All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 12, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
30:29
August 12, 2015, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day, a daily basis.
It's Sir Rush Limbaugh and the EIB Network.
We're coming to you every day from the Limboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
The telephone number, as always, is 800-282-2882 and the email address lrushbo at EIBnet.com.
Okay, for the lifestyle section here, I mentioned these things earlier today.
Here we go in detail.
First is from the Washington Post, ladies and gentlemen.
Turns out that parenthood is worse than divorce.
Parenthood is worse than unemployment.
Parenthood is even worse than the death of a partner.
This is written by Ariana Yunjun Cha.
Ariana Yungjung Cha.
Life has its ups and downs, but parenthood is supposed to be among the most joyous.
At least that's what the movies and Target ads tell us.
But in reality, it turns out that having a child can have a pretty strong negative impact on a person's happiness, according to a new study published in the journal Demography.
In fact, on average, the effect of a new baby on a person's life is devastatingly bad.
Worse than divorce, worse than unemployment, worse even than the death of a partner.
Researchers Rachel Margolis and Miko Mizlika followed 2016 Germans who were childless at the time the study began until at least two years after the birth of their first child.
Respondents were asked to rate their happiness from zero, completely dissatisfied, to 10, completely satisfied, in response to the question, how satisfied are you with your life, all things considered.
Although this measure does not capture respondents' overall experience of having a child, it is preferable to direct questions about childbearing because it's considered taboo for new parents to say negative things.
What they're saying about a new child, what they're saying here is they found 2,000 Germans that were childless.
Then they waited until some of these 2,000 Germans had had a baby.
Then they started asking them how much they liked their life.
They did not ask them, do you like parenthood?
Are you happy?
They were much happier before the birth of the child and after the birth of the child, but they didn't ask them, has the child made you happier or more?
So they're concluding that the deep drop in happiness after the birth of the child is because of the child.
And then they've compared the unhappiness levels with various unhappiness levels following divorce, following being canned, and following the death of a partner.
Now, I need to ask, this is something I've never seen any evidence of.
But I am childless.
But I know plenty of people, obviously, who aren't.
And I've been around when couples have been blessed with the birth of their first child.
And I've not seen what they're talking about here.
Now, I mean, I can fully understand that when a kid 10, 12 starts breaking things, wrecking the car and all that.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
I mean, you may have moments.
But I've not seen this.
Have you?
Seriously, have you seen couples that seem to be remarkably more unhappy, say, a year or two after their baby's born?
I don't know.
I'm always suspicious of this kind of stuff because I always think there's an agenda in everything, and I think everything is politics.
And I haven't quite figured this out here, but this is the strangest darn thing to survey because it's really, it isn't going to stop people from having children, no matter what they promote from this survey.
Just an odd thing to look at.
Now, it says here that the study's goal was to try to gain insights into a long-standing contradiction in fertility in many developed countries between how many children people say they want and how many they actually have.
In Germany, most couples say in surveys that they want two crumb crunchers.
Yet the birth rate in the country has remained stubbornly low at one and a half crumb crunchers per woman for 40 years.
The average of 1.8.
Worldwide, the average of 1.8 per woman.
That's where the statistic, the old joke, comes from.
Mom, dad, 1.8, family sedan, picket fence, and so forth.
Some people say it's 2.8, but 1.8 is the average.
Anyway, Margolis, Rachel Margolis, a sociology researcher, University of Western Ontario, and Mirskila, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, found that most couples in their study started out pretty happy when they set out to have their first child.
In the year prior to the birth, their life satisfaction ticked up even more, perhaps due to the pregnancy, the anticipation of the baby.
It was only after birth that the parents' experiences diverged.
Wait till Planned Parenthood gets hold of this news.
They've got to make posters out of it.
Don't be miserable.
Have an abortion.
Don't ruin your life's happiness.
Have an abortion.
And they'll cite this research.
And they'll cite this study.
You want to be happy?
Yeah, of course it will then abort your baby.
Planned parenthood.
On average, new parenthood led to a 1.4 unit drop in happiness, which is considered, the way these people categorize things, to be very severe.
