You want to hear some quotes from this politico magazine story, are gay marriages healthier than straight marriages?
I mean, what the hell, folks?
We've lost the issue here.
I mean, we may as well just have fun with this.
What else is there to do here?
Okay, so here you go.
For one peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Homosexuality, John Gottman.
And again, just to remind you, John and his wife Julie, John and Julie Gottman, two heteros, have done, they have become the experts in relationships.
It says here, the world's leading experts on what makes relationships work.
Psychologist John and Julie Gottman, they're hetero.
How the hell do they know anything?
Wouldn't they have to be a gay relationship in order to be experts here?
Anyway, I don't want to confuse everybody.
But here we go.
And again, it's Politico magazine, just from June 26th.
It's worth keeping in mind the findings of psychologists John and Julie Gottman, arguably the world's leading experts on what makes relationships work.
For one peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Homosexuality, you have your subscription yet.
Gottman and his colleague Robert Levinson of the University of Washington brought straight and gay couples into Gottman's lab, and they interviewed each couple separately about an issue they thought about.
Gottman has performed some version of this study many times.
He's found that couples often bring up topics like uneven division of chores, money problems, and sex.
Usually, one person wants to have more, and the other person doesn't.
Now, in his study, the gay and straight couples brought up the same sort of problems, but gay couples were, by a big statistically margin, less defensive during fights, and they were more likely to use shared humor to soften the tension of the conversation.
The gay and lesbian couples, Gottman said, were much more open and much more direct, particularly when talking about sex.
Gottman gave me an example of two gay men who were debating who initiates sex more.
The first said to his partner, who do you think initiated sex this morning?
His partner responded saying, you don't have the kind of body on a man that I find most sexually attractive.
To that, his partner said, I know that, but my question is, who do you think initiated sex together this morning?
Now, Gottman says, can you imagine?
No, Julie, his wife, Julie Gottman, then chimed in.
Can you imagine a man saying to his pregnant wife, you don't have the kind of body right now I find most attractive in a woman?
You see, a gay couple, one can say that to the other.
I don't find your body, you don't have the kind of body on a man I find most sexually attractive.
Well, then what are you in the relationship for?
Would be my reaction.
If you got two guys in a relationship and one of them in a fight says, you know what?
You don't have the kind of body on a man I find most sexually attractive.
I was, well, then why are you here?
But the Gottmans say that that is a much healthier fight in a gay relationship because in a hetero relationship, the guy says to his pregnant wife, you don't have the kind of body right now I find most attractive in a woman.
That could end the marriage.
But the gay couple will laugh about it and move on and ultimately have sex.
And everything will be okay.
The directness and lack of defensiveness in gay couples have an added benefit.
It lets the couples actually resolve their conflicts.
John Gottman told me about a lesbian couple he saw in his lab who were having a disagreement about whether one of them was being too flirty with men.
Now, just that sentence.
See, ladies and gentlemen, I read the stitches on the fastball.
I can see the spin on a curveball.
And I read between the lines.
And that sentence, just break this down.
John Gottman told me about a lesbian couple he saw in his lab.
Okay, he's in his lab and there's a lesbian couple in there.
Imagine.
And he saw them.
What the hell is the lesbian couple doing in his lab?
What the hell is his lab?
So he's got a lab.
He's got a lesbian couple in there.
He happened to see them.
Yeah, he told me at a lesbian couple he saw in his lab who were having a disagreement about whether one of them was being too flirty with men.
Why would that matter if both lesbians know that they are lesbians?
Why would flirting with men matter?
What could possibly cause any problems there?
What am I missing?
Help me out in there.
The woman accused of being too flirty worked in a bar and made a lot of money in tips by being flirtatious and dressing provocatively.
Her lesbian partner thought her behavior was threatening and obnoxious.
The flirty partner swore that she was only making herself attractive to men for the money.
Her partner up the ante, though, saying, that's BS.
I think you get off on it.
I get off on dressing provocative and on all these double entendres.
I've watched you flirt and I think you love the attention.
And even this turned out to be a much more healthy fight than would have been had it been a heterosexual couple because they were able to.
Now, that's enough.
I mean, you get the flavor for this.
You get the, well, that may be a bad.
You get the idea here.
Are gay marriages healthier than straight marriages?
And at the same time, folks, there are articles on gay parenting being superior to traditional parenting.
You don't understand what happened?
You mean that's what we talked about yesterday.
One day things were normal.
When was that day?
It seems like just yesterday, right?
Five years ago, 10 years ago.
It's been coming.
I like to think, and no, I'll just be honest.
My perception of this program would be interesting to compare my perception with yours.
Now, I consider this program to have many facets and to have a bunch of different appeals.
People listen to it for a variety of reasons.
But one of the things I have always thought this program would be or was and is a warning, a series of warnings every day about what is happening in the country and where we are headed if people don't do anything.
Now, I have not said that per se.
I have just assumed that the vast majority of people in the audience would understand that that's what I'm doing here, is warning.
So this story to me is not as big a shock as it might be to you, to whom you think miss stuff just happened overnight.
It hasn't been going on overnight.
This has been building.
We have been talking about in one way or another.
You can call it the cultural rot.
You can call it the cultural perversion.
You can call it cultural transformation, cultural change.
But we've been documenting it here every day.
I've been doing this program for 25 plus years.
And where it's headed, what you've thought, somebody is eventually going to stand up and say, stop, this is enough, or it's going to bottom out and the mass of public opinion is going to oppose it.
And that may have happened, but it's not enough to stop it.
Who do you think, how do you think a story like this ends up in the political magazine?
What needs to be in place?
What needs to happen?
Who needs to be there for something like this to get commissioned, to be reported, to be studied, and then to be written and be published?
What has to happen?
What has to happen for the portrayal of homosexuality as it is in film and on TV?
What has to happen for that to happen?
The answers are self-evident, and it has been happening every day.
So I have viewed much of what I did, not just political analysis and not just political advocacy and all those things, but I've also thought that what I do here every day is essentially ring a bell, a warning bell.
Here's what's happening.
And that's what I'm doing today, too.
That's what all this is.
And so when I say there are stories effervescing out there about the superiority of gay parenting and gay childraising, if you've not seen them, I'm sure you're poo-pooing it.
Once again, just remember when I told you what the Sierra Club was going to try to do with your SUV?
Remember how you poo-pooed that?
And all these things, they're happening.
And they are now intricately woven into the fabric of culture and society.
And the majority is losing every battle.
And the majority makes up the majority we're talking about as a 71 to 73% majority.
That's the number of people, the percentage of people in the country who identify as Christian.
The gay population, the total gay population, is less than 2%.
The transgender population is so small, it's hard to measure it.
I mean, it's not even half a 1%.
But yet, take a look at who is dominating and who is transforming, who is changing the culture.
It isn't the 71%, 73% majority.
They are being steamrollered, bullied, however you want to characterize it.
And it's not just in culture.
I think the same thing is happening in politics.
I don't think the size of the majority is quite as large as, say, the Christian majority is.
But there's, folks, this is not even arguable.
The number of people in America who identify and say they're Christian is 71, 73%, depending on the poll you look at.
Now, a lot of people think the gay population is 25 or 30%.
They're wrong, but that has resulted because of the pop culture mainstream culture portrayal.
It just seems that it's much larger than what it actually is.
Now, in the political realm, I think the last I saw was that 37% of people identify as conservative and 25% identify as liberal.
Now, when you get the Democrat-Republican, that shifts a little bit.
But still, the majority of the adult population, not 71%, probably in the 50s, but it's still losing everything.
And because everything that's happening culturally is part of a political agenda, part of the Democrat Party political agenda, all of this gay marriage, healthier than straight marriage, gay child-rearing,
superior to traditional child rearing, that's all being promoted politically by the Democrat Party, which gives it its authority and also contributes to people thinking that it is a sizable big bunch of people or movement.
But it's all politics.
Every bit of it is politics.
