Feminist Snow Plowing System Brings Stockholm to Standstill
RUSH: The story I was alluding to earlier: “‘Feminist’ Snowplowing System Brings Stockholm to a Standstill.” This is classic. This is exactly who these people are. “A ‘feminist’ strategy for clearing the roads of snow in Stockholm ended in failure as the city ground to a halt in recent days.” Now, you might be saying to yourself, “What is a feminist strategy for clearing the roads of snow in Stockholm? What in the world is that?” And I must confess, I had no idea what it was ’til I read this story.
What in the name of Sam Hill is a feminist snowplow system and who comes with this stuff?
Well, somebody came up with it and then had the ability to enact it in the city of Stockholm. “Feminists in Sweden decided that the long-practiced snowplowing routes,” the ones that had existed for a long time, “were sexist.” Snowplowing routes were sexist because “they said the snowplowing routes favored men, who drove to work over women who walked in their neighborhoods while taking children to school and bikers.” Women ride more than men apparently in Sweden.
So the feminists in Sweden embarked on a less sexist way to plow snow. Instead of clearing the main roads so that the men could get to their jobs they first cleaned sidewalks and bike paths. I’m not making this up. This was considered fairness. This, in fact, was not only fairness, it was considered getting even because these people were running around feeling offended and discriminated against because of snowplow routes. In a sexist way, they were looking this, it’s not fair to the women how they’re plowing the streets.
So then the perfect storm hits after they succeed in rewriting the snowplow routes. A once in 111-year snowstorm hit in November right as the new gender plowing plan went into effect. And the results were that the city of Stockholm was paralyzed for a week. And everybody in Stockholm was pointing fingers of blame at everybody else. This new system suggested by progressive politicians in Stockholm tore up tried-and-tested snowplowing.
There was nothing wrong with the snowplow routes. The snow was getting plowed. Commerce was occurring. Traffic was enabled. People were getting where they needed to do, but the feminazis in Sweden said it’s sexist because not as many women drive as men do, and the roads were being plowed first. They made it so that the streets were second or third after sidewalks and bike paths, and so the city ended up being paralyzed. Public transportation failed. Traffic piled up and injuries requiring hospital visit reportedly spiked.
This is the kind of stuff that’s been happening in this country and health care. This is the kind of stuff that’s been happening all through our culture and society. This is just nonsensical. It’s hilarious, but the problem is it actually, when enacted, causes great problems.
Trump Interviews Tulsi Gabbard
RUSH: I also got a panicked note from a friend. The note says, “Did I see Trump’s considering a Democrat for the cabinet?” Yeah, her name is Tulsi from Hawaii. (interruption) Is it Gabbard? She’s from Hawaii. She had a little back-and-forth with Hillary early on. I know a little bit about her. She’s not… I mean, from Hawaii, she ought to be a dyed-in-the-wool socialist/leftist, but she’s got some redreaming aspects. I don’t know what post that Trump’s thinking of for her. He’s still going back and forth with the idea of Romney as secretary of state.
RUSH: You know, it’s fascinating, ladies and gentlemen, the same media that could not be made to be interested in any of the donors to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation, could not be made to be interested, could not care a whit about all of these foreign governments and foreign businesses and individuals donating incredibly large sums to the Clinton Foundation. A hundred million dollars here, five million there, 10 million here from individuals, from banks, governments, they couldn’t care less to look into whether or not this might, say, end up compromising a secretary of state Clinton or a President Clinton.
There was nothing to see there. In fact, they circled the wagons to try to protect the Clintons. But now the Drive-By Media, that same media, is obsessed with people looking into whether or not Trump might be doing anything to benefit his business empire. Washington Post, New York Times all have tweets out there today suggesting that we might want to really pay close attention to what Trump is doing during this transition, how he might be benefiting his personal business empire.
The same people who could not for a brief moment look into the same aspects of the Clintons. Well, we knew this was gonna happen. The media is another institution marginalizing itself.
Ipsos Buried Poll That Said Americans Agree with Trump’s Immigration Pause
RUSH: You know how there are people, reporters, who write books during campaigns and they find out all kinds of stuff that they do not print until after the election is over? They save the good stuff for a book. That’s so they can personally enrich themselves financially. Well, get this. The polling partner with Reuters is Ipsos. And Ipsos did a poll during the campaign, but they hid it. They didn’t release it.
And you know what the results of this poll are? That the American people strongly, strongly approved of and supported Donald Trump’s plan to put a temporary pause on immigration. They just didn’t report it. They just did release it. Trump’s campaign, immigration and labor policies had overwhelming public support. Only one-sixth of the population opposed Trump’s immigration plan. They hid that poll until just now.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Just like this Ipsos poll, here are the details on this. The Ipsos poll that was taken during the campaign and sat on, not released, shows that only about one-in-six Americans strongly oppose Trump’s immigration policies. And those policies are spelled out. Let’s look at it this way. Five-out-of-six Americans support Trump’s policies towards “immigrant labor, repatriations, sanctuary cities, Islamic migrants, employer oversight and his ground-breaking proposal to reduce legal immigration.”
Five-out-of-six Americans, 10 out of 12 Americans, 15 out of 18 Americans support Trump’s immigration plans discovered in an Ipsos poll hidden throughout the campaign. Fifteen out of every 18 Americans support Trump busting up sanctuary cities, and his other policies toward immigrant labor, repatriations, Islamic migrants, employer oversight and all that. “Ipsos is a highly rated polling firm, but conducted the poll in September and hid the pro-Trump answers until Nov. 16.” Five days ago.
Now, Ipsos is highly rated by their media brethren because they are such foot soldiers for the cause. Bear in mind not only did Reuters constantly and wildly over sample Democrats in their polls, sometimes by as much as 11%, Reuters — don’t forget this — Reuters even changed their methodology to exclude undecideds in their poll.
Remember this? We pointed this out when it happened. Reuters in the middle of presidential polling — we didn’t know they were suppressing Trump’s vast support on immigration — they also changed their methodology. They simply said there are no undecideds. They weighted undecideds and gave them largely to Hillary. They wanted to help Hillary’s numbers.
Now, the way they report this… See, this is a trick, too. The Ipsos poll shows that “only about one in six Americans strongly oppose…” The way that’s written is designed to make people think the exact opposite of what’s said. If you want to report a poll where many people support Trump, you would do it the way I do it: “Five out of six Americans strongly support Donald Trump,” blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. The way this is written: “Only about one in six Americans strongly oppose Trump’s policies toward…”
So the key words here “only one in six oppose Trump.” Those words in sequence, “one in six strongly oppose Trump,” that’s what the reader is supposed to see here. “Only…” “Only one in six strongly oppose Trump.” No, the answer is five out of six strongly support Trump. Does that not sound entirely different when I read it to you the other way? When you sit here and read… This is a trick of journalism, is to create the exact opposite impression with the facts. “Only about one in six Americans strongly oppose Trump.”
Only… One in six? It’s a small number. But the way it’s written is made to have a negative reaction by the reader toward Trump. This is continuing… Grab line… Do I have…? Not enough time. But line one is what I want next. We’ve got a guy from Tennessee who thinks I’m miscalling it here on the media, and I want to get to that, but one other bit of polling information. The Morning Consult: “Trump’s popularity has increased since he was elected president. In a Morning Consult/Politico poll just before the election, 37% of voters said they had a favorable view of Trump, while 61% reported an unfavorable,” just before the election.
“After the election, the number of people reporting an unfavorable view of Trump dropped 15 points, to 46%. Trump also saw a nine-point increase in voters saying they had a favorable view of him…” So now Trump is evenly split 46-46 approve-disapprove. But wait a minute. Trump won the election. So what is this poll, “before the election, 37% of voters said they had a favorable view of Trump”? How did Trump win if only 37% had a favorable? I mean, even if you want to count this bogus popular vote argument they’re making, how do you get 37% approving of Trump to victory?
Will GOP Throw Away Advantage Dingy Harry Handed Them?
RUSH: “Rule Change Pushed By Harry Reid Could Allow Trump To Get All Of His Appointments Confirmed — A senate rule change championed by outgoing Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid could leave Democrats powerless to stop any of President-elect Donald Trump’s cabinet appointments.” I think the word is “should” here, not “could.”
Now, the only thing that would stop this would be the Republican leadership throwing this advantage away. (interruption) They had two years to throw it away? I know, but the Republicans have a way of throwing away their power when they get it in order to show that they’re fair, like Jim Jeffords, remember Jim Jeffords?
Well, I’m not trying to scare you. I’m just reminding you how Republicans have acted in the past. They think that when they have an advantage the American people gonna think it’s not fair and they openly think they can show they’re not whatever they are by giving back their advantage.
Now, I don’t think it’s gonna happen here because of Trump and Priebus. I don’t. I think it isn’t gonna happen, but it certainly has. “In 2013, [Dingy Harry] pushed forward with a rule change dubbed ‘the nuclear option’ that eliminated filibusters for all presidential nominations except Supreme Court justices. This means that a simple majority of 51 votes instead of 60 is necessary to confirm executive office appointments.”
Dingy Harry did this so that the Republicans could not stop Obama appointments, and this is just one of the many things the Democrats did that everybody says is gonna come back and bite them now that the Republicans have won. So now the Democrats cannot stop with the votes they have any of Trump appointments. And they can’t do the filibuster ’cause it’s gone ’cause Dingy Harry did away with it.
But don’t tell me that you haven’t heard some Republicans thinking it needs to be reinstituted. (interruption) You haven’t heard that? (interruption) Well, hell’s bells. It was last week that I heard somebody suggest that we put it back. I can’t… I don’t remember who. Anyway, “Many Democrats have publicly displayed a lack of regret for the rule change. [Dingy Harry]’s spokeswoman told the Washington Post, ‘Senator Reid has no regrets on invoking the nuclear option because of Republicans unprecedented obstruction.
“‘If Republicans want to go on record supporting radicals that’s their decision and they’ll have to live with it.'” So Dingy Harry no regrets, and if it results in a Republican advantage, we’re just gonna chalk it up to their inherent racism and bigotry is what he’s saying that they’re gonna do. Obama has halted his push in court on amnesty because of this judge. This judge is a hero. You remember this story.
“The Obama [Regime] has already taken the first step to accommodate Trump’s positions,” supposedly, I know; I say this under advisement, “agreeing on Friday to take a time-out on President Obama’s push to kick start the 2014 deportation amnesty.” Remember this case. “In documents filed with a federal judge in Texas the Justice Department said that in light of new management that will take over next year,” i.e., Trump, “the case should be suspended.
“Accordingly, the parties respectfully submit that further proceedings on the merits of the case should be stayed until February 20, 2017.” Bear in mind the media and the New York Times assured us for years there was no way any legal challenge would stop Obama’s amnesty. But a district Judge Andrew Hanen halted Obama’s amnesty in February of 2015, two days before it was going to affect. He said the administration broke the law in doing this. The law did not permit Obama to do it!
He nearly held Justice Department lawyers in contempt. He pulled back on that, but he demanded that they show cause for why what they were doing was legal, and they couldn’t. They appealed it. Remember they went and shopped for a favorable appeals court, and they were shot down there. This judge… I mean, this is all the way back in, you know, we’re coming up on it’s a year and a half. It will be two years in February. This judge was standing alone.
Other judges in other states had signaled that Obama had free rein to do this, but this judge stood up and stopped it and openly said the administration didn’t have the legal foundations to do what they were doing. Nobody else had the guts to stand up to Obama, but this judge did. So now the story is, “Obama Halting Amnesty Push in Court, Bowing to Incoming Trump Administration.” Now, people chalk this up as the Trump Effect, like on Ford and Apple. But if this holds, this could be the best Trump Effect of all. But I also believe this story at arm’s-length.
Obama standing down on something like this? I think I’ll believe it when I see it. But, anyway, that’s what the Regime is saying that they are going to do. One judge stood up to them. But I should point out, there is a caveat to this, and that is while Obama’s standing down, guess who else he’s told to stand down? Border Patrol agents. Something like 1500 illegals are crossing daily. So while everybody’s looking over here at Obama essentially accepting what the court said, over here the border remains wide open.
Chalk Another One Up to the Trump Effect
RUSH: Is a hero. You remember this story. The Obama Regime has already taken the first step to accommodate Trump’s positions, supposedly — I know, I say this under advisement — agreeing on Friday to take a time-out on President Obama’s push to kick start the 2014 deportation amnesty. Remember this case. In documents filed with a federal judge in Texas the Justice Department said that in light of new management that will take over next year, i.e., Trump, the case should be suspended. Accordingly the parties respectfully submit that further proceedings on the merits of the case should be stayed until February 20th, 2017. Bear in mind the media, New York Times assured us for years there was no way any legal challenge would stop Obama’s amnesty. But a — an appeals — well, actually a district Judge Andrew Hanen halted Obama’s amnesty in February of 2015, two days before it was going to affect. He said the administration broke the law in doing this. The law did not permit Obama to do it! And he nearly held pros — well, Justice Department lawyers in contempt. He pulled back on that, but he demanded that they show cause for why what they were doing was legal. And they couldn’t. They appealed it, they — remember they went and shopped for a favorable appeals court, and they were shot down there. This judge — I mean, this is all the way back in, you know, we’re coming up on it’s a year and a half, will be two years in February, this judge was standing alone. Other judges in other states had signaled that Obama had free rein to do this, but this judge stood up and stopped it and openly said the administration didn’t have the legal foundations to do what they were doing. Nobody else had the guts to stand up to Obama, but this judge did. So now Obama, story is, halting amnesty push in court, bowing to incoming Trump administration.
Now, people chalk this up as the Trump Effect, like on Ford and Apple. But if this holds, this could be the best Trump Effect of all. But I also believe this story at arm’s-length. Obama standing down on something like this? I think — I’ll believe it when I see it. But, anyway, that’s what the Regime is saying that they are going to do. One judge stood up to them. But I should point out, there is a caveat to this, and that is while Obama’s standing down, guess who else he’s told to stand down? Border Patrol agents, something like 1500 illegals are crossing daily. So while everybody’s looking over here at Obama essentially accepting what the court said, over here the border remains wide open. Back after this, my friends, with much more.
Deutsche Bank: Trump Could Push Economy to New Records
RUSH: Did you see what Deutsche Bank said? “Deutsche Bank: Trump Could Push the U.S. Economy and Stock Markets to New Records.” Now, they didn’t say this before the election. I think they were in the Hillary camp, if any camp.