All Episodes
Previous Next
July 10, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:31
July 10, 2015, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, so I guess Trump is going to be in Phoenix.
Phoenix area tomorrow afternoon.
He was going to make a speech or an appearance.
And it was originally scheduled at the Biltmore.
And they've had such a massive request for tickets.
They've had to move the venue.
I didn't see where they're moving the venue, but they couldn't handle the original crash of people.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
It's great to have you here, Open Line Friday, where we uh we try to take more calls than usual.
And the calls that we take don't have to be about anything I care about.
They do Monday through Thursday.
This is a benevolent dictatorship.
It always has been.
But on Friday, we turned it into a full-fledged democracy, and the First Amendment applies to callers.
It does not Monday through Thursday.
Telephone numbers 800-282-288-2, the email address L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
Okay, so I have one of these things that's I still have I still have friends who send me these crazy email internet thing.
You still have friends who never send you an actual email.
They just forward you some of the latest gag that they've seen.
Well, I worked very hard.
I I created a filter that actually it's not part of the spam.
I guess I could have made it part of them, but I actually worked very hard to create a filter that just trashes all those things.
Because I mean, I don't even if it's on the internet, the odds are 95% it's wrong and old.
And in addition to that, everybody's going to have seen it.
So what's the point?
I know they're funny sometimes, but everybody's seen them.
But the last thing I want is a reputation as a as a guy who gets caught up, gets fooled, gets hooked by these mindless, which is what they are.
One of them, maybe there's a reason.
You know, people, things happen in strange ways.
One of them beat my filter today.
And maybe it's because of who sent it to me, a friend of mine.
So maybe it be and what it is is an explanation of the Greek bailout.
So I don't know how old it is.
I don't know if it was originally written about some other bailout.
You just can't tell with these things.
But it, you know, it you may not remember this, but when this program first started, the only way that people could actually communicate was email via CompuServe.
And maybe AOL came along shortly thereafter.
The CompuServe had uh chat rooms and a number of different uh ways for people to communicate.
And back then, the thing that got spread around to the point of driving me insane.
You know, people were just discovering CompuServe, they were just discovering email, they were just getting computers, and they were sending things out left and right because it was so cool and neat.
And I I actually had to guard against losing my temper.
And what it was was ten things supposedly said by Abraham Lincoln.
I pro I had to get 1,500 of those things a day.
And every person that sent it, Rush, rush, rush, look at this.
This will make your point for you.
Look at Lincoln.
The problem with Lincoln never said them.
They were from a pamphlet that was created by a preacher back in Lincoln's day, and for some who knows whatever odd reason they ended up being attributed to Lincoln.
And I actually spent a lot of time, wasted a lot of time replying to people.
Please, Lincoln didn't say that when you spread the word help me.
Lincoln didn't send these, send the Say these things.
And I kept getting them.
And I kept getting them.
So that set the stage for me distrusting all of this mass distributed garbage.
But this one got through today.
The explanation of the Greek bailout, how it works.
It's a slow day in a little Greek village.
It's raining and the streets are deserted.
Times are tough.
Everybody's in debt.
Everybody lives on credit.
On this particular day, a rich German tourist is driving through the village, stops at a local hotel, lays a hundred euro note on the desk, tells the hotel owner that he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one to spend the night.
The owner gives him some keys, and as soon as the visitor has walked upstairs to begin his inspection of the hotel rooms, the hotel owner grabs that 100 euro note and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher.
The butcher takes that 100 euro note and he runs down the street to repay his debt to the pig farmer.
The pig farmer takes that same 100 euro note and heads off to pay his bill at the supplier of feed and fuel.
The guy at the farmer's co-op takes the 100 euro note.
He runs to pay his drinks bill at the local tavern.
The tavern owner slips the money along to the local prostitute drinking at his bar, who has also been facing hard times and has had to offer him services on credit.
The prostitute then rushes to the hotel and pays off her room bill to the hotel owner with the 100 euro note.
The hotel proprietor then places that same 100 euro note or 100 euro note back on the counter so that the rich German will not suspect anything.
At that moment, the German traveler comes down the stairs, picks up the 100 or 100 euro note, says the rooms are not satisfactory and leaves town.
Nobody produced anything, nobody earned anything, but the whole village is now out of debt and looking to the future with a lot more optimism.
And that is how the bailout package works.
So whether this, I don't know, it's clever.
Some of these things that go around are clever.
But it does come on a day where the Greek bailout's been announced, and it's uh the market's going gangbusters here, at least it was before the program's threw.
Yep, it's up 203.
Regaining a lot of ground it lost yesterday and the day before.
And it's all because Angela Merkel caved and has agreed to bail Greece out again.
And this is a it's a pretty good illustration of how it all works.
Nobody produces anything, nobody earns it yet another bailout.
Uh, and it's just a way to cancel out debt that really hasn't been canceled, and nobody's better or worse off afterwards, except, see, that's the rub because the Germans are going to be worse off.
They're throwing good money after bad.
Do you know what the Greek debt ratio is to GDP?
The Greek debt ratio to GDP is 180%.
Meaning that whatever the Greek gross domestic product is, their debt is 180% of it.
And it is such now that it has been admitted that Greece will never pay that back.
They will never be able to pay that back.
So a bailout structure scheme, what have you, was concocted to effectively on paper, or no, no, specifically not on paper.
Psychologically, take everybody back to zero.
It's one of the biggest fool's errands that you can ever see, and I'm sure, oh, yeah, I've no doubt that Obama put pressure on Merkel for this.
No doubt whatsoever.
Obama can't sit there and let one of the most flagrantly out of control examples of socialism go down the tubes.
Well, speaking of which, have you heard about the pulp?
This is Pope Francis is in Bolivia, and he's come out with another one of his anti capitalism remarks.
He said, did you hear this, Don?
Okay, well then you better be.
The Pope, Il Papa, the vicar of Christ, said that unfettered capitalism is the devil's dung.
Now, in the first place, would somebody find for me anywhere on this planet where there is at this very moment unfettered capitalism taking place.
You can't, because there isn't.
And I would go so far as to say that the United States doesn't even have half-baked capitalism going on right now.
But unfettered, what is unfettered?
Have you ever heard of unfettered socialism?
Have you ever heard of unfettered communism?
You ever heard of unfettered Marxism?
What is this unfettered capitalism?
It's just more bastardization of language to denigrate.
The greatest economic system yet devised that creates prosperity for the most and opportunity for everybody.
And because it does that, it must be reviled.
It must be impugned.
It must be destroyed.
So you put the word unfettered in front of it.
And what that means is unregulated, because you know, capitalism is so unfair.
Capitalism is so unfair that it has to be regulated in order to make sure the rich just don't steal and take everything.
Well, there isn't any unfettered capitalism, and there hasn't been any unfettered capitalism in I don't know how long, if ever.
But we do not have capital.
Capitalism is not why the United States is in a quagmire.
Capitalism is not why the United States is in a malaise.
Barack Obama and the policies of his and the Democrat Party are why.
This country is stagnating right now.
And back to a previous caller, Gary in the previous hour, urging me to run for president.
He reminded me of something I said earlier this week.
There is no way Barack Obama, and I gave you this as an example of why I don't think we have reached the tipping point in this country.
I don't care what it looks like in the media every day.
I don't care what it looks like, pop culture or whatever.
I do not believe we have lost this country to the brain-dead low information voter who can't distinguish good from bad evil, what have you.
I don't believe we're there yet.
And the reason is I'm not yet convinced that Barack Obama would have been elected in 2008 had he run on an agenda that he has implemented.
If Barack Obama had told people how much their health care was going to increase, if Barack Obama had told people what was going to happen to the U.S. economy in five years in, he would be telling us that this lack of economic activity and 95 million Americans not working is the new normal, and that the average work week would now be 29, 29 and a half hours, because Obamacare would penalize full-time work.
Do you think he'd have been elected?
I don't think so.
And the reason is because I think a lot of people voted for Obama for a reasons totally unrelated to anything other than this country's race problem and a desire people had to let the statement we had elected a black president say so much about our ability to shed our so-called racist past.
I think I don't know what percentage it is, but it's clearly enough for victory, a margin of victory.
In other words, a lot of people voted for Obama, and they didn't care what he was going to do.
They didn't bother to even find out.
And even if they had been told, they wouldn't have cared, they were going to vote for the first African American because they hoped, they prayed Desperately that it would mean the end of all this racial strife.
If you would have told people that the election of Barack Obama would lead to even worse racial strife, more anger, more dissatisfaction.
Do you think you would have been elected?
I don't.
And that's why I don't believe that we've reached the tipping point here.
So my point is that this country is, you know, Obama's not a capitalist.
This country's economy's not slowed down because of capitalism.
The closest we've had to the capitalism the Pope and these clowns are talking about is the Reagan years, and look what happened.
Look at the economic boom that lasted practically 20 years.
We had legitimate full-time employment.
We had rising incomes.
We had we had a deficit that was coming down and a balanced budget that was on the verge of happening in 1995, or actually 1994, I think it was, whatever.
We were making great progress on a whole lot of things.
The top marginal tax rate down from 70% to 28%.
And it was so successful that the Democrats and the media had to immediately begin revising history and trashing it as trickle down that didn't work.
But who do you think's in bed with the rich today?
The Democrat Party.
You know, there's a big media conference right now in Sun Valley.
It's an annual thing.
Allen and Company, an investment banking concern in New York, Herbie Allen and his sons now.
And they are a company, they're middlemen between major big deals between large media companies, and they take their commission for brokering them.
And they have this little convention every Sun summer out in Sun Valley.
And every Democrat, everybody there.
I mean, you've got the CEOs of all the tech companies, you've got the CEOs and ranking execs of all the broadcast and cable outfits.
They're all liberal Democrats.
All this wealth today that has a crony relationship with the U.S. government, it's all Obama money.
It's not conservative capitalism that has a foothold on the things happening in this country today.
No way, no how by definition or any other measure.
So the Pope running around attacking unfettered capitalism.
And you know what else?
There's a uh one of the presidents of Bolivia gave the Pope a gift.
It was a crucifix atop the s the communist hammer and sickle.
All one piece.
And the Pope clearly didn't know that the gift was going to be given.
You can tell in the pictures in the Vatican has confirmed a Pope had no idea.
And he's not really crazy about it, you know, linking, I mean, that blatantly linking the crucifixion of Christ to Soviet communism.
And I've taken a break here, folks.
More calls are coming up because it's open line Friday when we get back.
Okay, back to the phones we go, because it is open line Friday.
This is Rose in San Diego.
I'm glad you waited, and it's great to have you.
Hi.
Hi, Russ.
I'm so excited to talk with you.
Well, thank you.
Thank you very much.
I'm a rush baby.
I've been listening to you since 1990.
And I'm also a conservative Hispanic, I'm proud to say.
Well.
So my reason for calling is because yesterday you referenced a political article.
Um, and the premise of the article is that um same-sex marriages are superior to heterosexual marriages.
And in perusing through the article, I noticed that it doesn't say anything about children.
And I just thought to myself, that is just so typical of Oh, no, no, no, no, that one doesn't.
But there are others that have.
I didn't specifically quote them because I've mistakenly when I ran across them, I didn't print them out, and I haven't gone back and searched.
But there's that I've seen a couple uh that go all in on the supremacy and superiority of gay sex, gay marriage and relationship, and gay child rearing.
Well, that's interesting because I I would venture to say that the very thing that these uh so-called relationship experts tout as um a positive in a same-sex marriage would be to the detriment of children.
Um because you have two people of the same sex that are well, according to them, very similar, and they get along.
But children need a mom and a dad.
They need a mom.
She has the nurturing aspect and the dad who's the risk taker, and um it it leaves that out, and I I found a study, a different study that was published um this year in February.
Um that's titled New Research on Same Sex Households Reveals Kids Do Best With Mom and Dad.
Um Yeah, well uh can you look I've got a break coming up in 20 seconds, and I want to keep talking to you.
I'd love that.
So you can hang on through the break.
Yes.
Because you've I must tell you, you have you have done something here that really, really, really interests me that surprises the heck out of me.
And I'll tell you what it is when we get back.
Okay, welcome back, folks.
Open line Friday, Il Rushville with Rose in San Diego and admitted Hispanic conservative rush baby.
Rose, uh before I share with you my reaction to the beginning of your call, before before what I have here leaves my ability to see it, I want to read to you from I I went back and I I looked at one of these pieces that I knew I had read on about the supremacy of gay parentage.
And I just want to read a little to you before I uh get to my my main point reason I ask you to hold over with me.
It's from Live Science, it's January twelfth, two thousand twelve, why gay parents may be the best parents.
And just a couple things from the article.
Gay parents tend to be more motivated.
They tend to be more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents, said Abby Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University, Massachusetts, who researches gay and lesbian parenting.
Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident compared with an almost 50% accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said.
She says that translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement.
In addition, said that uh kids do better, this this do best mom and dad business.
The article uh is from the February 2015 issue of the British Journal of Education Society Behavioral Science is the one you're quoting, where kids do better with a with a mom and dad.
And but here's here's the look here's what I was gonna say to you.
Okay.
And I've got to be very careful how I say it, because I don't want to be misunderstood.
You were a great learning exercise for me, because you actually took that political story seriously, and you read it, and then you started trying to find holes in it by seeking finding what they had omitted, and that is the best way to raise kids.
Uh the reason that that's fascinating to me is because I just automatically rejected it.
I knew what it would from from the get-go, that that's not a news story.
It's it's not even a it's nothing but a a planted agenda item.
The the the premise here that that that gay marriage is superior to Straight marriage.
Don't to me it's an insult to my intelligence to even and to have it in politico.
Uh it it wasn't worth reading.
The headline alone told me all I needed to know about the story and to throw it out and reject it.
The premise is silly, but you didn't reject it, you didn't throw it out.
You read it, and I did too.
But I mean, I'm just comparing our attitudes.
And what your attitude tells me is that you you've shown me another way that the drive-by media gets its hooks into people in in ways uh still not quite there.
My assumption is that any normal person seeing that would laugh and reject it, recognize it as propaganda, and the last thing they would do was take it seriously.
But you took it seriously from the standpoint of reading it and wanting to be able to refute it.
Well, yeah, and the and the article that I'm citing here, um this is from public discourse, and I I believe it's the same one.
Perhaps it was published um in a different um uh medium, but this particular article says that uh with same-sex couples who have children, their dissolution rate is higher than that of heterosexual couples.
Wait a minute.
Wait, wait, wait, just a minute.
Here you go.
I'm gonna same sex couples do not have children.
Um, some of them get married.
They do not have here's the point.
Can is it in any way possible?
I need to if I'm if I'm wrong about this, somebody needs to tell me.
Is it any way possible that a man and a man having sex can the result ever be a child?
Can a woman and a woman having sex, can the result ever be a child?
Of course not.
Well then.
Would somebody explain to me how in the world we arrive at who's the best parent?
How do you even get there?
In the one instance, natural parenting is impossible.
Right.
Adoption has to is the only way.
So that's why the story from live science.
Did you hear this?
Gay parents are more committed because they choose it.
50% of heterosexual children, or the production, 60% of heterosexual marriage children is accidental, and therefore the children are not nearly as wanted, but with a gay adoption, that is a desired and a wanted child, and therefore it's going to be raised better with what I don't know, more love and more compassion.
And half of these kids born in heterosexual uh marriages where they didn't care whether I had a kid or not, that I'm sorry.
Um it it it breaks down for me.
Just on the basis of logic.
So the reason these studies have to come out that you have there has to be something like live science that has to come out and say that gay parenting is superior to heterosexual parenting.
They have to do that because there is no natural way for two hetero or homosexuals, either lesbians or gay men to have children.
Well, you watch, I'm gonna get trumped on this.
No, well, I'm I I go back to my my initial argument that the very thing that the these uh so-called relationship experts on the political article cite as a positive for a same-sex marriage is what's detrimental uh to children in a same-sex marriage.
You have a mother and you have a father as influences.
And so you have other studies that rebut the political article.
And the the article that I'm citing says that um uh the estimate of serious child emotional problems in children with same-sex parents is 17 percent compared with 7% among opposite sex parents after adjusting for age, race, gender, rates of ADHD were higher as well, 15% compared to 7%, and the same is true for learning disabilities.
14 versus 8 percent.
Mm-hmm.
And so from that, all of that you are concluding what?
Well, I'm concluding that the political article is not taking uh something into consideration.
It's it's completely selfish.
It's all about how the couple feels.
It's all about Well, why would the politico do that?
Why would the political leave out such key relevant data?
Because it doesn't serve their purpose.
It doesn't serve the uh whatever agenda that they have.
Well, okay.
All right.
Well, that's that that that's probably true.
I have to have to grant you that that's probably true.
And so therefore it makes it what you can't just take it at face value.
You have to um read it, do your research, and because if you're gonna talk uh you gotta keep in mind that marriage is the foundation of of society.
No, it isn't anymore.
See, that it's not.
It never was.
That was a bogus tradition that was always a big lie.
But we've dealt with that now.
That's all of that, you need to forget all of that that you thought about marriage, because that's not what it is anymore.
Are you being facetious, Rush?
Well, halfway, but I mean it's also happens to be true.
I guess, yeah.
I just love you so much.
I I you know I I'm trying not to not to be offended here.
Because it's all about feeling good, remember.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
No, ho, ho, ho, ho.
How have I maybe offended you?
That's the last thing I think is happening.
So if I've offended you, you need to tell me how, seriously.
No, no, I'm now I'm being facetious.
No, no, you're not.
No, you're not.
Don't back out.
There's no wrong answer.
I'm curious.
How have I offended you?
No, you haven't.
You haven't at all.
You just said you're feeling offended.
No, I was I was joking.
It was the joke.
No, you're not.
Don't slither out of this.
No, I'm not switching.
We're not married.
You can tell me exactly what you think.
It's a little jokeful.
Come on, whatever we lighten up.
Can we just lighten up what everybody's wound so tight?
Slurkies in there.
Yes.
Yes, absolutely.
Trumped over that too.
No, look.
Um the last thing in the world I want I'm you know, I I know what it is.
You are you you're feeling quasi-offended because of the way I explain my surprise at at your treatment of the story when you read that.
I you you're offended because I you think I insulted you by saying you even took this seriously.
No, not at all.
Okay.
Okay, good.
Then you're offended because I laughed when you didn't think I should have laughed.
No.
I I'm getting warmer.
No.
No, it's it's I I'm just I I guess I'm I'm I'm in awe that I'm talking to V Rush right now.
Uh that's all.
Well, here's the th let me send you away with this.
Rose, don't ever doubt your instincts.
Your instincts when you read that political story were probably right.
You thought this is a joke.
I mean, what what are they what would the point you see a story that it especially with this kind of timing that gay relationships are superior?
Isn't it enough that we now have transformed sufficiently that there's gay marriage?
Why do they have to gay is superior here, gay superior there, gay superior child rearing, gay relationships are superior, gay this what's the point of all that?
Well, you've also got to consider that this is uh uh a very small percentage of the population, and I'm just very um very surprised at how much credence they're given and how much power they have in media and in all facets of media.
It's just amazing.
That's not really if you think about who works in these businesses.
Well, true.
Um it it is just made up by leftists.
The gay population of the country may be 1.82 percent, but the gay population of Hollywood, I g I don't know what it is, but it is much higher than two percent.
Probably.
No, there's no question.
Same thing in media.
Right.
I don't mean reporters and people on TV that you see.
I'm thinking assignment editors, editors, producers, people that you never ever see that tell the brain dead reporters every day what stories they're gonna go cover.
The assignment people and all that.
I guarantee you that the gay population in those various businesses is far greater than what it is just nationally.
