Dittos, 

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Back Home Button
The Rush Limbaugh Show
Excellence in Broadcasting
RSS Icon
ADVERTISEMENT

EIB WEB PAGE DISGRONIFIER

Quick Hits Page

What Difference Does It Make? Obama Names Pritzker
RUSH: I don't want to get anywhere near it.  Couldn't care less.  Greetings, folks.  Audio sound bites.  I don't care.  It's Obama naming Penny Pritzker to be the commerce secretary and making fun of the confirmation hearings, the anal exam she's gonna get.  It's no big deal.  Well, he was.  He's laughing about it, making fun that she's gonna get an anal.

(interruption)

No, she won't get an anal.  What am I talking about?  She's a liberal Democrat feminist, the Hyatt hotel chain babe.  She's not gonna get a media anal.  They'll just sail her through and confirm her.  What am I thinking, she's not a Republican.  Sorry.  That makes it even more reason not to play it.

Denver Gun Billboard Causes Big Controversy
RUSH: Gateway Pundit, Jim Hoft, had a post on Tuesday that I meant to mention but didn't get to it. There is a billboard, a pro-gun billboard that has been posted in Colorado, and it has made a lot of people mad. It has three Indians. It's a black-and-white photo of three Indians, and on top of the picture of the three Indians, it says, "Turn in your arms." Underneath the Indians it says, "The government will take care of you." Two of the Indians are holding rifles and one is not.

"A pro-gun billboard that features images of Native Americans is drawing both contempt and support in Colorado. 'Turn in your arms. The government will take care of you,' the sign says. While the sarcasm is evident, the group behind the message is not. Lamar Advertising, the company that owns the billboard, told CNN affiliate KUSA that the group who paid for the message wants to remain anonymous. Regardless, the billboard has outraged some residents in Greeley, about 50 miles north of Denver.

"'I think it is insensitive, because even though it is what may have happened in the past, people are still living that. Relatives are still living that." This is New Castrati guy speak. Listen: "I think it's insensitive, Mr. Limbaugh, because even though it may be what happened in the past, people are still living that! Relatives are still living that. It's terribly unfortunate, it's insensitive, and the pictures should come down."

DOJ to Appeal Morning-After Pill Ruling
RUSH: Yesterday we learned that a federal judge had authorized the over-the-counter sale of the morning-after birth control pill to 15-year-old girls.  The same 15-year-old girls who in many places cannot legally have a bottle of Advil with them in school, are now entirely authorized to walk into a pharmacy anywhere and pick up the morning-after birth control pill.  The FDA actually authorized the 15-year-olds.  The judge didn't want any age limit at all, if you want to know the truth.  The judge didn't want any age limit.  The FDA set the age limit at 15.  If the FDA had not stepped in, a 10-year-old could have walked in and picked up the morning-after birth control pill. 

As I said yesterday, we spent a lot of time on this, you really need to ask yourself.  This is Democrat Party initiative.  It's a political initiative.  This is not health related.  This is not medicinal in any way.  This is political and have to ask yourself -- I think a lot of people did yesterday, when I framed it this way -- what in the world does the Democrat Party care about this for?  And make no mistake, it's the Democrat Party and their feminist supporters that are pushing this.  Why?  What could they possibly have in mind here?  Why would the Democrat Party want your 15-year-old girl or 10-year-old girl to be able to go to a drugstore and get a morning-after birth control pill, to have a morning after abortion, just to make sure that what happened the night before didn't take. 

Why does the Democrat Party care about that?  Because that's who's behind it.  Well, I think a lot of people, when hearing me express it that way, said, "Yeah, what is the Democrat Party behind this for?"  Anyway, what happened is the Justice Department announced late yesterday that they were gonna "appeal a judge's decision lifting all age limits on the birth-control pill and a cheaper generic. The federal government says the judge who issued the ruling exceeded his authority, and it wants his decision suspended while the appeal is underway."

The judge is Edward Korman of New York.  He had "given the FDA until Monday to lift all age limits on Plan B," and the cheaper generic.  The judge mandated "that emergency contraception be sold just like aspirin." So the FDA, after the judge's ruling, then slapped the age limit of 15 on it.  And they said you could buy one brand, Plan B One Step without a prescription.  The current age, by the way, is 17.  That is the law now.  The Democrats were still not happy with that. "Mr. Limbaugh, what evidence do you have that the Democrats --" Well, who else?  Who is this federal judge, and who went before him asking for this?  Who did it?  It is a legitimate question.  What purpose does the Democrat Party have in supporting this? 

Why does the Democrat Party want your 15-year-old not to be able to have some Advil in the purse, to have to go ask the pharmacist for Sudafed, but can walk in to a corner pharmacy in a Walmart anywhere and pick up a morning-after birth control pill?  Well, there is an answer to that question.  A, this is what the feminists want, and the feminists are a constituency of the Democrat Party.  So you can say, "Well, the feminists, what do they care about this for?"  Because they are totally oriented toward upsetting the norm.  I could say that the family is one of the remaining obstacles in the way of the Democrats having government totally in control of everybody.

Well, whatever the answer is, the question's legitimate:  What in the world does the Democrat Party care about this for?

Conflicting Polls on Sequester
RUSH: We have a poll out from Gallup.  We already had polling data that only 4% of the American people care about health care.  Remember all those polls that we've had recently.  "A majority of Americans now, 52%, say that they --" oh, and the big poll, 42% yesterday didn't even know that Obamacare is the law of the land."  Kaiser Family Foundation, 42% don't even know it.  That is hard to believe.  That is stunning that 42% of Americans have no idea that it is the law of the land, or that it's already been implemented, 42% don't even know about it. 

