All Episodes
Previous Next
June 27, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:24
June 27, 2005, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Uh, ladies and gentlemen, I guess it's uh fair and accurate to say today that the Constitution is meaningless.
Hey, the Constitution must not mean anything.
It must not stand for anything.
I g I guess the Constitution can be bent and shape to um represent the personal policy preferences of at least five people on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Greetings and welcome.
Great to be back.
Boy, it seems like I've been gone two weeks, all that's gone on since I was not here.
But we're back and ready to go here in the prestigious Attila the Hun chair of the distinguished Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I am Rush Limbaugh, America's anchorman, America's truth detector, and uh general all-around good guy all combined here, one fuzzible, uh harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
Now, if you want to be on the program today, feel free.
The uh telephone number is 800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIB net.com.
I swear, folks, it was it was it was it was a live American freak show this morning.
It was a veritable freak show.
Because as the Supreme Court is issuing its two rulings on the Ten Commandments, the BTK killer is in a courtroom where you cannot have the Ten Commandments.
One of those, by the way, for those of you the American left, one of those Ten Commandments is thou shalt not kill.
And so while a court today says you can't post those inside a courthouse, which you can post them outside.
You know why they did that?
Because they don't want to tear down their own display at the U.S. Supreme Court.
That's the only reason.
If they ruled against Texas, then they would have had to tear down their own display, and who knows what other displays they have at the U.S. Supreme Court.
So you can have the Ten Commandments outside a government building, but you can't put them in a courthouse.
And yet inside the courthouse, we had this BTK killer offering the grisly detail of how he murdered ten people.
This court is incoherent, folks.
I I have to tell you, I I was I was uh uh, you know, I get up every morning when I was away and I'd go through the uh the news.
When I saw that decision on property rights at New London, Connecticut, I said, and people can't people say this is a a conservative court.
And I let me tell you a little story.
I went to a dinner party on Saturday night, and I uh uh it was it was up in uh Southport, Connecticut, and the people up there, the conservatives up there depressed like you can't believe you people think you're down in the dumps.
You ought to go up there.
These people are surrounded by liberals everywhere.
They're surrounded by liberal academia, they have no sense of the conservative progress that's being made.
They really don't, or very little.
Their news of the day is the New York Times.
Uh their kids come home from these Ivy League schools and tell them what a bunch of garbage they're being taught every day, and they're literally down on the dumps.
It was uh, you know, I I had to do a Norman Vincent Peel and a and uh uh not Norman Vincent.
What's the positive mess power positive thinking guy?
Norman Vincent Peel was the artist.
No, it is Norman Vincent Peel.
Rockwell was the artist.
Anyway, I'm sitting there, I'm doing a buck'em-up session at dinner on uh on Saturday night, because they're just totally down on the dumps, and this and this decision came up on uh on property rights.
And and w one of the one of the people at the dinner party said, Well, you know, I run into liberals all the time.
Uh they're not nearly as wacko as the as the as the as the fringe Democrat kooks are.
But they still say they're Democrats because, and I I can't I hear this constantly, because the Democrats are for the little guy.
Liberals are for the little guy.
I said, really?
Well, let's look at this Supreme Court decision on the fact that little guys don't have property rights anymore.
This, folks, this is unbelievable.
Now the the the Constitution requires or allows the government to take your property with just compensation if you're going to build a road or something.
But it doesn't allow one group of private citizens to take your property for another group of private citizens so that the government can profit with a higher tax base.
It what it didn't.
It's still what it does now.
That's the thing.
It didn't allow that.
What happened in New London, Connecticut was that a bunch of people, middle class, lower class people, still somehow managing to live on the waterfront there, um, lost their homes.
Basically have now lost their homes because of a big developer wants to come in, raise those homes and put up a giant shopping center and office park and all of that.
And the state of Connecticut said, yep, yep, yep, yep, yahoo.
We're going to get more tax revenue from this new development that we'll get from these middle class people in their little homes down there.
And so that's what this case was about.
The U.S. Supreme Court found that it's okay for one group of citizens to take the property of another group of citizens if the government will benefit.
So what is the from tax revenue?
So what's the lesson?
The lesson here is not that the left cares about you, the little guy.
It's not that Democrats care about you, the little guy.
It is they care about big government.
If anything is going to benefit government, anybody can get screwed.
And that's exactly what happened in this ruling.
And I just have to laugh when I hear people say, is the current court a conservative court or a moderate court?
Well, forget what you hear from the Chuck Schumers and the dissemblers at Moveon.org.
When you look at this seizing private property for private good decision, let me just tell you how a conservative court would vote unanimously nine to nothing.
If there were nine conservatives on this court, it would have been nine to nothing.
