All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 12, 2017 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:26
January 12, 2017, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, sir, Rebub.
Great to have you back.
Great to be back, Rush Limbaugh, the fastest three hours in media meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
Ditto cam is off on purpose because I'm going to be showing you something here in just a moment.
I had to zoom in on it.
Telephone number 800-282882, the email address Lrushbow at EIBNet.com.
Oh, never did no, I had it on.
So here's what I wanted to show you.
I just I just want to just want to show you this picture.
I just just want to show you this.
If you're not watching on the Ditto Cam, it's hard to describe this.
I'm just just hanging, would you just be patient?
What we have here is a deer.
Um and a monkey.
And the monk the monkey appears to be riding piggyback on the deer in the hind quarters if you get my drift.
Uh well, I'm gonna tell you what this is in just a second.
This is a story from the New York Post.
And it cleared last night, and I've been sitting on it here.
Not figuratively sitting on it, just waiting for opportune time.
You I'm it's still up there on the ditto cam for people to make it make tracks to their website, web browser rushlinbud.com, and because this there's a story accompanying this that mind-boggling.
Well, I'm gonna get to it in just a second.
I'm still holding this.
I can't do the story.
I'm still holding the picture up so people can study this and form an opinion of what they're looking at.
And I I'm sorry for those of you that are not watching on the diddle cam and are frustrated, what the hell is it?
There's I'll tell you in a minute.
Just be just be patient.
I'm letting the picture soak in for people who can't see it.
Okay, that's enough.
I'm gonna turn the ditto cam off now.
The headline accompanying the headline story accompanying this picture is this monkey and deer have the hots for each other.
Two species of completely different animals, a monkey and a deer were recorded having consensual sex for the first time ever, according to a report released on Tuesday.
In the rare case of interspecies sex, a Japanese snow monkey and a female Sika deer were filmed doing the wild thing on Japan's Yakushima Island.
The bizarre friskiness is likely due to mate deprivation and sheds some light on best cheality.
Did you have any doubt that left wing politics was going to be part of this story, Mr. Snergley?
You should have known exactly right.
You should have known.
Okay, here we go.
There's the picture.
What you're looking at, my friends, is what is said to be consensual sex.
That is the key word here.
Consensual sex between a monkey and a deer.
First time ever.
Okay.
Diddle cam turning up.
Would somebody explain to me how they know that this is consensual?
I don't care if it's a climate scientist, part of a consensus of other scientists.
How can anybody know this is consensual?
No, they didn't ask the deer.
The deer is not smiling.
The monkey is not smiling.
There is no outward sign there's any pleasure going on here.
You I mean, It's a still shot.
There's no video of this.
Yet we are told that this is entirely normal.
And that it is consensual sex.
It is cross species consensual sex.
And again, it is because of mate deprivation.
For those of you in realinda, what that means is that there aren't enough deers and monkeys for them to have sex with each other.
And because they are deprived of their natural God-given right to have sex, they have to do it with other species because species of their own are in short supply.
The picture shows the snow monkey hop on the back of two females seek a deer and try to mount them.
One of the deer rejects the monkey.
The other deer is said to have gone for it.
Why isn't this rape?
How do they know it's consensual?
Well, okay, by this, how do they know that it isn't?
But let's not deal with the proving the negative.
Let's prove the positive.
They're asserting that it's consensual.
How do they know?
The animals can't talk.
Do you know animals?
I'm gonna run a you always get on thin ice when you start.
Not this one.
This is not Coco the gorilla.
Coco the gorilla does sign language, picks NFL playoff games, but no, no.
Not not this uh this this little monkey.
It's a snow monkey, the Japanese snow monkey is nothing on record of a Japanese snow monkey talking.
The forbidden love is likely the first recorded case of reproductive interference between the two very different types of animals, a primate and a cerveta.
Only one other scientific study on the phenomenon of interspecies sex has ever been published.
Two years ago, scientists recorded an Antarctic fur seal having sex with a king penguin, but their hookup was non-consensual, and scientists said the seal had harassed the penguin by not taking no for an answer.
Are you kidding me?
So what do we have here?
The penguin got raped by the seal, but this deer consented for sex with sex by the Japanese snow monkey.
The new study notes that the deer, much larger than the monkey, seem to accept to be ridden, seem to be fine with how do they know.
Now you might be asking, Rush, why are you because folks, this is the kind of thing that is going to be this don't when I tell you that everything in the left is political, and when you understand that one of the focal points of the left is to normalize every behavior that many,
the majority, most people think is not normal, this fits the bill.
Why?
It's the animal kingdom.
And of course, if the animals do it, well, it's all we are.
We're animals.
And the story even makes a reference here to another characteristic of this story, and that is this.
The bizarre friskiness is likely due to mate deprivation and sheds some light on bestiality.
What's bestiality?
In replace the monkey with a guy on this deer, and you have bestiality.
And I guarantee normalizing that.
You heard it here for you may not hear another thing about this story for I don't know how long, but the next time something comes, this is going to be in the file forever in the left.
And this is going to be used as evidence of normalcy for other kind of crazy.
In the meantime, I'm not trying to make a joke.
They cannot prove this is consensual.
Consensual is a is a human behavioral mode term applied to animals in the first place, so we can't ask them.
There's no way.
They don't even know what consensus is.
They don't even know that the deer doesn't know it's a deer.
The monkey doesn't know it's a monkey.
Do you know that the human being is the only species, as far as we know, that is born knowing it's going to die.
That is very, very important when studying the human condition.
You know you're going to die, and yet we don't cower in fear of it.
It's way, way out.
We live the life expectancy.
It's many, many years.
But we all know we're going to die, and yet it doesn't destroy our living.
It doesn't destroy our life.
We're the only species that knows this.
We're the only species that actually has an awareness of our existence.
Anyway, that's that.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back with much more after this.
Don't go away.
We have posted the picture that I just referenced and showed a Diddle Camus in our new the EIB ticker section of our brand new redesigned website, Rush Limbaugh.com.
The EIB news ticker, it's called.
Mr. Schnerdley wanted to know if other deer were looking on in either fear or anticipation.
His question is rooted in the fact that one day in Pennsylvania, a cow wandered out onto a lake that had been frozen over and fell in.
And the farmer went and called somebody, got a tractor to bring the apparatus out to hoist the cow out of the frozen lake.
And the news account said that other cows were looking on in fear and anticipation.
For their friend that had fallen, which is a total crock.
The cows weren't thinking that something fell in the lake.
They didn't know diddly squat what had happened.
Anyway, I want to read to you the actual sub-headline from the source of the story, which is the UK independent.
And the uh headline is the subheadline is two animals from totally different species found having sex by scientists.
The research could shine a light on why some humans feel sexually attracted to other animals.
See?
See, scientists.
This all about paving the way for bestiality.
Some scientists, see, it it's reason could shine a light on why some humans feel.
I don't know whether the monkey bought the deer dinner or not.
And I don't know whether or not other deer were looking on in fear or asking to get in line.
I just hope.
I don't know if they were like women at the White House press corps during the Clinton administration saying, can I be next?
I don't know.
We only have the picture of the two, the monkey and the deer in question.
It's it's it look, it's better than what happened to Bambi's mom, so I guess it's I mean we can look on the bright side.
Here is uh what do we have?
Oh, the the millennial thing.
The economy, just one little observation here on this story, the study, the economy top issue among millennial voters.
You know what I bet that they I bet that student loans.
I think millennials are quite understandably obsessed about student loans.
They've been screwed by them.
I mean, they the the college education has been ruined for what it was intended to be.
The college education is now for many graduates an albatross.
It becomes yet another obstacle.
Because of the debt that students incur in the uh process of getting a degree.
Okay, to the phones is Patrick and Syracuse.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Great to have you on the EIB network, the nation's most listened to program.
Make it count.
Happy birthday, Rush.
I hope you're having a great day.
Thank you.
Hey, listen, I don't think I can top that monkey story, so I'm just gonna get right to my own comments.
Um I think something important has gotten lost in this whole discussion about how the Democrats are trying to delegitimize Trump's presidency.
They point to Russian hacking, but they're still running around saying how Hillary won the popular vote.
And what I find frustrating is that so many people seem to have forgotten that Gary Johnson was on the ballot.
And if you look at the libertarian platform, you can sum it up in two words Less government.
So even when you add Jill Stein's votes to Hillary, Trump plus Johnson wins.
And when you look at the platform, more people undeniably voted for less socialism, moving away from socialism than moving toward it.
And so when people try to say that Trump's agenda is not valid, uh, I would encourage all of us on the right to continue to remind all of our friends on the left that more people voted for Trump's agenda than for Hillary's.
Well, you know, that's a good point.
This whole popular vote thing is nothing again but a distraction, trying to claim that Trump doesn't have a mandate, which he clearly does.
And the reason that he does is undeniably this.
Obama put his agenda on the ballot.
You people on the left are going to have to find a way past this.
Obama went out and campaigned for Hillary, but he didn't campaign for Hillary.
He went out and begged people to vote for her to continue his great legacy.
And they said that.
And they repudiated this election was a you could call it a repudiation of socialism.
You can call it a repudiation of communism.
You can call it a repudiation of incompetence.
You can call it a repudiation of failure.
If you're crying out loud, look at Obamacare.
Obamacare was one lie after another.
If you like your doctor, keep your doctor.
If you like your plan, keep your plan.
Your premium's coming down $2,500 a year, whatever way...
Lie after lie after lie.
Not one thing promised with Obamacare happened.
Now the Ditto Cam's still in Zoom.
I'm sorry.
Why didn't you tell me earlier?
Let me uh uh that's not good.
That means it was let me back it out.
All right, there we go.
Um the thing about about this whole business of the Obama agenda, and whether you call it communism or so socialism or what have you, no question it was repudiated.
No question it was voted down.
But, but, but, but this is key.
I'm not so sure that big government was voted down.
Obama's version of it was, and Hillary Clinton's potential control over it, no question was, but Trump didn't run, Trump didn't talk about smaller governments.
I mean, Trump's out there talking about his infrastructure and a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan, and he's talking rebuilding the Navy.
I mean, that much of what Trump wants to do is going to cost a lot of money.
And people voted for it.
Uh this this is what led me many occasions during the campaign to talk about, you know, the what kind of conservatism here was actually triumphing, what of it was on the on the ballot.
I mean, one of the central tenets of conservatism is that government should be small, inobtrusive, out of the way, uh, perform a couple, three, four basic functions, but should not be the focal point of anybody's life.
And it has become that.
I mean, the left has done two things.
They have they have impugned, taken pot shots, they have done everything they can to destroy the whole concept of the private sector or the nation's economy, and at the same time, they have been building up government as the greatest thing on earth.
They've even teached courses now.
The Kennedy School of Government, the whole Ivy League is nothing more than a training ground for the future striped pants crowd to get out of there and know how to administer, maintain, and grow government.
Now, Trump's agenda includes in fact, let me tell you something.
I remember this.
Sometime during the late nineties, maybe in the early 2000s, Bush administration, there were s there were a couple of well-known conservative magazine editors, and David Brooks at the New York Times, who said that the idea of conservatism meaning small limited government is gone.
That's not what people want.
They maintained that we lost that argument, that what people actually want is a large government doing a lot of things with a very active executive who is really smart doing it.
And these were people, Bill Kristol was one of them, David Brooks was another, who were advocating on the basis that in their view, we'd lost the argument that to continue to campaign on the idea of a smaller government was to lose.
People don't want a small government.
People don't want to depend solely on themselves.
People have been conditioned after years of of big government to like it, to depend on.
Their beef is that it's done stupidly, inefficiently and irresponsibly.
And what we need is somebody in charge who's going to do wise things, smart things, efficient things.
And so I think that's what people think they've done in electing Trump.
I don't I don't see small government.
You Trump is not a libertarian.
Even though you want to say he got the libertarian vote, or if you want to add the libertarian vote to Trump's vote in the in the game here of uh playing popular vote, popular vote winner, popular vote loser.
But Hillary Clay, look, look that whole popular vote thing is is meaningless, folks, because the election was determined by the Electoral College, and that determines the campaign.
Candidates went to states, they knew they had to win in order to get the electoral votes in those states in order to win.
If this had been a popular vote election, they wouldn't have gone to North Carolina.
They wouldn't have gone to Wisconsin, they wouldn't have gone to Iowa.
They wouldn't none of that.
If all this was was a popular vote election, the candidates would go to New York, California, and Texas and maybe spend some time in Chicago.
And that's it.
Well, yeah, now Florida too.
God's waiting room.
But aside from those four states, then that's why there is the electoral college, so that that wouldn't happen.
This whole popular vote thing, Hillary, it's worthless.
And by the way, here's another thing.
I just want to remind you of this.
If Hillary won the popular vote, didn't the Russians get it done?
If the Russians hacked the election, if the purpose of the election was to get Hillary Clinton the election, what more could they do?
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, therefore the Russians succeeded.
Why couldn't we say if Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and the Russians did what they intended to do?
I mean, if the Russians are going to hack the election, and a person gets a majority of the popular vote, why isn't the conclusion then that the Russians wanted Hillary to win?
See, the left says, no, no, no, no, no, no, the Russians hacked the electoral vote.
How did they do that?
How did the Russians know which states were going to make?
How did the Russians how'd they get into all those different precincts?
How did they tamper with machines that are not on the internet?
How did they do it?
This is all such caca.
This is what's frustrating dealing with these people is they just out and out lie.
They spread innuendo, they daily repeat it so that my numbed uh low information people keep hearing it over and over again, end up thinking it's true, without ever stopping to think about it.
And they're not going to go away.
They're going to continue doing this.
This is all they've got.
The Russians stole the election from them.
Because the Russians like Trump, and Trump likes to Russian really?
If all that happened, then how did Hillary get the majority of the popular vote?
Hmm.
Chew on that.
Commie SOBs.
Uh Dennis in Dublin, Georgia, great to have you, sir.
I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to program.
Hey, Rush.
Nice.
We have the honor to speak with you.
Thank you, sir very much.
The point I'd like to make is that by the logic being used to try to force Trump to sell his businesses, if Bill Gates' father had tried to run for president in 1968, Bill would have had to sell Microsoft.
Uh, yeah, we...
Yeah.
Basically, because Trump is putting his sons in charge of the business.
So he's divesting Himself of the running of the business.
It would be the same as if Bill Gates' father had tried to run.
Yeah, but but but Gates has effectively done that anyway.
He's retired, he's pulled out of Microsoft, still has some stock, but now he's investing in squito mets, uh mosquito nets and stuff.
But I I was talking about in 1968.
Right, but what is your what is your point?
What's the point?
The the point would be that um comparing what Trump to Trump, what we're trying to do to Trump now, what they would have had to would have done if Bill Gates had Bill Gates decided to run in 1988.
Yeah, but Bill Gates didn't.
And he never would.
No, he no, he didn't.
But Bill, if Bill Gates' father had, Bill Gates would have been the uh running a big company like Trump's sons are going to be doing because Trump is.
Oh, what are you sold over the game?
Wait a minute.
Are you saying Trump should not have to divest because they might not have made Gates divest in 1968?
What are you saying?
I'm I'm saying that Trump Trump is handing over the running of his businesses to his sons, and he's not gonna be in charge of the business.
His sons are.
It'd be like if Bill Gates' father had run in 88.
Bill Gates's father wouldn't have been in charge of the business.
But Bill would have you're saying that if that had happened with Gates, the left wouldn't have cared.
They would have applauded it, but with Trump doing it and his sons running it, they're not accepting it.
I'm not sure they wouldn't have cared, but uh that's fine.
That's entirely possible.
I I'm I'm sorry to be rude, but I don't I don't get the point.
Bill Gates didn't run.
No.
I mean, we can play the what if game on anything here.
I I don't are you are you suggesting that Trump should not have to divest?
Are you suggesting that uh I'm I'm I'm suggesting that handing over his his running of the company to his son should be sufficient.
Should or should not be.
Should be.
Should be.
Oh, well, where is it not sufficient?
Who's saying it isn't?
Well, screw them.
The drive-by say it's not sufficient.
Uh look, I'm aware of some of these malcontents out there, saying that Trump's gonna know he's divested to his two sons, but he's gonna know what they're doing, and therefore he's gonna still have control, and therefore this is not good enough, and therefore this.
Uh Trump's lawyer went up.
Let him challenge it in court if they're not happy with it.
Screw it.
Why should everything have to be done to please the media?
Well, the media doesn't like what you've done here.
The left doesn't like what you've done, Mr. Trump.
They don't think that having your sons in charge is enough distance.
All right, well, I'll put Marlowe Maples in charge.
Well, I don't think that would be uh enough distance either.
They want you to make yourself a pauper.
They want you to sell everything you own, Mr. Trump.
Oh, you mean like the Kennedys did.
Except the Kennedys didn't.
Um I look this this to me is uh just more of of of people unhappy Trump won trying to take their shots.
Trump said at his press conference yesterday that all of the profits from his international hotels are going to be turned over to the United States Treasury.
And I saw some people even have a problem with that.
They think he's playing a game with that because it's only international properties that the profits of which he's giving to the government.
What about his domestic hotels?
I said, okay.
Um, I look at I look at I I finally get the caller's point here.
We don't need to make up something about Bill Gates.
We use Harry Reid.
You know, Harry Reid comes to Washington from Nevada with a couple of pennies in his pocket, and now he owns half a Nevada, half a California when it was exaggerating.
The guy's a real estate baron.
The guy was able to afford to live in a penthouse suite at a at a at a rich Carlton or some other type hotel in Washington, Capitol Hill.
He can't do all This on his congressional Senate salary.
Can't do it.
Where does the where do these guys get their money?
And nobody says anything about it.
And then they leave public office and head over to some corporation or some lobbying firm, which has been greasing the skids for them all along anyway.
And I know what you're saying.
Well, but it doesn't make it right just because Harry Reid did it.
It doesn't make it right, but I'm just saying the nobody ever had a problem with Harry.
Nobody ever has a problem with the Democrats doing this stuff.
Look at Robert Byrd for crying out loud.
Look at the wealth these people show up and earn after being in Washington for a few years, earning 150,000 a year.
It doesn't add up.
Trump's wealth happened before he got there.
And he might leverage it for what they're trying to get people to believe is that Trump only wants to be president to leverage the insider knowledge and power and status he will have to further enrich his holdings.
And you know, I guess I understand people that have these concerns.
But to me, they're way down the list of things that are important.
In terms of the country, what's wrong with it and how to fix them.
Anyway, I have to take a break.
I appreciate the call.
Dennis will be right back.
Don't go away.
All right, a couple of audio sound bites here.
Ben Carson testified today.
Confirmation hearings, housing urban development up first.
Good morning, America.
George Stephanopoulos and John Caro discussing uh Ben Carson.
Brilliant guy, but what does he know about housing?
He doesn't have a slightest idea what he's doing.
The most interesting hearing of all because Ben Carson is a brain surgeon.
He's a neurosurgeon, brilliant, has a great personal story.
He has no experience whatsoever in the the issue of public housing.
So he's going to be drilled for hours on the specifics of what housing and urban development does.
We'll see how much homework is.
Yeah, but presumably he has boned up on all this.
I know that he's been doing mock hearings.
They've taped these hearings, they've looked at game tape.
He's done a lot of homework.
But this is an entirely new field for him.
It is not brain surgery.
So we'll see how he does.
What do you mean he'd has no ex-he got out of it, didn't he?
He found a way out of public housing.
Isn't that the objective here, Mr. Carl?
Do you want people condemned to that for the rest of their lives?
What do you mean he doesn't know what he's doing?
This is see, he's never been in government.
He has no idea how bureaucracy.
The guy solves major problems.
He grew up in public housing.
He had a mother who knew what was necessary to get out of it, and he did.
I this is exact this kind of as you can tell it ticks me off.
It's clear that the people running HUD all these years are the ones that don't know what they're doing.
Public housing is a mess.
In many cases, it's a drug-infested cesspool.
Nobody should have to live like that.
The money we spend on it.
And you take somebody who's come from that and has escaped it, which ought to be the objective via success and self-reliance.
Here's Carson himself.
And Elizabeth Warren just grilled him today.
And you know what her question's focused on?
Exactly what we're just talking about.
She wants, she's asking Carson if Donald Trump is going to benefit from all these contracts that are going to be let for housing and urban development.
Her uh question begins the bite.
Among the billions of dollars that you will be responsible for handing out and grants and loans, can you just assure us that not one dollar will go to benefit either the president-elect or his family?
It will not be my intention to do anything to benefit any American.
I understand that.
Everything that we do.
Do I take that to mean that you may manage programs that will significantly benefit the president-elect?
You can take it to mean that I will manage things in a way that benefits the American people.
To the best you understand that you're if there happens to be an extraordinarily good program that's working for millions of people, and it turns out that someone that you're targeting is going to gain, you know, ten dollars from it.
Am I gonna say, no, the rest of you Americans can't have it?
Yeah.
Just get the premise here.
Dr. Carson, can you promise me that your stewardship of HUD will not be directing money to Donald Trump and his children?
How must these people think?
They think like criminals, they think like corrupt public officials, because I guess they have experience with it.
Where does a question like this come from?
Ben Carson may be one of the most ethically honest people ever to have served or to serve in government.
And here comes Elizabeth Warren of you didn't build that fame, asking him if his purpose is to steer federal contracts to Donald Trump's kids.
Do we have time?
Yeah, wait, she got the last word in.
Next next bite, real quickly here.
Although we do have a problem here, and I appreciate your good faith in this, and I do, Dr. Carson.
The problem is that you can't assure us that HUD money, not of $10 varieties, but of multimillion dollar varieties, will not end up in the President Alex's pockets.
Stop the tape!
Where does this come from?
What do you mean he can't guarantee that it won't end up in Trump's back pockets?
Oh man.
Has any other HUD secretary been asked if he can guarantee the money won't end up, say, in the back pocket of Ted Kennedy to help with the bar tab for crying out.
What are we talking about here?
Hey, look, let's not forget about Elizabeth Warren.
People may not know this.
She enriched herself and her family.
You know how she got it?
She flipped houses.
And some people say she used insider information to flip houses of the poor that she would buy.
▲
Export Selection