And the fact that it's politics and so many people don't want to have anything to do with politics because they hate it is one of the things that enables this to happen so readily is that people ignore it because they don't like politics.
It rubs them wrong.
But everything that's happening here is the result of a political agenda.
It's not, I don't believe this is legitimate societal shift.
I don't believe this is legitimate transformation.
It's the result of a political agenda being implemented and being forced upon the country.
And it's being forced on the country because nobody is standing up and saying stop.
Because when somebody does, what happens to them?
And in the case of illegal immigration and sanctuary cities, we got Trump as an example.
So I mentioned yesterday, here's a guy standing up saying, stop.
What's happening to him?
They're trying to destroy him.
He's big enough that he can withstand the hits, but he still faces the loss of several businesses.
He faces widespread condemnation and ridicule in the media, in social media, and yet he is hanging in.
But he's one person you can name.
Just one.
And he has succeeded.
He has changed the focus of the debate.
For the weeks, the immediate weeks after Trump made his presidential announcement and made his characterization of the people illegally immigrating to the country, he was the sole focus of the debate.
He was the sole Trump, this, Trump, that, Trump rotten, Trump mean, Trump extreme, Trump racist, what have you.
But then the murder took place.
And by the way, it's not a one-off.
This is by no means the first murder in San Francisco.
It's not the first murder of its kind in a sanctuary city.
It's happening frequently.
In fact, I do have a soundbite with Trump making mincemeat of Anderson Cooper last night.
Anderson Cooper is sitting there trying to tell Trump that there's far less crime, Donald, in the immigrant community.
And Trump's, you're crazy.
And we just had the stats yesterday, 47% of all prosecutions, federal prosecutions are happening in five prosecutorial districts on the Mexican border.
There's no question.
I've got stories in the stack here of yet other murders in San Francisco, sanctuary city city murders in regards to illegal immigrants committing the crimes.
And it's the same set of circumstances.
Either the mayor or the police chief or both ignored it, deciding in favor of the illegal immigrant rather than the residents and the families of those who were murdered.
It was just the easiest path to take.
It's not a one-off.
Anyway, I'm up against time here.
Must take a break.
Sit tight.
We'll be back and roll on after this.
Hold.
I want you to hang on.
I'm going to start getting to your calls in the next half hour.
There's one other thing that I want to address here, maybe spend a little bit more time on as the program unfolds.
But what is happening, remember the judge in Texas who suspended Obama's illegal immigrant amnesty?
The judge's name is Hainan, Andrew Hainan.
He's in Brownsville, Texas.
A federal judge, that judge has threatened to hold Homeland Security Secretary Jay Johnson and other top regime officials in contempt of court for not fixing problems that led to work permits being mistakenly awarded under Obama's executive immigration action after the judge had put the plan on hold.
Let me just review what happened.
Obama could not get the Congress to go along with him on executive amnesty.
Obama has said for years to Univision and Jorge Ramos and others, I can't do it.
I'm not the emperor.
I don't have the power.
Then he started doing it anyway.
A case was taken to a court in Texas in Brownsville.
Judge Hainan, Andrew Hainan, stopped it, put a stop to Obama issuing the work permits, which was the same as granting amnesty.
If you get a work permit, you're on the way to getting a green card.
You're on the way to getting citizenship.
The judge stopped it and then told the regime, he gave them a certain amount of time to appear before him to explain what they were doing.
They instead tried to shop to get the case moved to a more favorable circuit.
They failed.
So Jay Johnson and others from the regime told the judge that they would cease and desist.
They didn't.
They kept issuing work permits in defiance of a federal judge's order.
The judge then said, what the hell are you doing?
You are trying my patience.
And they said Jay Johnson and the other regime officials.
I'm sorry, sir, it was a mistake.
It was a mistake.
Some people did not, they didn't, didn't do it on purpose, judge, but we're going to stop it now.
But they haven't stopped it.
Despite two orders from this judge, Jay Johnson, Homeland Security Secretary, and other immigration officials from the Obama administration are continuing in utter defiance of the law.