No way government does not get to take somebody's private property in order to have somebody else as a private citizen build something else there.
A moderate court, who knows what a moderate court would do, seven to two, eight to one, but still find against the state of Connecticut on this.
A moderately left-leaning court might vote in five to four, but still in favor of the private property owners.
But this court, this court voted yes, five to four, and this is called an extreme right wing court.
Chuck Schumer, may your house be seized for the public good someday.
I mean, hey, you know, folks, there's a piece of property that could revive the town of Hyannisport that I've got on my mind here.
Could increase the tax base of the town for public good.
Except that's not what's going to happen.
The Chuck Schumers and the Ted Kennedys and all the the rest of the upper class, they're not going to have their homes taken.
It's going to be the little guy.
It's going to be the little guy that the Democrats claim to represent, that the left claims to represent.
It's going to be the little guy that still votes for these people because they're out there representing them and standing with the little guy.
It's the little guy whose property is going to be taken.
Now, for whatever reason, it's not that government needs it.
A private citizen can say, I want to build a development there, and the government come in and say, I'm going to join you in this because I'll get more tax revenue from this.
I mean, the irony of this ruling is the timing.
Just when the left, we're going to have probably a uh this is another thing.
I'm getting so fed up watching television today, the press, everybody so disappointed there was no retirement announced today.
Let me tell you something, folks.
The justices seldom it's happened, but it is seldom that justices announce retirements from the bench on the final day.
It's not unusual we haven't had a retirement today.
We may get one later today.
The way these things generally happen, it'll be later today or later in the week, and whoever retires will send a letter up to the president, and that's that.
Until then, nobody knows.
But all these people who there was no retirement.
That's what we really want.
We want a Supreme Court fight.
That's what we want.
That's what the press wants.
That's what everybody is Supreme Court fight.
So all down on the dumps there was no retirement today.
But there's gonna be, at some point, there's going to be a Supreme Court retirement.
And here we have, just when the left is out there wailing and whining and moaning about an extreme right-wing court, we get this decision on private property rights out of Connecticut.
Ruth Bader Rodham, uh, sorry, Ruth Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg.
Ultra liberal, ultra-ACLU, but in the showdown of civil liberties and private property, guess what won out with her?
Expanding the power of government.
That's what won out with all of the libs on the court.
And I frankly was stunned to see this.
I never Thought that I would see this day.
I really didn't.
We haven't even gotten to Carl Rove yet, and I've got three hours here today to recap stuff that happened last week and to talk about today's decisions.
But what can the little guy now do?
If you're a little guy out there and you have a desirable piece of property that some big developer wants, Rush, are you actually speaking against big developers?
I thought you were conservative.
This is my point, folks.
I'm speaking in favor of property rights.
I don't think it's right that one group of people should be able to go to the government and have somebody else's property taken from them.
It's not the government taking, it's a private citizen.
And the government's only interest is increased tax revenue and then to kick these people out.
What can you little people do?
The first thing you do is stop voting Democrat for one.
Wake up and smell the roses and the coffee and understanding the people you claim are staying looking out for you, representing you, are screwing you literally blind here, to the point that you're not going to have property if somebody else has their eyes on it.
See, lawmakers, Congress can be over a president can be over, Congress can be overridden with a veto.
A president can be overridden with a veto override.
Uh but how do you veto the Supreme Court?
How do you override this?
Well, there are ways, but nobody's got the guts to do it anymore.
So what's a little guy to do here?
What's a little guy to do?
Well, I'll tell you what you should do.
We're a land of visuals.
We are a land where pictures are what form opinions.
So if you are a little guy and it happens to you, some big entity comes along and has designs on your property, put sandbags around your homes, put barbed wire around your home, start wearing World War I or World War II helmets, go out and grab a rifle with some bayonets, maybe get some machine guns with those hand guided belts of bullets, just put them, it can be fake, it doesn't matter.
And then have your grandmother up there at the top of the sandbags, bearing a musket or something with three kids bearing a flag that says, Don't tread on me.
You're gonna have to do it that way.
Because you can't, it is just, it's uncanny.
You cannot rely on the courts of this country to interpret the Constitution properly.
It it it may as well be meaningless.
And this incoherence on the Ten Commandment cases today is just mind-boggling.
Anyway, I gotta take a brief break here, a little long in the opening segment.
Sit tight, lots more to go, plus your phone calls after this.
Don't go away.
And welcome back.
It's uh Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network.
You could uh people say, what can we do to change the court?
There is a way you can amend the Constitution.
And and frankly, this is the way to go about it.
Amend the Constitution to give the uh Congress power to override Supreme Court decisions by a two-thirds majority vote of both houses.
Um amending the Constitution is a very hard thing today to do.
Uh purposely so.
I mean, it's it ought to be hard to amend the Constitution.
But um, you know, getting to a point here where the Supreme Court is uh so all-powerful and unchecked that uh it's a process somebody's gonna have to start considering.
This property thing, I mean, you can talk about the Ten Commandments all the way.
That's just incoherent.
Uh but this property rights business, and then when you look at the New York Times, New York Times, all these liberal publications were happy about it.
They were ecstatic about what is that tell you?
They they just were, they were, and I tell you something else New York Times is happy about or unhappy about.
You know, George Pataki and a number of people have have risen up and said, what is it that these left-wing wackos, my words not theirs, are trying to do the 9-11 memorial?
What in the world we have to do?
Why do we have to turn this into a hate America memorial?
That's not what happened there.
And the New York Times is all upset that somebody doesn't want to allow the full scope, the breadth and scope of the American conversation or the American experience to be on display at the uh memorial site of the World Trade Center rebuild.
So here you've got the New York Times, the paper or the little guy, and they're not, they're the paper of the elites, and they prove it, agreeing with the in fact they don't even like the whole concept of property rights.
And I'll tell you why, folks.
You know, you talk about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment free speech and all that, and people say that's key to a free society.
Let me tell you what's I think as fundamental, if not more so, and that is the right to own property.
And if you don't have the right to own property, if a government can just come in and take what you own.
I mean, the law of the land is you own what you own, what you own is yours.
If somebody can just come in and take it From you.
Under the guise of government benefiting.
I'm sorry, folks, but we don't have a constitutional representative republic in that circumstance.
And when you've got newspapers like the New York Times writing derogatorily of the whole concept of property rights, my friends, you're getting dangerously close here to a uh a strain of Marxism and socialism that frightening is frightening is scary.
It just really to write derogatorily and sneeringly and snivingly of the concept of property rights.
It's just it's it's it's over the top.
And I and I'll I'll guarantee you that uh nine out of ten times whatever the government ends up doing with your property is gonna end up being a boondoggle.
It's gonna end up being an embarrassment.
It's gonna be wasting away and rusted in ten years.
Uh it's just it's it's just like some of these public housing projects that have been built all over the country that are now eyesores and uh an embarrassment.
Uh, you know, waterfront land goes first, too, and I'll say because that's what everybody wants.
Uh uh, I think even the turtles might be screwed in this one.
Uh I think I think the liberals might even say screw the sea turtles and their nesting regions on the beach if it's because you're not going to stop the the uh uh private property owners the government approves of are going to provide all this tracks tax revenue from building what it is that's gonna require or or generate the uh tax revenue.
And let's talk about the Ten Commandments displays.
This is this is just simply incoherent.
Um first thing is the Constitution does not prevent the public display of the Ten Commandments, period.
It doesn't prevent it.
Now you're gonna have to, if you want to display these things in public, eh, you're gonna have to have a similar display of uh of uh secular uh materials as well, just to satisfy everybody.
Here's how the AP writes about this today, a sharply divided Supreme Court on Monday upheld the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments on government land, but drew the line on displays inside courthouses saying those violated the doctrine of separation of church and state.
See, the Ten Commandments, according to this court, the Ten Commandments outside a government building is part of our natural history and uh history of our evolution, the history of the law of the country, but you put them inside, and all of a sudden they become a religious display.
That is what the court said.
Each exhibit demands scrutiny to determine whether it goes too far in amounting to a governmental promotion of religion.
The court said in a case involving Kentucky courthouse exhibits.
In effect, the Supreme Court said that it was taking the position that issues of Ten Commandments displays in courthouses should be resolved on a case-by-case basis.
But in the in that 5-4 ruling and another decision involving the positioning of a six-foot granite monument of the Ten Commandments on the uh grounds of the Texas Capitol, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the swing boat.
Second ruling life likewise by a five-four margin.
Justice Scalia released a stinging dissent in the courthouse case.
He wrote, What distinguishes the rule of law from the uh from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle.
The justices voting on the prevailing side in the Kentucky case left themselves legal wiggle room, saying some displays inside courthouses would be permissible if they're portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history.
But frame copies in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion, the court held.
Those courthouse displays are unconstitutional, the justice said, because their religious content is overemphasized.
What are we gonna do about going into court now, placing your hand on the Bible and swearing to tell the truth?
This is it's just as incoherent as it can be.
And I I'll just tell you one other thing.
I think the only reason they split the baby here is because they don't want to have to get rid of their own dis get rid of their own displays.
They got their own displays of Ten Commandments, they got their own displays of other artifacts of American history.