The latest Gallup poll says that 52% of Americans don't know whether or not sequestration is a good thing or a bad thing, and a majority of them aren't concerned.  I totally believe that.  And this explains why Obama is in trouble on this.  This administration bent over backwards trying to convince people that if the sequester happened, that it was the end of life as we know it.  The cuts were to be so large and so dramatic that your life was going to be upset in ways you couldn't even conceive, and they did that for months, weeks, leading up to the deadline of April 1st on it, trying to get the Republicans to cave.  And the Republicans did not cave.  The sequester then went into effect, nothing happened.  Everything was fine. 

So the regime did two things.  They canceled the White House Easter egg roll, and they furloughed a bunch of air traffic controllers for the express purpose of creating chaos in the lives of as many people as possible so that they could further the idea that the sequester -- i.e., massive, Draconian budget cuts -- were dramatically bad.  In fact, the sequester is actually a spending increase, minor, but it is.  And so the sequester didn't do anything.  That's another reason why the media is a little concerned.  'Cause they're thinking, maybe Obama's magic is vanished.  He's not able to convince people of things that used to be automatic.  Fifty-two percent don't know enough to say whether or not it's a good or bad thing, and the vast majority are not even concerned about it. 

Folks, I gotta tell you, when they get up at the regime and they see that, do you realize how much time and energy they have put into the scare tactic to the overall effort to frighten everybody, that if sequester happened, it was the end of life as you know it?  And now majority Americans aren't even concerned about it.  Which means it hasn't had any impact on every day life, other than what they've manufactured with the air traffic control furloughs.  Can you imagine how they get up and read that polling data and get frustrated as all heck? 

Now, the New York Times has a poll that says people say the sequester is killing the economy.  "Almost Half of Americans Say Budget Cuts Will Hurt Economy -- Nearly half of Americans agree with the Obama administration’s contention that the economy will be hurt by the spending cuts prompted by the sequestration, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll."  Which poll are we to believe here?  The Gallup poll, which most people don't even know about it to be affected, or the New York Times poll which says that half of Americans think it's a disaster? 

You know what to believe?  None of it.  That's how much credibility this stuff has now.  How can you have such a disparity?  One poll says half of Americans agree with Obama that the economy will be hurt.  And in Gallup, 52% say don't even know enough about it to know whether it's good or bad, and even more don't care. 

Rich, Not Middle Class Support Obama
RUSH: "According to a new Economist/YouGov poll, it's the rich -- not the poor or middle class -- who back Obama more despite his 2012 campaign attacking the rich. The poll found that fewer than half of those with incomes less than $100,000 per year approve of Obama's performance, while he enjoys a 54% approval rating among those with incomes higher than that." So this poll -- it's a "shock poll" -- shows: "Wealthy, Not Middle Class, Support Obama." Let's be clear. It's the wealthy Democrats that support Obama, the wealthy leftists. And, by the way, I don't want to offend anybody here, but $100,000 a year is not wealthy. It may be "rich" to some people, but it isn't "wealthy." This is another totally misleading story on this particular poll.

New Eating Disorder: Orthorexia
RUSH: This new eating disorder, it's called orthorexia.  "This is the time of year when many people are excited to get in shape and eat healthier. The problem is many people are going too far. A dangerous phenomenon called 'Orthorexia' is becoming more prevalent. ... Staying healthy means following a balanced diet. A growing number of people, however, are eliminating entire food groups, seeing only negative qualities in things like dairy, eggs, meats, grains, and fats."

In other words, everybody that's following all of this is becoming a vegetarian, and they're losing their health.  This is a CBS story out of Boston, by the way. 

"Boston University Nutritionist Jenn Culbert defines Orthorexia: 'What it essentially means is that someone is obsessed with eating only healthy food that they consider to be pure.'  The problem, according to Culbert, is our bodies need those so called bad foods."

You need fat.

"Fat helps us absorb fat soluble vitamins, A, D, E, and K, and it also helps us absorb phydo chemicals in fruits and vegetables.  Whole grains have been shown to be heart healthy.  Dairy is a great source of protein and a great source of calcium and Vitamin D. ... When you are no longer able to enjoy any of the foods that you once did, and you are no longer able to participate in a family meal, or going out with a friend," you got a problem. 

Orthorexia.  You know where this comes from?  Years and years and years of these wacko leftist groups like Center for Science in the Public Interest telling you, "Don't eat that, you'll die.  Don't eat that, you'll die. Don't eat that, you'll die."  They're not the only groupl, and then it spreads.  Then you hear it from your friend. You never heard of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, but you heard it on TV that eggs contain cholesterol and you could die 20 years in advance of what you should.  "Well, I'm not gonna eat eggs," and you tell somebody and the word spreads. 

So orthorexia is the new term for explaining this, as opposed to... what's the other rexia, Snerdley?  Yeah, anorexia where you don't eat anything.  Orthorexia is where you eat and you lose your health and your life gradually.  Anorexia is where it can happen quickly.  And it does.  It leads to vegetarianism.  That's what people end up eliminating.  Dairy, eggs, meat, grain, fat.  They're told all those things are horrible.  They're told all those things are dangerous.  All those things are unhealthy.  All those things have cholesterol.  All those things lead to heart attack, stroke, who knows whatever else.  So people curtail eating those things. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Rush 24/7 Audio/Video

Listen to the Latest Show Watch the Latest Show

original

Facebook

ADVERTISEMENT

Most Popular

EIB Features

ADVERTISEMENT: