Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

Listen to it Button

RUSH: 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. “It Turns Out Parenthood Is Worse Than Divorce, Unemployment — Even the Death of a Partner.” This is written by Ariana Eunjung 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.

“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 in the first year is devastatingly bad — worse than divorce, worse than unemployment and worse even than the death of a partner. Researchers Rachel Margolis and Mikko Myrskylä followed 2,016 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 0 (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 is considered taboo for new parents to say negative things about a new child,’ they wrote.”

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 like their life. They did not ask ’em, “Do you like parenthood? Are you happy?” They were much happier before the birth of the child than after the birth of the child, but they didn’t ask them, “Has the child made you happier?” 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. I need to ask, why…? This is something I’ve never seen any evidence of. 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 can fully understand when the kid is 10, 12 starts breaking things, wrecking the car and all that that, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

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 the baby is born? I don’t know. I’m always suspicious of this kind of stuff, ’cause I always think there’s an agenda in everything, and I think everything is politics. I haven’t quite figured this out here, but this is the strangest darn thing to survey because it isn’t gonna stop people from having children, no matter what they promote from this survey.

I just an odd thing to look at. Now, it says here, “”The study’s goal was to try to gain insights into a longstanding 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 birthrate in the country has remained stubbornly low — 1.5 [crumb crunchers] per woman — for 40 years.” The average is 1.8, worldwide. The average is 1.8 per woman.

That’s where the statistic in the old joke comes from: Mom, dad, 1.8 kids, family sedan, picket fence and so forth. Some people say it’s 2.8, but 1.8’s the average. Anyway, “Margolis, a sociology researcher at the University of Western Ontario, and Myrskylä, 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 and anticipation of the baby. It was only after birth that the parents’ experiences diverged.” Wait ’til Planned Parenthood gets hold this have news. They gotta 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. They’ll cite this study.

“You want to be happy?”

“Yeah, course.”

“Well, then abort your baby … Planned Parenthood.”

The Post: “On average, new parenthood led to a 1.4 unit drop in happiness. That’s considered very severe,” the way these people categorize things. “The consequence of the negative experiences was that many of the parents stopped having children after their first.” By the way, “gender was not a factor. … Parents reported exhaustion due to trouble breast-feeding, sleep deprivation, depression, domestic isolation and relationship breakdown,” 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. Former LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling is now suing everybody, V. Stiviano and TMZ and his ex-wife for leaking racist recording because it violated his rights. But that’s… Here it is. This is the one I was looking for. UK Independent: “Men May Never Truly Get Over a Relationship Break-up, 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 hit hardest after a break-up — but men suffer more in the long term and may 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 for a significant other. Craig Morris, research associate at Binghamton University, says the differences boil 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, and so are better at accepting…?” Oh. I think I get this. Women have more to lose by hooking 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, research associate at Binghamton University said. “‘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 among the 5,705 participants in the study — surveyed across 96 countries — reported higher levels of emotional investment and pain when a relationship came to [a screeching halt] than men did. However, that 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 someone else.

But men are a whole different story.

“But 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 and for a very long period of time as it sinks in that he must start 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,’ says Morris,” 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 before the program, if he agreed with it, and he did, without hesitation. And you know what he said? He said, “It’s because… Well,” he said, “Rush, look at it.” He said, “In a civilized world and relationship, it’s women who say ‘no.’ You ask ’em out; they’re the ones who say ‘no.’ Ask them to get married, they the ones who say ‘no.’

“They’re used to saying ‘no’ countless times. How many guys do they say ‘no’ to even after the first, second date. They don’t want… They say ‘no;’ they’re used to it. They gotta be heartless to be able to get away with it. But men, they don’t say ‘no.’ They never say ‘no,’ depending.” I guess that may have some factor. It says here “70% of divorces in the US filed by women.” So there you have it, folks: The lifestyle section of the program today.


RUSH: Here’s Chris in Hancock, Michigan. You’re next. Great to have you here. Hi.

CALLER: Hi. Thanks a lot, Rush. Public schoolteacher, Rush 24/7 dittos. Your two lifestyle articles, I think the connection is that you’ve got Millennials being studied, and they’re the Me-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. 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.

RUSH: Are you one? Are you a Millennial?

CALLER: I’m just on the far edge. I’m just past ’em. But I’ve taught a lot of them in the past 16 years.

RUSH: And so your experience is that they’re self-immersed?

CALLER: Well, I think it’s pretty obvious from looking around at our culture. Look at the Planned Parenthood issue. It’s all about what’s best for me, what can I get out of everything.

RUSH: Right.

CALLER: Look at our welfare system.

RUSH: Well, that’s excellent point, because parenthood done well is all about the child.

CALLER: Yep. Same with a marriage or relationship. It’s about the other person.

RUSH: Theoretically, yeah, but you have to be healthy in your own right —

CALLER: Correct.

RUSH: — for somebody else to regard you same way.

CALLER: Correct.

RUSH: Are you suspicious of these two surveys or you just making an observation about them?

CALLER: I was making an observation but at the same time, I mean, just with your — everything now started with “scientists say” like your articles yesterday. By the way, I work all summer cutting wood. I drink so much Coca-Cola, and I’m not overweight at all. That study is pretty funny, too.

RUSH: You know, that’s another excellent point. Every news story, “Scientists say,” “Scientists report,” “The latest scientific survey is.” People fall for it. Obama announcing Obamacare gets a bunch of secretaries out there wearing white lab coats to make ’em look like doctors!

CALLER: (laughing)

RUSH: To make it look like doctors are approving the whole thing.

CALLER: Yeah. It’s the intention, you know, everybody is all about the intent, you know, like your Limbaugh Theorem.

RUSH: Excellent point. Chris, I appreciate it very much. What he’s talk about here, we’ve had this story earlier this week, Coca-Cola, it’s a story at New York Times. 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. There were a couple other studies here where 29 scientists sent Obama a letter saying that his nuclear deal with Iran was just brilliant. I thought it was interesting because the New York Times doing stories here on how scientists can be bought and how scientists are corrupted. Yet what do they use to validate climate change and global warming? Scientists! “Consensus of scientists.”

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 $1.5 trillion 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 it all really is. Here’s a story from the Washington Free Beacon today:

“The 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 Democratic candidates and committees, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis. Recipients of significant donations included the Obama Victory Fund and the Democratic National Committee. Additionally, Solazyme donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton [Crime Family] Foundation.

“A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report found that the Department of Defense (DOD) paid Solazyme $149 per gallon for fuel made of algal oil, costing taxpayers a total of $223,500 in 2009. The group also received a $21 million stimulus grant from Department of Energy in 2009.” Remember that stimulus? Remember Obama’s stimulus? Well, $21 million went to this Solazyme group, making fuel out of algae that they were then selling to the military for $149 a gallon.

That is part and parcel of the climate change industry, $1.5 trillion. Of course, what’s the purpose here? “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. They 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 Obama’s latest energy plan, his attack on the coal business, have you seen the admitted impact on temperature that it will make? 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.

By 2200, and this is 2015.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This