The consequences of the negative experiences was that many of the parents stopped having children after their first.
By the way, gender of the child was not a factor.
Parents reported exhaustion due to trouble, breastfeeding, sleep deprivation, depression, domestic isolation, and relationship breakdown as a result of the birth of the child.
Okay, so that's one of our lifestyle stories today.
The other lifestyle story today, well, I misappropriated one.
My next one, former LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling now suing everybody, V. Stiviano, and TMZ and his ex-wife for leaking a racist recording because it violated his right.
But that's here it is.
This is the one I was looking for.
The UK Independent, men may never truly get over a relationship breakup, says study.
Researchers found that men suffer as the impact of the loss sinks in and they have to start competing all over again.
Women are emotionally hardest hit after a breakup, but men suffer more in the long term and may really never get over it, never truly get over it.
That's according to researchers who found that men suffer as the impact of the loss sinks in and they have to start competing all over again to find another significant other.
Craig Morris, the research associate at Binghampton University, says the difference is boiled down to biology.
Women have more to lose by dating the wrong person and so are better at accepting a relationship is over and selecting a new partner.
What is this?
Women have more to lose by dating the wrong person, so they're better at accepting.
Oh, I think I get this.
Women have more to lose by hook of the wrong person, so they are better at getting rid of the wrong person and starting something new.
Put simply, women have evolved to invest far more in a relationship than a man, said Craig Morris.
A brief romantic encounter could lead to nine months of pregnancy, while the man may have left the scene literally minutes after the encounter.
As a result, the women, and of 5,000 participants in this study, almost 6,000, 5,705, 96 countries.
Almost 6,000 people, 96 countries reported women reported higher levels of emotional investment and pain when a relationship came to screeching halt than men did.
But The same need to choose a good mate also makes women very selective about who they date.
So they are good at enlisting the support of their friends to pull through and choose somebody else.
But men, whole different story.
Men are more competitive in their approach, meaning the loss of a woman they see as a good catch could be deeply felt for months or even years because it is the deepest and the most shattering of rejections.
The man will likely feel the loss deeply for a very long period of time as it sinks in that he's got to start the whole process of competing against all the other reprobate guys all over again to replace what he has lost.
Or worse still, come to the realization that the loss is irreplaceable.
Or come to the realization that nobody wants him.
Or come to the realization that someone who does want him is faking it.
All of these factors contribute to one screwed up half of the population.
I asked Snerdley about this.
I did a little market survey myself.
I asked Snerdley about this for the program if he agreed with it.
And he did without hesitation.
And you know what he said?
He said it's because, well, here's a rush.
Look at it.
He said, women in a civilized world and relationship, it's women who say no.
You ask them out, they're the ones that say no.
You ask them to get married, they're the ones that say no.
They're used to saying no countless times.
How many guys they say no to?
Even after the first, second date, don't want to.
They say no, they're used to it.
They've got to be heartless to be able to get away with it.
But men, they don't say no.
They never say no, but depending, I guess that may have some factor.
It says here: 70% of divorces in the U.S. are filed by women.
So there you have it, folks.
The lifestyle section of the program today.
And we didn't get to Donald Sterling suing everybody, but we could if you wanted to.
The mine out in the Colorado mine spill.
You realize how little coverage this has received?
You remember all the coverage the BP oil spill got in the Gulf of Mexico?
You remember how horrible it was?
It was portrayed as the end of the Gulf of Mexico and the end of civilization.
We got to get rid of oil.
It was horrible.
BP was hated and despised.
That was back in 2010.
It was just five years ago.
But here, big government's at fault.
The EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, is the evil component here.
EPA workers accidentally unleashed an estimated 3 million gallons of orange-yellow sludge, including high concentrations of arsenic, lead, and other heavy materials from gold mines, while inspecting the long-abandoned Gold King mine near Silverton, Colorado on the 5th of August.
The EP administrator, Gina McCarthy, said yesterday in Washington, she takes full responsibility for the spill, which she said pains me to no end.
And she said that the agency is working around the clock to assess the environmental impact.
Let's hope no snail darters were affected here.
So far, the Bureau of Reclamation has no plans to slow flows on the lower Colorado River below Lake Powell, where the water is a vital resource or parts of California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah.
Remember all those stories.
Remember George Bush?
You won't remember this.
It was days after Bush was inaugurated in 2001.
I mean, literally days.
And the Democrats started talking about how Bush was okay with arsenic in the water.
You remember that?
Yeah, Bush didn't care that your kids are arsenic.
Bush didn't care.
Bush, he didn't care because he was big time in favor of big polluting corporations.
I've never forgotten it because the amount of arsenic we were talking about was minuscule.
And it was Bush EPA that found certain levels of it okay.
And the left just teed off on this.
And I just find it deliciously ironic.
And here come the best protectors of the earth we could ever have.
Giant, giant polluting mistake.
And of course, that Pondin is not who we really are.
We didn't really mean to do it, and we're going to fix it real fast.
Anyway, there's some climate change news, too, I'll get to, but maybe, maybe.
I want to get back to your phone calls after we take another brief obscene profit time out here.
So you sit tight.
Back with much more after this.
Don't go away.
Here is Spencer in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
I'm glad you waited.
Ditto's from the great city of Charlotte, where Charlton Heston first said from Michael, dead hands, and ditto's from the decrepit city of Charlotte, where the Democrats named a government building and a school building after a convicted pedophile.
Now.
Who was that?
Who was that?
Walton, the Walton building downtown.
He was a preacher, and he was arrested for, well, I won't go there.
I hate it when that happens.
Anyhow, I spent 30 years in IT, and I can.
Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh.
For you and Rio Linda, that's information technology means he's a computer guy for a company.
Okay, go ahead.
All right.
I can just about assure you that the server is clean.
There's a system on servers called a RAID array, and what it does is it generates redundancy.
So if one of the hard drives goes down, the data is not lost.
Now, when that hard drive goes down, you just swap it out.
Yeah, but wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
When you say clean, what do you mean there's data on it or no data on it?
The data that she doesn't want to be there is gone.
Is gone.
Is gone.
And here's how you do it.
You delete all your emails that you don't want to be there, and then you pull one of the drives and put a brand new fresh drive that's never been touched in.
Right.
And the redundancy program, the RAID program will write all the data to that drive.
How do you know that she had a RAID array, though?
You have to have redundancy on these servers or you lose data if the hard drive crashes.
We're talking Hillary Clinton here.
We're talking about nothing to do with the server.
But wait, she didn't have any encryption on it.
Well, it's not encryption that I'm talking about.
I know, but I'm using an example here that it was not top drawer.
A RAID array.
I mean, a guy walking in wants a server from his computer store is not going to end up with a RAID array.
You're going to have to specifically ask for that and set it up.
It's pretty advanced.
No, just about every server you are going to buy these days is going to have a slot for four drives at least.
So she pulls one of the drives, puts a new one in, and it writes redundancy to that drive.
And eventually all four drives, or however many drives are in that server, are in the trunk of her car with all the bodies headed for the car crusher.
Right.
Exactly what giant electromagnet is going to crush those things like our job did in Goldfinger.
Oh, yeah.
And so when the server shows up on Trey Gowdy's desk, it's going to be a useless thing to go through it and try to find something cost.
Okay, but what about the thumb drive out there, Spencer?
Well, the thumb drive is another issue.
I don't know how the thumb drive was generated, if it was generated.
Well, see, when you write the data over, it's not going to take the tracks that were deleted.
The tracks that were deleted are still on the old drives.
Now, you could take the old drive and restore the deleted data, but you have to have the old drive.
The thumb drive is not going to have the deleted data on it because it's on the old drive.
It's useless data.
I don't think anybody's expecting the server to have data on it.
I think that's because it's been held for so long.
I mean, even if she doesn't know what she's doing, somebody with her does.
She's had time to have that thing completely refurbished.
Right.
Exactly.
And they made no move to seize it when they found this out for whatever reasons, and they didn't make any move to secure it.
