Dittos, 

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

EIB WEB PAGE DISGRONIFIER

Quick Hits Page


Migraine Headaches, Low IQ Linked to Lower Incomes

RUSH: Lower incomes have now been linked to migraine headaches.  Did you know that?  This is from Reuters.  "In a large new US study, migraine headaches were found to be more likely to happen to people with lower household incomes, but tended to go into remission at the same rate for people at all income levels."  You know, this is almost a companion piece.  We had a story yesterday I didn't get to that lower income leads to lower IQs. Yeah, I had that in the Stack, and I just didn't get to it yesterday. 

It's all part of the left's push to end "income inequality." So if migraine headaches are found to be more likely to happen and lower household incomes? Well, we must do something!  We must have more wealth redistribution and take care of migraines by upping people's incomes.

That story from yesterday was poverty causes lower IQ, and it dovetails with this: "Lower Incomes Linked to Migraines." So, see? We've got to do something. As a society, we've got to do something about this -- which means higher taxes and more transfers of wealth. 


See, I Told You  So: Exercise and Weight Loss Unrelated

RUSH: "Exercise is Not Likely to Be Your Ticket to the Weight-Loss," US News & World Report.  I coulda told you this.  In fact, I have been telling you this for 25 years.  Exercise? Fine. If you want to go do it, fine. If you feel better doing it, great. If you like it and you look forward to it and you feel good during it and you feel better afterwards and you think it's improving your life, go for it.  But it's not the way to lose weight.  And it's been proven any number of ways, and here yet another story.  "Among the most commonly held misconceptions about obesity, perhaps none does more harm than the notion that exercise is responsible for the lion's share of weight management. 

"Sure, it's true that exercise does burn calories, and yes, if you burn more calories you ought to lose weight. But unfortunately, it's just not that simple" because you cannot burn enough calories exercising to make a difference.  You can have a snow cone and end up consuming more calories than you just burned running your marathon. (interruption) What?  You don't know what a snow cone is?  It's the thing you practice the silken swirl on.  

They call 'em ice something or other in Hawaii.  It really is... You cannot burn enough calories via exercise.  You have to eat less.  Exercise alone is not going to do it. But, see, the difference is, I say, "If you want to exercise, fine."  But the exercise Nazis are the people that demand you do it, because they think you should do it, and they do it themselves. "So you should do it, and you're gonna lose weight" and so forth.  See, that's where I differ.  If you like exercise, fine.  I don't care.  

I'm not gonna talk you out of it. I don't want to. Just 'cause I don't do it doesn't mean you shouldn't.  But, by the same token, just 'cause you love it doesn't mean you ought to make everybody do it and nag 'em and hassle 'em or whatever. Just like the vegans, just like the militant vegetarians.  


Batwoman Writers Quit Over Lesbian Wedding Storyline

RUSH: Did you know Batwoman has split off into its own franchise?  It's not part of the Batman franchise, and there's a major controversy.  Two writers have left the franchise because DC comics, which owns Batwoman, refused to agree to a lesbian marriage in the next story line.  They said there is no gay/lesbian marriage with Batwoman or Catwoman, whatever her name is.  We didn't create lesbians and all that, and the new writers wanted to incorporate a lesbian marriage for Batwoman or whatever, and the creator said, no.  So the writers walked off.  

That's what I'm talking about.  Their way or the highway. So now the creators are intolerant bigots, and something is going to have to be done to punish them. 

Schools Send "Fat Letters" to Parents

RUSH: Now, Studio City out near Los Angeles.  "Many schools are sending notes home to parents, telling them their children are overweight. Lauren Schmitt, a registered dietitian, starts the school year by checking out the weight of hundreds of preschoolers in the San Fernando Valley. 'We look at growth charts and percentiles. And when a child is at 95 percent of their…we can look at weight for age or weight for height…that child would be considered obese,' she said."

So parents are gonna get what is called healthy or unhealthy letters.  The kids are calling them "fat letters."  Lauren Schmidt, the registered dietician, said, "Out of the 900 2 to 5-year-old children she looks at, roughly 200 are listed as obese. 'We let the parents know in a gentle fashion, but we also send out a ton of handouts to try to help that family.'" Oh, gosh, yeah, we gotta help the family. The family doesn't know that it's got an obese kid.  The father probably played in the NFL, has a concussion. The mother wasn't that smart to begin with. The kid is sitting there overweight and neither of them know it, so they need a letter from the school to tell them that they're obese.  

"Experts said 19 states around the country are cracking down on childhood obesity with similar letters.  'Every year there are a few phone calls from parents who are upset,' said Schmitt.  Many districts in Southern California, such as Riverside County, choose to follow state guidelines and instead send test results of the child’s body mass index to their parents. ... The dietitian said the goal is to empower and educate parents with the tools to make healthier lifestyle choices for children." Now, is that their responsibility?  You know, here comes the school with the letter.  This is not "Your kid isn't doing well in social studies."  This is "Your kid is fat.  Do you know what you're doing?"  Are these letters signed by Michelle Obama, I wonder?  Or did Michelle Obama, the national dietician, have anything to do with this?   



AP: Family Income Not a Factor as Students Eat Free

RUSH: "Family Income Not a Factor as Students Eat Free."  Story out of Boston.  AP cheering about this.  "Some students toted lunchboxes to the first day of school in Boston this week, but district administrators are expecting that could become a more unusual sight as parents learn about a federal program that is now providing all public school students in the city with free breakfast and lunch," whether they need it or not.  It's no longer means tested.  And, in fact, it really isn't new.  

We've been discussing this.  It first started in western Michigan, but in those cases when we talked about it we were told that the schools had so many poor children that they're just overwhelmed, that it made no sense to not offer free breakfast and lunch, because most -- like 80, 90% -- of the students were poor.  So they said, "It wouldn't make any sense to deny five, 10% of the students lunch and breakfast. We give it to everybody."  

So now kids are being sent letters, their parents are if they're too fat, while at the same time certain schools are feeding everybody, whether they can afford it or not. It's another measure of control, but you know what else it is?  It's another ticket for parents to simply shelve their own responsibility.  Mom and dad don't have to worry about providing lunch or breakfast anymore.  The school's gonna do it, and of course they'll do it in the summertime, too.  

They'll do it in the summer, even when there's no school.  "Well, where are the kids gonna eat?" will be the complaint. "Well, why not at home?"  "No, they don't get breakfast or lunch at home nine months of the year, so it's gonna be too hard to convince 'em they need to eat at home when they're out of school." So parents, once again, are being given option or opportunity to opt out, and the school (read: Government) will do the job.

When you get a new pet, what is the first thing you do to try to bond with it?  You want to be the one to feed it, right?  You don't want anybody else feeding that new puppy or kitten.  You are gonna do it because you know that that puppy or kitten is going to bond with you first, and when that happens, everybody else is getting second and third dibs.  That pet is always gonna be yours if you're the only one who feeds it.  

Well, it's the same thing here.  You know, if you go to a national park, they'll tell you, "Don't feed the animals, because you'll make them dependent, and they'll not be able to provide for themselves." But when it comes to human beings, they don't want them to be able to provide for themselves.  In Boston, the end result is going to be here that the students associate eating with the government.

Not with mom and dad, not at home, and not with family.  So they grow up thinking that's not a parental responsibility.  Let's take this another step.  So then when it becomes politically opportune to blame the Republicans for wanting to cut the school food budget, you'll have not only parents fighting with you, but the kids.  "Oh, my God. They're gonna cut food! The Republicans want to cut my breakfast and lunch?" 

And what do you think is gonna happen as far as those kids and how they're ever gonna vote?  They're just like your puppy or your kitten, and they're being conditioned to believe the government's feeding them and that if somebody else in the government wants to ever change the program 'cause it's silly, it's unnecessary, it's too far reaching, it's too expensive, who's gonna object the most?  The kids, the future voters.  

So it's a way of locking in voters before they can legally vote.  It's taking young kids and destroying the idea that parents provide for them, or that they can provide for themselves, that the government will do it.  And it all happens under the guys of compassion, it all happens because it's just the "fair" thing to do. (New Castrati impression) "I mean, we can't only provide the poor with breakfast and lunch, because that'll make the people who are not poor, feel it.

"They'll still feel bad, and they'll think it's not fair, and they would be right, and so, Mr. Limbaugh, it's just easier to feed everybody.  There are fewer complaints that way, and it's fair. It treats everybody the same."  Yeah, that's the problem with it.  But the biggest problem with it is that they're not your kids, and you are not their responsibility.  So you teach the parents that they don't have to accept that responsibility of feeding their kids two meals a day, that the government will do it.

Because that's what the school is, is government.  This is the difference between liberals and conservatives.  What kind of a tougher row to hoe is a kid gonna have in life if he grows up thinking that someone else is obligated to feed him, that all he's gotta do is show up?  It's somebody else's job to do that.  It's never his, and it's not his mom and dad's.  It's the government's job. 

Folks, it's not the best example, but it still works here: This is how you limit people's dreams.  The smaller people's dreams, the easier time you're gonna have controlling them. The more simple their desires, the more simple and less complex, the easier it's gonna be to control them.  This really is a problem, and then the government's sending home a letter, "You're too fat! Your kid's too fat. Let us feed the kid. We'll take care of it."  


Kerry's Twentysomething Syria Advisor...

RUSH: A Daily Caller story.  "The woman whose opinion lawmakers are relying on to go to war in Syria is also a paid advocate for the war-torn country’s rebels."I kid you not.  The woman whose opinion lawmakers are relying on to go to war in Syria is a paid advocate for the rebels.  "On Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry encouraged members of the House of Representatives to read a Wall Street Journal op-ed by 26-year-old Elizabeth O’Bagy -- an analyst with the Institute for the Study of War -- who asserted that concerns about extremists dominating among the Syrian rebels are unfounded."

She's 26!  I wonder if she's still on her parents' health insurance plan.  Twenty-six!  And McCain and Kerry are taking strategic advice.  And she advocates for the rebels, at 26 -- (interruption) "What do you got against young people?"  Nothing!  Nothing, but there's this thing called experience and objectivity.  Anyway, I have nothing against young people.  Don't misunderstand.  

A couple of months ago in the New York Times, 26-year-old Elizabeth O'Bagy was saying the exact opposite.  "Islamist Rebels Create Dilemma on Syria Policy," in the New York Times. Two months ago, the rebels doing great was a problem.  Today she says the rebels are great, and that's who McCain and Kerry are taking advice from.  It's not about her being 26, nothing against young people.  You know that, folks.  Exact opposite.  

ADVERTISEMENT

Rush 24/7 Audio/Video

Listen to the Latest Show Watch the Latest Show

original

Facebook

ADVERTISEMENT

Most Popular

EIB Features

ADVERTISEMENT: