And that is that everybody covered is idolized.
Everybody reported on is idolized.
Actors, actresses, TV stars, musical artists, and in the sports world, the athletes.
There are exceptions, of course, if they discover an athlete's a Republican or conservative or Ray Rice type thing.
But for the most part, in sports and entertainment media, it's total lionization and idolatry.
And in the mainstream media, it is too for most Democrats, but not always because the mainstream media is also filled with a bunch of things the entertainment media is not.
Now, you may not wholeheartedly agree, but the mainstream media is as critical of Republicans as it is praising of Democrats.
So in the mainstream media, you see criticism.
You see hard-hitting questions.
You see disrespect shown to largely successful people, by the way, conservatives.
Pick your conservative, pick your Republican.
They're destroyed.
The attempt is made to destroy them.
In the entertainment media, it doesn't happen.
You could be the biggest reprobate in the world, and you will be celebrated and lionized and put on a pedestal.
And my contention has been that people in social media have been watching all this entertainment stuff from Entertainment Tonight to e-Entertainment Network.
You know, some people are able to watch it and keep it separate, but a lot of people watch it and want to be part of it.
And they see the lifestyles portrayed by these shows.
Oh, wow, man, I want to do that.
So cool.
Because to them, it's all red carpets.
It's all parties.
And if they're guys, it's all parties with models.
I mean, if you ask them what they think of Leonardo DiCaprio, I guarantee you the last thing they're going to think of, hard work.
They're not, when they think Leonardo DiCaprio or when they think, take your pick, they're not going to think work.
They're not going to think study.
They're going to think party.
And so social media has provided this opportunity for people to try to become famous.
Then reality TV came along and started plucking some of these poor souls from what is a well-deserved obscurity and making them famous.
And then they get torn down and ripped to shreds.
And you know who I'm talking about.
These poor schlubs that end up on these TV shows, a family with 19 kids, or the Octomom, or all this stuff, to me, it has been coarsening and destructive to our entire culture.
And I think that's where all of this Caitlin Jenner stuff is.
I don't think that you can take the celebrity component out of this in terms of why it's news and in terms of why it's promoted and accepted and all that.
And I know there are many factors involved here, but there is something falling by the wayside while all of this is happening.
And let me see if I can find it.
I've got a that little piece that I shared with you from a blog earlier today.
Let me read this to you again.
Because by the way, this goes to exactly what I was saying before the break at the top of the hour, that this quest to redefine normalcy has another component to it, which is to redefine the new weirdos.
And that's us, folks.
Conservatives and Republicans are the new weirdos, the new kooks.
And that is part of the political objective here in normalizing all of this really marginal behavior.
I mean, if less than 1% of the population is engaging in it, it's marginalized behavior.
It isn't normal, no matter how you define it.
But the quest to make it normal contains with it the objective to make the people who might disapprove of it or the people that don't do it weirdos and kooks.
And that's where the Republican branding problem resides, because the objective here has been to portray the old norms and the practitioners of the old norms as the dead beats, the dry balls, the sticks in the mud, or worse, the racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes.
But they're the weirdos.
And all of this other behavior, however you want to describe it, is celebrated now as a new norm, and we need to have a conversation about it.
And the reason we need to have a conversation is to rip and criticize the arbiters of the old norms, which happens to be religion, Christianity, conservatism, Republicanism, you name it.
Do not doubt me on this.
And if I'm going by too fast, please go back to my website later today and reread this and study it and understand it because it's exactly what's going on.
I quoted to you earlier a couple of short passages from a blog.
I didn't identify the blog, but I told you it's a conservative Republican blog.
I'm going to quote it again because it proves the point that I just made to you.
With the momentum from this announcement and affiliation, Caitlin Jenner inadvertently gave the Republican Party something it really, really desperately needs.
Street cred.
Simply put, an understanding sense of humanity.
So here we have a conservative blog celebrating the fact because Caitlin Jenner has identified as a Republican.
This is great news for us because this is going to show people that we're human and that we've got credibility.
And look at here, you have a transgender who feels totally at home in the Republican Party.
And this is written about here as a big plus for us.
Why is this a big plus?
It's a big plus because whoever wrote this is of the belief that all the criticism of us, racist, sexist, bigot, homophobia, oddball, weird ball, is true.
Or at least it's thought to be true.
So something like this, which is grasping at a straw, if you ask me, but something like this is, ah, now this, this is a great opportunity for us.
And then the next line is this.
If the Republican Party overall was to warm up to these differences, i.e. embrace all of this, gay marriage, homosexuality, gay rights, transgenderism, and wait till you hear what transable is.
If we were to just, if we'd warm up to all these and then use them as a broader tool to crush problems and not people.
So the assumption here from a conservative blog is that the conservative movement, the Republican Party, crushes people.
How do we do that?
Well, we obviously discriminate.
And this is, remember now, this is not a left-wing blog writing this.
This is a conservative blog writing this, thinking this is all a great thing because it'll allow us to show that we're not mean-spirited, or we have a chance to prove it to people.
Well, once again, we're left with having to prove a damn negative, which you can't do.
And here you have somebody accepting the premise that the left has postulated that we are racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes.
It's just absolute nonsense.
But that's where we are.
No doubt this person's young writing this.
And the last line of this little passage is: use them as a broader tool to crush people or crush problems, not people.
Problems that really matter, like insurmountable national and student debt, ever-increasing national security threats, and domestic encroachments on constitutional liberty, Democrats would not stand a chance.
So the theory here is: if we just embrace people like Caitlin Jenner and gay rights and gay marriage, if we just embrace that, we can wipe the Democrats out because then we can get people's attention and focus them on the real problems, debt, student loan, national debt, taxes spending, and all that.
Well, the blog was hot air.
For those of you who want to know, I'm not going to mention the name.
I didn't print the name because I didn't want to get into the name.
I don't want to make it about names.
And mere moments ago, Ed Morrissey, who is, I think, management/slash ownership, sent me his latest post, and he sent it to a lot of people.
And he said, I respectfully dissent from my colleagues.
Well, I didn't know what he meant.
So I read it during the top of the hour break.
It goes into this business of a Canada National Post story today about trans-abled.
And when he heard about it, he thought, this is the onion.
He thought this is satire, somebody making a joke about it.
And it's not.
And I'll get to that here in just a second.
I want to get to his analysis because it is so close to mine.
He says, we are celebrating the end of natural and objective truth.
And we are turning dysfunction into virtue on the basis of celebrity.
And not only that, but many people suffer from disability without much choice in the matter.
My wife, for one, who lost her eyesight at 24 from diabetic retinopathy.
This turns their challenges into sport or status symbols in a very odd manner, and mainstreaming is not healthy.
And I think he's exactly right.
What is the natural loss here is truth, objective truth.
And we're turning dysfunction into virtue.
But it's the celebrity component that provides the basis for it.
The celebrity component which makes it acceptable.
The celebrity component, which not only acceptable, but even admirable.
Because celebrities are the closest thing we've got to royalty in our country.
Oh, if they do it, it's got to be cool.
And with so many young people wanting to be just like them, it's a self-feeding destruction.
Now, what is transabled?
Get ready for this.
From the Canada National Post, when he cut off his right arm with a very sharp power tool, a man who now calls himself one-hand Jason let everybody believe it was an accident.
But he had for months tried different ways of cutting and crushing the limb that never quite felt like his own, training himself on first aid so he wouldn't bleed to death, even practicing on animal parts sourced from a butcher.
He said, my goal was to get the job done with no hope of reconstruction or reattachment, and I wanted some method that I could actually bring myself to do.
His goal was to become disabled.
People like Jason have been classified as transabled, feeling like impostors in their bodies, their arms and legs in full working order, everything fine, but I don't feel like I should have a left arm.
This is what Morrissey read and thought it was a parody.
Morrissey says, you know, the last thing I'm going to do is comment on this as though it's true.
If I'm not going to be embarrassed, if somebody's making a big joke here in the midst of all this, I'm going to find out.
He researched it.
It's not a joke.
Transabled are people who are just fine physically and they're perfectly healthy, but they feel disabled and they feel like their left arm, their right arm is unnatural and shouldn't have been there and they shouldn't have been born with it and they want to get rid of it.
And none of this is made up.
Snirdley is looking at me like he still doesn't believe this.
We define, well, people like Jason have been classified as transabled, feeling like imposters in their bodies, their arms and legs in full working order.
Alexander Barrow, a Quebec-born academic who is going to present on transability at this week's Congress of the Social Sciences and Humanities at the University of Ottawa.
So this is a whole academic presentation.
And the guy doing the presentation says, we define transability as the desire or the need for a person identified as able-bodied by other people to transform his or her body to obtain a physical impairment.
The person could want to become deaf.
The person could want to become blind.
The person could want to become an amputee or a paraplegic.
It's a really, really strong desire.
Researchers in Canada are trying to better understand how transabled people think and feel.
Well, folks, does anybody want to seriously make the case that this is normal?
Obviously, these people need serious help, but they're not going to get it.
What's going to happen is, well, we must respect their feelings.
They're human beings.
And if they don't think they should have a left arm, then we'll facilitate them losing their left arm.
That's what this presenter is going to do.
Most of the transabled are men.
About half are in Germany and Switzerland, but the doctor here knows of a few in Canada.
Most crave an amputation or paralysis, though he has interviewed one person who wants his penis removed.
Another wants to be blind, transabled.
And we must not judge, you see.
We must not judge.
And so they, and we must not condemn.
But these people need prayer and help.
They don't need assistance in what they want to do.
Where do you draw the line here?
There has to be a limit on this.
What if I decide I want to X?
At some point, somebody's going to stand up and say, we're dealing with people who need some serious help here.
This is not something we need to be celebrating.
We certainly don't need to be promoting it.
We don't need to be encouraging it.
It's not good for them.
And we are guilty ourselves if we help them engage in all of this behavior that's going to hurt them or harm them.
I think this has long gotten out of control, folks.
From the compassion side of things, this is just all of this so-called tolerance.
And I'm telling you to understand it because it logically makes no sense.
But if you put it in the political context and arena where it lives, you will find the motivation for it.
And even spelling it out, making it as crystal clear as I have, I know some people still are not going to believe it or accept it, meaning this is ultimately a political agenda aimed at us.
But it is.
And this is not the first one.
We've been in this war for years now, and this war is successful.
We are in the process.
Whenever you hear the whole subject of the Republican branding problem, it's exactly what we're talking about.
We're letting the left choose our candidates.
We're letting the left define who we are, both as a party and attitudinally.
Make no mistake about it.
It is happening out there.
And every one of these people, now the disabled, the transgendered, they become tools.
And further, the left gets to pretend they care about individuals when all they're doing is taking these sad cases of confused people and encouraging a total socialist collectivist government.
Okay, folks, a quick pregunta.
Little Spanish lingo there for question.
What if a woman said that she wanted to marry a dolphin?
She wanted to engage in sexual relations with a dolphin, with the flying finger of fate.
And what would you say?
No, no, serious, serious question.
For those of you in the audience, what would you say?
Because our society today has said, well, we must understand her desires.
Nothing is to be condemned if that's what she wants, if that's how she feels.
Hey, we've redefined marriage now.
So if I've wanted to always, you know, have two women in my bed every night, who's to condemn it?
As long as we love each other and it's nobody's business who I love.
What is your reaction?
If we're going to allow all of these norms to be evaporated and blown smithereens, at what point, kind of like the minimum wage, at what point do you say, okay, no, no, we don't need to raise it that much?
At what point do our society say, no, no, no, wait a minute, not really going to go that far?
Because we haven't gotten there with this transable business.
We've got people actually thinking of enabling this.
Somebody wants to go blind, we're going to facilitate it.
Some academician in Canada thinks we need to help these people.
If they want to miss their left arm, they feel like they shouldn't have it.
They just feel abnormal.
That left arm doesn't feel like theirs.
that some of the idiots want to get rid of it?
We don't have, this is, at what point do we reach the end of tolerance?
So a woman comes along and says, you know, I really want to have sex with dolphins.
Well, it's happened.
It happened more than once, but it happened in the UK.
And I don't remember the exact year, but we talked about it on this program and we had a lot of fun with it.
In fact, it was in the 90s sometime.
The woman was dead serious.
And she was thought to be ill.
At the time it happened, there wasn't, it wasn't that long ago, but there wasn't anybody who wanted to make it happen for her.
There wasn't anybody around to facilitate it.
There wasn't anybody around to promote it.