And and in and I mention that only because Rose, there you will find the answer to your question as to how it appears to be much larger than uh than it is.
Anyway, I'm glad you called, and I very, very much appreciate your compliments and your nice words.
And I wish you all the best.
I'm actually flattered that you care enough about all this to dig deep for your own edification and understanding.
Good for you.
We'll be back after this, folks.
Don't go away.
And staying with the phones on open line Friday, Lynwood, Washington.
This is James.
Thank you for waiting.
Uh James, great to have you on the program.
Hello.
Thank you, Rush.
Like many fellow Republicans, I'm a recovering Democrat.
I've been a conservative for about nine years, and I'm happier each and every day.
Good for you.
Good for you.
Thank you.
And talk radio had a lot to do with it.
You and Michael Med then.
One of the reasons nine years ago, I identified, you know, I have to be a liberal Democrat, because I believe that two guys should be able to walk into City Hall and apply for a marriage license together.
In my state, Washington, in 2012, uh the voters voted on this, and the voters said, yeah, we agree with that too.
But forty-six percent of people in this Democrat state said, no, we do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
So where do we go from there?
Uh the misery and victimization and unhappiness I've seen from the winning side saddens me.
I hear rhetoric from folks around here saying that, well, if you don't believe in same-sex marriage, you're no better than ISIS.
And they go after little old ladies that run flower shops.
And they, if you dissent to that and say you shouldn't sue people over this, you should go to shop that support you and be happy.
That's what a free market's all about.
If you support that, they say you support Jim Crow, which is ridiculous because Jim Crow is an absolute absolute abomination to the free market.
Well, why do you think this is?
We've been discussing this as it happens uh in recent weeks on the program.
Why is it that the people who are at least culturally seemingly winning everything, why aren't they happy afterwards?
Because they don't want to have a discussion about how ridiculous it is.
Let's say we have a small town here and there's four bakers, and bakers A, B, and C absolutely support same-sex marriage.
They're happy to cater gay weddings.
But you have Baker D that says, yeah, not really.
It goes against my conscience and what I believe in.
How ridiculous is it to say that it benefits that society to come with the government and sue Baker D and say, no, you need to take my my money for this cake.
You have to.
It's ridiculous.
And so to avoid having that conversation, they're just gonna well, nope, hand in the air.
You're a racist sexist big home.
Well, let me give you a theory.
Because I too have been asking myself variations of that same question.
And I I've I've uh I've developed a theory to explain this phenomenon.
And using your exact example, you got a little town, you got four bakers, gay couple walks in, and three of the four would happily bake the cake.
They choose the one that they know will not make it, and then when they're told, sorry, our religious beliefs preclude us, then they bring the full force of government down on that bakery with the desire of shutting it down.
Why can't they just go to one of the three bakeries that'll make the cake and have their wedding and live happily ever after?
And I think my theory is that they look at the closeness of the vote you cited, 46% uh oppose the concept of gay marriage.
I think that they believe, and I'm talking about the leadership now of these movements.
I'm not talking about the rank and file, the average, you know, Steve and Bill that would walk in the store.
I'm talking about leaders of the movement.
I think they realize that they are winning by the by by virtue of force, and I think they believe they can only sustain the victory by the use of force.
Take a look at the name Brendan Ike.
Ring a bell.
Oh, yeah.
He he donated to Proposition Eight in California, not exactly some Southern ick Republican state.
And they found out about it, and he got forced out from his job because he donated to Proposition Eight, which passed in California.
Exactly.
He was on the winning side.
He ran Mozilla, which among other things makes the Firefox web browser.
Brendan Icke, it was discovered, donated a pittance of amount of money.
And when it was discovered, they ran him out, not just of Mozilla, they ran him out of high tech.
And why not just a his side won in the first go around, which was unaccepted, by the way.
Why not live and let live?
They had to send a message.
I think the fact is they think they win by virtue of force, they can only sustain by virtue of force, because they know that popular opinion actually is not likely to stay with them.
Okay, folks, another exciting busy broadcast hour come to a screeching halt.
But there's one more to go, so don't stray far.
▲
Export Selection