And they let her print hard copies and then go through the hard copies, and they let her decide that 30,000 of them were irrelevant, like related to yoga or wedding presents or what have you.
So I know.
It's.
There's going to be no incriminating data.
Well, no, but they have some.
That's what the inspector general.
They've got at least 40,000 emails and four of them, 10,000 emails and four of them classified top secret.
They've got some data from this thing.
But they're not going to have the critical data.
We'll see.
I think all this could end up being just a process by which I can't talk about it anymore.
My service engine investigation.
The whole thing's an investigation.
I can't talk about an ongoing investigation.
Shut up.
The saga continues.
Now into our 28th year, as of August 1st, a little less than two weeks ago.
Here's Chris in Hancock, Michigan.
You're next.
Great to have you here.
Hi.
Hi, thanks a lot, Rush.
Public school teacher 24-7 Ditto's your two lifestyle articles.
I think the connection is that you've got millennials being studied, and they're the means first generation.
Everything is about me and about what can I get out of it.
And parenting, it's not always about what you can get out of it.
These in a relationship, you know, the men who are feeling the effects of the breakup, it's all about what can I get out of it.
And that's what these millennials are these days.
Are you one?
Are you a millennial?
I'm just on the far edge.
I'm just past them.
But I've taught a lot of them in the past 16 years.
And so your experience is that they're self-immersed.
Well, I think it's pretty obvious from looking around at our culture.
Even look at the Planned Parenthood issue.
It's all about what's best for me.
What can I get out of everything?
Look at our healthcare system.
Excellent point because parenthood done well is all about the child.
Yep.
Same with a marriage or relationship.
It's about the other person.
Theoretically, yeah, but you have to be healthy in your own right for somebody else to regard you the same way.
Are you suspicious of these two surveys or are you just making an observation about them?
I was making an observation, but at the same time, I mean, just with your science, everything now starts with scientists say, you know, like your articles yesterday.
By the way, I work all summer, you know, cutting wood and everything.
I drink so much Coca-Cola, and I'm not overweight at all.
But that study is pretty funny.
You know, that's another excellent point.
Every news story, scientists say, scientists report, the latest scientific survey is.
And it is, you know, people fall for it.
Why?
Obama announcing Obamacare gets a bunch of secretaries out there wearing white lab coats to make them look like doctors.
To make it look like doctors are approving the whole thing.
Yeah, it's the intention.
You know, everybody is all about the intent, you know, like you're, you know, like your Limbaugh serum.
Right.
Excellent point.
Chris, I appreciate that very much.
What he's talking about here, we've had this story earlier this week, Coca-Cola.
It's a story at New York Times.
And of course, the New York Times, in solidarity with Bloomberg, who limited the size of soft drinks you could buy in New York City.
New York Times headline, Coca-Cola funds scientists who shift blame for obesity away from bad diets.
And the point here is that scientists are being bought.
Scientists are being corrupted by evil corporations.
Scientists are being purchased to report that drinking Coca-Cola will not make you fat when everybody knows it does is the assumption.
And there was a couple other stories here where 29 scientists sent Obama a letter saying that his nuclear deal with Iran was just brilliant.
And I thought it was interesting is the New York Times doing stories here on how scientists can be bought and how scientists are corrupted.
And yet what do they use to validate climate change and global warming?
Scientists, consensus of science.
I may as well get to this.
There's a story that we had earlier in the week about how climate change has become an industry, a one and a half trillion dollar industry.
It's not a cause, although it's disguised as a cause in order to get public support.
But it isn't.
It's just the latest industry that has evolved, the purpose of which is to get federal money from the federal treasury under the guise of trying to save the planet.
It's a giant scam is what this is all what it all really is.
And here's a story from the Washington Free Beacon today.
Obama Clinton Foundation donors sold green fuel to the military for $149 a gallon.
The CEO and board of directors of Solazyme, S-O-L-A-Z-Y-M-E, CEO and board of directors of Solazyme, a company the military paid $149 per gallon for alternative fuel, have donated more than $300,000 to Democrat candidates and committees.
Recipients of significant donations included the Obama Victory Fund and a Democrat national committee.
In addition, Solazyme donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Bill Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Crime Family Foundation.
Congressional Research Service report found that the Department of Defense paid Solazyme $149 per gallon for fuel made of algae oil, costing taxpayers a total of $223,000 in 2009.
The group, Solazyme, received a $21 million stimulus grant from the Department of Energy in 2009.
Remember that stimulus?
Remember Obama?
$21 million went to this Solazyme group making fuel out of algae that they were then selling to the military for $149 a gallon.
And that is part and parcel of the climate change industry.
$1.5 trillion.
And of course, what's the purpose here?
Well, alternative fuel.
Save the planet.
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Stop climate change.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Well, that makes young people go for it.
Find it's really cool.
It's neat.
It's green.
It's clean.
Wow.
And really all it is is a scam that starts with donating to politicians.
They win elections and then they give the money back to you.
Not the money you donate.
They give federal taxpayer dollars back to you in exchange for your donating to their campaign, all under the guise of saving the planet.
That's what Solyndra was.
That's what all of it is.
Have you seen the Obama's latest energy plan, his attack on the coal business?
Have you seen the admitted impact on temperatures that it will make?
There's a lot of numbers here.
I'm going to take a break.
There's a lot of numbers here to follow.
But the point that you will see here is that if everything Obama recommends is put into place, the temperature reduction by the year 2200 will not even be a full degree centigrade.
2200.
This is 2015.
Back in just a second.
Don't go away.
Ha, here are you.
Welcome back.
Here's Rachel in Hi Hyra, Georgia.
Yeah, great.
Hi, Rachel.
How are you?
I'm good.
How are you?
And it's hey, Hyra.
I'm very well.
Thank you very much.
Great.
I just had a comment.
I've just been very frustrated to see people flock to Trump.
I recognize he has this persona of no fear.
He's not politically correct.
But to me, there's little difference between him and Obama.
Their beliefs, their character are very similar.
The only difference I see is Trump uses his own money to get what he wants, and Obama uses his own.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Slow down here just a second.
I know limited time here, but you need to know that there's an army of Trump people out there who now, if they find out who you are, they're going to be coming for you.
I mean, it's not all right to not like Trump, but to compare him to Obama, you have really stepped in it here as far as they are concerned.
So, Sloan, what do you mean by this?
Well, what I mean is their character is very similar.
He's very liberal.
He has very little standards.
I mean, he's even said he supports the health care system.
You know, he just thinks he can just mow over people.
He says he hires people.
He gets what he wants with his money.
He said that's why he supported Hillary Clinton, was to get what he wanted.
And so that's not what our country is about.
He's not interested.
Well, no, what he said was have a businessman.
This is how the game's played.
If you need something out of Hillary, you got to pay her.
Right.
But he's transferring that same system as a leader of our country.
And that's not.
Yes, you have to use some of the same principles of governing, balancing a budget, you know, handling your money and that kind of thing.
But you can't just walk in there as a leader of our country.
You've got to be respectable and you have to respect others, but yet you still have to stand for the truth.
And I still have yet to really hear very much of what he stands for, except his liberal ideas that he supported all these years.
Well, there are some people that think Trump is a closet liberal.
There are some people who think that he's a wide open liberal that's got, who has enough conservative philosophy mixed in to convince me.
So you're not alone in this.
And Trump has been asked this question.
And he says, hey, everybody changes.
We all change.
He uses Reagan.
Reagan used to be a big Democrat.
I knew Reagan.
Reagan's a great guy.
Reagan loved me.
Did you know that?
Reagan loved Trump.
Did you know that?
You probably didn't know that.
Trump was loved by Reagan.
And Reagan changed.
He was a big Democrat.
We talked about it.
We talked about it.
So that's how he deals with it.
Thank you once again, ladies and gentlemen, V being with us today.
Immensely appreciate it each and every day.
We'll look forward to tomorrow.
Have no idea what's going to happen tomorrow because it hasn't happened yet.
But trust that we'll be on top of it and around it and underneath it when it does.
▲
Export Selection