Nobody said, we need to have a conversation about this.
How many stories?
Remember the stories they had about this twisted mind that was having sex with horses out in Oregon?
It wasn't my point.
It wasn't that long ago that we were condemning this stuff and deciding that the people expressing these desires needed help.
Now look at the direction we're going here.
I'm just trying to point all this out.
Here's Craig in St. Louis.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Great to have you on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi.
Hey, Rush.
Wow.
Great to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you very much.
The main reason I'm calling is it just feels to me like everything the liberals keep throwing out war on women, war on women, because the reality is there's a war on type A males everywhere.
Ferguson, they're coddled to death.
Type A males, the police, they're shackled, basically.
Well, that was a really lousy choice of words, but military, American sniper, when that comes out, it's trash.
Why?
Type A male.
Right.
I hear it.
Everything about it.
Everything.
I hear you.
It's kind of old.
Here, let me give you an example.
You will not believe this.
This is real, too.
This is in the New York Times.
Craig, let me ask you a question.
Are you sitting down?
Yes.
Okay.
How are you sitting?
On my butt.
Yeah, but like, are you sitting like a man sits?
Or are your legs crossed like women sit?
I'm sitting like a man sits.
Okay, well, you could be thrown off the New York subway.
Man spreading is right.
Bad news, men with poor sense of boundaries.
The NYPD, this is from the UK Telegraph.
The NYPD has had enough of the way you sit in public transit.
After op-eds in the New York Times and a popular crowd shaming Tumblr campaign and a series of public service ads from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, manspreading or sitting with your legs too far apart has become a criminal offense.
According to a recent report, from the Police Reform Organizing Project, at least two men have been arrested and charged on grounds of the manspreading word, quote, presumably because they were taking up more than one seat and therefore inconveniencing other writers.
Rather than simply throwing out the charges, the judge issued an order that only guarantees the men will not suffer further repercussions if they avoid getting arrested again.
It's all part of a numbers-driven crackdown on subway behavior that's also seen arrests for breakdancing, walking between the cars, and collective air punch, people putting their feet on the seats.
Nobody's been arrested for playing dubstep on audio, leaking headphones yet, but it's surely only a matter of time.
This is the man sitting like men sit.
It's got a name.
It's called man spreading.
Yeah, I know, I've heard of this.
Manspreading, and it's now a crime.
You know, talk about war on men.
Who do you think is behind this?
Did you hear what Huckabee said?
Huckabee said, I just saw this.
Speaking about transgendered people, it was earlier this year at the National Religious Broadcasters Convention in Nashville.
He said he wished he could have said that he was transgendered in high school so he could shower with the girls too.
And his point is that there's a lot of people out there just making it up.
They're not really transgendered.
They just want entree to women.
And what better way than to say you are one?
That you're an oppressed woman, that you're a woman trapped in a man's body.
Well, hello, unisex bathrooms.
Look at what we are stretching to accommodate what is clearly way out of the mainstream kind of behavior.
And then along comes Christine Brison.
We need to have a conversation about that.
Which I've already told you what that means.
Don't need to repeat it.
Try this.
UK Daily Mail.
Headline, lesbian Virginia Tech student killed her lover after flying into a rage because she wore sweats to their whipped cream and wine date.
Not making this up either.
A former Virginia Tech student has been sentenced to 45 years in prison for the 2014 murder of another female student who she brutally strangled after the victim wrote that their lesbian fling was no big deal.
It was just an experiment.
Jessica Michelle Ewing, 24, gave detailed testimony at her sentencing hearing on Monday of the evening leading up to the murder of 21-year-old biology student Samantha Shrestha.
Ewing started the night with high hopes, wearing a dress, bringing along wine and whipped cream, a combination I'm not totally familiar with myself, but don't want to be judgmental here.
Brian, you ever heard of wine and whipped cream?
Dawn, you're into the kinky.
Have you heard of her wine and whipped cream?
Snirdly is a vegan, so he wouldn't know.
Ewing, well, me too, with whipped cream, lots of other things, but not wine.
Silk and swirl, for example, with a cherry stem.
Now, that is an art.
But anyway, Ewing started the night.
This is Jessica Michelle Ewing, the murderess.
Ewing started the night with high hopes.
She wore a dress.
She brought wine and whipped cream while her lesbian buddy wore sweats and a t-shirt.
It wasn't my intent to kill Jessica Michelle Ewing cried on the witness stand in Christenburg, Virginia on Monday as she described the night that ended in the strangling death of Samantha Shrestha.
This happened in 2014.
She told the court that she was disappointed, but that eventually Shretha put on a dress of her own and the two downed a bottle of wine after having a whipped cream fight and building a fort out of blankets, reports of the Roanoke Times.
But the mood soon soured after Ewing called Shrestha a spoiled B.I. itch, at which point Shretha shot back that they were just experimenting with this lesbian thing.
She was just toying with Jessica Ewing.
But Jessica Ewing wasn't toying or experimenting.
She says, I loved Samantha.
I couldn't believe she would say that I was some experiment to her.
It hit me where I was hurt most.
And so Ewing hit back.
Her cause of death would later be deemed as strangulation, though blunt force injuries would also be discovered on the head and body.
I made the most horrible decision to cover it all up, to hide it, Ewing said.
I wish I just called 911, but at that point, it was just too late.
Shretsta's Shrestha's, it's really a weird name, S-H-R-E-S-T-H-A, Shreth's Shrestha.
Their body was discovered stuffed in a sleeping bag in the back seat of her abandoned Mercedes in February of 2014.
The judge sentenced Ewing to 80 years for first-degree murder and five years for transporting and doing weird things with whipped cream.
Now, who's to say this is wrong?
I mean, there's a big insult here.
A lesbian was insulted.
The lesbian thought it was real, but her partner said, I'm just toying with you.
I'm just experimenting.
Well, that's humiliating.
That's degrading.
That's using food.
I mean, it's understandable somebody'd be totally outraged over that.
And who's to say that's wrong?
Who's to say anything's wrong, folks?
Come on, we must be enlightened here.
Brian, have you heard anything more from FedEx?
Oh, it's in Memphis.
Finally got out of Burbank.
Well, how timely.
So it may yet be delivered.
Blue Cross wants 26% more for individual Obamacare policies.
Blue Cross Blue Shield officials say they plan to increase insurance rates for people under 65 who are enrolled in Obamacare.
And that's just one.
Another story, health insurers seek big premium hikes for Obamacare plans in 2016 because there aren't enough sign-ups, folks.
The groups aren't big enough to get the prices.
The prices weren't going to come down anyway.
Nobody's premium was ever going to be cut by $2,500 like Obama lied.
And quite the contrary, now everything is going up.
And you know, they're going to be people shocked because there are a lot of people that bought everything Obama promised about this.
Cheaper coverage, easier access to treatment.
You wait.
It's going to blow up.
Time next year comes around.
Here's Tina in New Orleans.
Great to have you on the program.
Tina, hello.
Hey, Rog.
I wanted to get right to the point.
I am the mom of three millennials, and my son, middle son, went for an interview with an aide to a politician, and he said, he told the aide, you know, forget the American dream anymore.
It's more like the American fantasy to graduate and get a job in something you want to be in and be paid for it.
Wait, wait, wait.
The politician told your son this?
No, my son told the aide of the politician.
Oh, your son, the millennial, told the politician.
Oh, the aide of the politician.
And he agreed with him.
He was the chief of staff, but now, wait.
Does your son believe it or was he just being provocative?
No, he believes it.
His son believes, and he's a millennial, thinks America's best days are behind us, obviously.
No, no, no.
No, he blames the economy, some of the politicians, and possibly Barack, but not exclusively.
No, he does not.
He just thinks it's a fantasy, not a dream anymore, to get the job you want and be paid for it, you know.
Right.
And you graduate.
Right.
So he thinks the country's best days are behind us.
He thinks there's no more American dreams, the American fantasy.
And your point is that the guy he was interviewing with, a politician's aide, agreed with him.
Exactly.
And so what does that tell you?
Well, I don't have time for you to tell me what I think I know anyway because that's the point of your call, but I'm simply out of time.
Well, if elected officials are confirming American Dream's over, what the hell?
Look at his headline here in the New York Post.
The feminist revolution is eating its own.
Naomi Schaefer-Riley.
Feminist revolution eating its own.
That sounds nasty, doesn't it?
▲
Export Selection