In utter defiance of the judge, they are continuing to issue these work permits to illegal aliens, essentially the first step in granting executive amnesty.
So the judge has said, stop it, and I want you to show up in my courtroom.
Jay Johnson and these other officials have been demanded, commanded to appear before Judge Hainan and explain themselves.
In a court order on Tuesday, Andrew Hainan said government officials have yet to fix this problem.
They continue to violate his order.
He gave them the benefit of the doubt when they said it was a mistake that people kept on issuing the permits.
And the, oops.
Anyway, Right after this.
Anyway, folks, there was nothing accidental or mistaken about the regime passing out these work permits.
They purposely and quickly were violating the judge's order.
It's hard to overstate the criminal aspect of this.
It's lawless.
It is literally lawless.
It is the regime saying the law does not apply to us.
It's the regime saying to hell with you, judge, and to hell with your order.
We're talking about 100,000, 108,000 work permits the regime says they handed out accidentally.
And what it means is that Obama's going to get his amnesty come hell or high water, no matter what the courts say, no matter what Congress says, no matter what, he's going to do it.
Because nobody's standing up and stopping him again, other than this judge who is trying to.
But the judge is relying on the regime respecting the rule of law.
That's how judges enforce their orders.
It's the assumption that everybody's going to obey the law once commanded to, because there are severe penalties otherwise.
But this regime is basically going you to the judge, to the country, to the rule of law.
And the only reason that we have his injunction in the first place is because 26 states led by Texas sued the government about this.
The Republicans in Congress did not try to stop this, at least not enough of them.
The people we've elected in two landslide elections to go to Congress to stop and fix this stuff didn't do anything.
A judge stopped this because of a lawsuit led by 26 states, which once again demonstrates the solution to our problems relies or resides in the states.
Because there's nothing that's going to happen inside the Beltway to change the direction the country is taking.
I don't care who you elect there.
If they come from the establishment of either party, it's not going to change anything.
And this is abundant evidence of it.
And this judge, this is, by the way, one other thing.
You really, you know how rare it is for a district court federal judge to command administration officials to appear before him in his not representatives, not some lowly DOJ lawyer.
He's demanding Jay Johnson and his cohorts show up and explain themselves.
And Hannon is a, I think it's a George W. Bush appointee.
Not H.W. George W. Bush appointee, right?
Anyway, let me go to the phones because people have been waiting as always for quite a while.
And I really appreciate that.
More than you know, here is Don in Cincinnati.
You're starting us today.
Don, it's great to have you with us.
Hi.
I'm incensed, Rush.
I'm incensed, I tell you.
Taking the flag down over the South Carolina Capitol is not enough.
Banning the Confederate flag off the license plates is not enough.
Tearing down the Jefferson Memorial is not enough.
Renaming Washington, D.C. is not enough.
Bumping and grinding against Kid Rock is not enough.
When the greatest, some of the greatest offenders are still free.
And I'm talking about the Dixie chicks, the audacity to name their group after Dixie, which supports southern states and slave states.
All their CDs should be banned.
All their music should be taken from the shelves, and they should be forced to repatriate all the profits that they've made off of supporting the name...
But, but, but, but, but, wait a minute, Donny.
The Dixie chicks are politically correct because they've made a career out of bashing George Bush and calling him stupid.
Irrelevant.
I wish I was in the land of cotton.
World time things are not forgotten.
Look away, Dixie land.
That promotes slavery and revisits slavery every single time that the Dixie chicks take the stage.
They should not be able to perform ever again, regardless of how PC they are.
That's an affront to anybody who ever came from a southern state that now is turned around.
I mean, you're focusing on Dixie, but what about they call themselves chicks, too?
I mean, that's an affront to the Feminazis.
Well, they could call themselves the Klan Chicks.
The Klan chicks.
I doubt that that would work.
But, you know, look, they did.
They approached Kid Rock and they said, Kid, you've got to take down that flag.
Kid's from Detroit.
Kid Rock, they told him you've got to take the flag down from all of your concert and video performance.
You can't use that racist flag anymore.
And Kid Rock had a response, and I've forgotten what he said now.
I may not have ever known.
I knew he was going to issue a response, but I don't know what it was.
Anyway, speaking of all this, there was an impassioned debate on the floor of the South Carolina legislature over the removal of the Confederate flag from the state capitol grounds.
And it is going to happen.
At 4 o'clock this afternoon, the governor, Nikki Haley, is going to sign the order.
And the flag is history.
It's gone.
And other than in museums in South Carolina, it's gone forever.
Now, no comment on that.
I just have a question.
Will there be a wave of happiness that sweeps over Charleston, South Carolina after, like about 4:10 this afternoon?
Will a wave of happiness start bringing people together?
Because we're told the flag divides people.
Will there be a wave of happiness and contentment?
And will crime drop significantly?
Now that the symbol of racist slave hate is gone, because this is what we're told.
We're told that that flag is responsible for so much of the racism, so much of the bigotry, so much of the crime, so much of the stress, distress, what have you, in all of South Carolina and in all of the South.
So a little bit after 4 o'clock today, will we note an uptick in happiness in South Carolina?
And if so, will it be reported on?
Will there be parties and celebrations?
Will people feel personally as though a heavy load has been lifted from their shoulders?
Will they be free now to be who they really are?
Will there be this massive symbolic liberation resulting in a new wave of no crime and happiness?
Keep a sharp eye.
No, in fact, I tell you what I expect to happen.
Let me make a little prediction here.
The people who will have succeeded, vast majority of the people who will have succeeded in having the flag removed from public display will largely remain as angry 4.30 this afternoon as they are.
Well, give them a half hour to be happy.
And then by 5 o'clock, 4:45, 5 o'clock, back to being mad.
And there will be stress and there will be friction.
And you know why there will be all this remaining anger?
Because the people who have succeeded will realize that the people who lost and who disagree with the whole premise that the flag is why the crime took place, those people are still going to be there.
And the people who disagree are still going to be in disagreement even after the flag has been taken down.
And so the proponents of taking the flag down will be denied their happiness because even after the flag is gone, the people who want to support the flag or do not disagree with the removal crowd will still be in disagreement.
In other words, their minds will not have changed or will not have been made right following the removal of the flag.
And I dare say, if there is any genuine happiness after the governor signs the bill, it will probably be elected Democrats because they will realize that yet again, they have escaped blame for the flag going up on state grounds in the first place.
Because yes, indeed, it was the Democrat Party that raised that flag.
It was Governor Ernest Hollings who raised the battle flag in South Carolina.
They were totally responsible for it.
It was another Democrat Party problem they escaped historical blame for.
Republicans somehow end up being inexorably tied to that flag.
But let's just see.
Let's just see how much happiness there is and how much contentment there is versus the degree of anger that remains.
And I think you know what I'm talking about.
The victors are never happy, is the point.
When they get everything they want, it's never enough.
When they achieve every goal they claim to have, isn't it remarkable how they are never happy?
And the reason they aren't happy is because even though the symbol, the flag, even though it's gone, they will realize that there are a lot of people who disagree with what's happening.
And that is what makes them really mad.
They are intolerant of any dissent.
And their real objective is to eliminate and wipe out all dissent.
They're not interested in debate and prevailing in debate.
That's not something that jazzes them up.
No, no, I have not forgotten we're going to get to Jeb Bush today.
We've still got a lot of time left here today, folks.
Just hang in there and be tough.
We get more said in a half hour on this program than you'll hear in a week anywhere else.
So just hang in there and be tough.
Here's Kid Rock's response.
He actually sent a response to Megan Kelly last night.
And his response: You please tell the people who are protesting to kiss my, ask me some questions.
Play on words allowed Megan Kelly, who was reading the statement on live TV, to say the phrase, kiss my ass, without it being bleeped, because she was quoting somebody.
See, that's the difference.
If Megan Kelly had been talking to a guest, I don't know, say, take your pick of a guest.
Oh, you kiss my ass.
They would have bleeped it.
But since she was reading the statement from Kid Rock, who said, you tell those critics to say, kiss my ass, she could say kiss my ass because she was quoting Kid Rock and not have it bleeped.
Just like I can do it here without having it bleeped, because I'm quoting Megan Kelly, quoting Kid Rock.
The bottom line is Kid Rock told him to go to hell.
He's not going to get rid of a flag at his performances.
Here's Ken in Palm Beach Gardens in Florida.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Rush, good to speak to you.
Thank you, sir.
Donald Trump is resonating with people for the same reason you did after you were on the air for six months.
You can remember the number of times you've told us people would come up to you and say, I've been thinking the same thing, and I thought I was all by myself.
Ken, hang on a second.
You have got a self-problem with you.
Every time you get to the point that you are making, it sounds like somebody's turned on a water faucet.
I'm sorry.
Let me.
No, no, it's not your fault.
It's just probably some cheap cell company that you're using.
Hold on.
It's not a sell.
It's not sell?
No, it's not a cell.
Hold on.
You're not on a cell call.
Wonder what's doing this.
Rush, is that better?
Yeah, try it again.
Start from the very beginning.
I was just going to say that Donald Trump is resonating with people the same reason you did after you were on the air for six months.
Everyone's thinking that, and everyone's scared to say it.
And people were coming up to you and saying, thank you very much.
I thought I was all by myself.
It remains to be seen.
Your styles are different.
And it remains to be seen whether Donald Trump will have a half-life in politics like you've had on radio.
But the bottom line is he's touching some very important points in a very selective way.
And it's hurting a lot of people for all the wrong reasons.
By the way, a relative of mine and a good friend of yours, the nickname of Sluggo, told me to listen to you years ago.
Lyon finally gave up.
Do you know who Sluggo is?
You guys know who Sluggo is.
Sluggo is the Air Force tanker pilot who flew, he himself flew and a bunch of his buddies who flew an American flag on several bombing missions and refueling missions in the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
His name is Mark Asara.
So this caller knows Mark Asara, or he knows Sluggo, or you know somebody who knows Sluggo.
Hassara's nickname is Sluggo.
And Sluggo is writing a book about that, by the way.
He took pictures.
He took pictures of the, I mean, while he's in the air, he flew the tankers that refueled all these different fighter and bomber aircraft.
And he took pictures, gobs of them.
And he's writing a book about his experiences in the Iraq war in 2003.
And the title, the working title of his book is Passing Gas.
Is that not clever?
Passing gas.
Nobody kicks ass without tanker gas is the military slogan.
So anyway, the guy's lying gave up.
Know what he's talking about, though.
When this program started, people did react to it in a way that indicated they were being validated.
Now, the media, when this program started, criticized it by saying, I was a Svengali and you're a bunch of mind-numb robots, and you're brain dead until I came along.
And I started telling you what to think and how to think because you didn't have the ability.
And it's totally wrong.
What really happened was you didn't have anybody else.
There wasn't anybody in national media saying things that you believe and in ways that you would say them.
And that's what I did.
I came along and I validated what people already believed.
There were no mind them robots.
And he's saying Trump is doing the same thing.
Trump is articulating what a vast majority of people think about what's going on here with amnesty and illegal immigration that nobody else says.
Either they don't have the guts to say it or they don't believe it or what have you.
And his question is, how long is Trump going to hold out?
How long is Trump going to go?
He says, it'd be great if Trump has half the life that you've had on radio.
But Trump is doing more than that.
In addition to articulating those things, Trump is actually taking the media on.
He's going to every one of these drive-by media places and he's just throwing it right back in their faces.
All the conventional wisdom that they're hitting him with and all of the conventional wisdom that is wrong.
And he's just nuking it right back at them.
And I do have some audio soundbites of this, which I promise that I will get to in the next busy broadcast hour.
Okay, Jeb Bush and Donald Trump.
Related soundbites and the latest news involving both coming up in our final busy broadcast hour.
And there's a new poll out That it's a Reuters poll that shows Trump has now pulled into a statistical tie with Jeb Bush for the Republican Republican nomination.