They don't want to have to get rid of their own things and won't have to turn their own building over to scrutiny.
And so they've cut themselves some slack by ruling as they did in the uh in the Texas case.
So that's that's pretty much the Supreme Court.
I think I think they they sent uh the internet file sharing case back to the lower court for trial.
Uh that that means that uh these uh FTP sites, uh file sharing sites can be sued if they uh allow this peer-to-peer file transferring, person to person, other words, uh, for the purpose of uh beating copyright laws.
And that's a common sense ruling.
I mean, that that's that that wouldn't that would make sense.
What else do the idiots do here today?
Um, cave uh cable service uh that that one makes sense too.
The uh cable companies don't have to give up their lines to other competitors.
Thank you, and welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
Here we are, where we always are in the anchor chair, America's anchor man, play by playman, America's truth detector.
Wonderful to have you with us.
The uh telephone number 800-282-2882.
Let's uh let's move on to Carl Rove.
I uh I also was out last week when this happened, and I'm sure that uh it's been discussed every which way, but Sunday and I'm not probably will not be able to add anything to it.
I came in, though.
I gotta tell you this.
I came in this morning and snurdly walks in still half asleep and asked me how the vacation was.
Uh typical sucking up.
He doesn't really care.
Uh and I was, you know, going through it, and I said, but you know, I still worked every day, snurly, and I got up it was about time somebody in this administration said what Rove said.
And he looked at me wide-eyed and said, What did he say?
And I said, Oh, where have you been?
He said, I took four days away from the media.
So uh he didn't know till this morning what Rove had said.
And I got up whenever this, I guess Rove said it Wednesday night, and uh I saw it Thursday morning.
So, well, hubbahubba.
Hey, Duba Dooba.
It's about time the administration stood up here and started saying things like this.
And uh the thing that struck me immediately about it is I read uh uh news reports of Rove's speech.
He never once used the word Democrat.
He never once used the word Democrat.
He always made sure to use the word liberal, and yet this even caught Mrs. Clinton.
Mrs. Clinton, who's who's doing her best.
This is the smartest woman in politics, folks.
This is the smartest woman in America.
She got sucked in.
This was Carl Rove on a rope and open it worked.
Mrs. Clinton's out there reacting outrageously.
She can't believe what she's heard.
She's demanding apology from Pataki and all this.
And if Pataki say something and do something about it.
And Pataki had a great quote.
Pataki said, What?
You want me to denounce Carl Rove?
I'm not going to denounce Carl Rove.
You didn't say a word about Dick Durbin.
I've I just couldn't stop laughing when I read the Democrats' reaction to what Rove said.
They're demanding a Bush fire him.
They're demanding an apology.
Some uh I guess it was uh Mar Lyerson on uh on Fox said, Well, you can't compare what Rove and Durbin said.
I mean, Durbin's just a senator.
Well, what's Rove?
He's a campaign advisor.
You know, oh I know he's more than a campaign advisors in the policy uh office there at the White House, but still, well, you can't compare these two, she said.
I mean, that's that's just choice.
But all these Democrats out there caterwalling and moaning and whining about how mean and vicious and unproductive and it wasn't useful uh for Rove to say all these things, demanding the same people that had not said a word about Dick Durbin were demanding Rove's head.
And it was it was just laughable.
Uh we have just just uh just a recap.
Here's here's a little soundbite.
Uh it's only 14 seconds, but just a sample of what Carl Rove said.
It was late Wednesday, last Wednesday to fundraiser uh in New York City for the Conservative Party of New York State.
Conservatives saw the savagery of 9-11 and the attacks and prepared for war.
Liberals saw the savagery of the 9-11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding to our attackers.
He's right.
He's absolutely right on the money.
The New York Post had this account on Friday.
All out partisan warfare erupted yesterday over statements by Carl Rove.
Um that liberals responded to September 11th by wanting to offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.
Furious Democrats demanded an apology or Rove's resignation.
Republicans shot back that Rove was drawing a legitimate distinction between the reactions of conservatives and liberals to the threat posed by terrorism.
Both Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Pataki were quickly drawn into the fire storm.
The mayor issued a carefully worded statement urging that partisan politics be kept out of the discussion about 9-11.
Yeah, well, then Mayor, why don't you get into gear and keep these leftists out of the 9-11 memorial?
Bloomberg said that in all the conversations he's had with the families and survivors of the attacks, no one's ever raised issues of ideology or partisanship.
Well, that may be in New York, but get out to the rest of the country.
And Rove wasn't just speaking about New Yorkers.
City Hall source described Bloomberg as irritated by Rove's comments.
Senator Hillary Rodham Rodham called on Pataki, who was in the audience when Rove spoke to repudiate his remarks.
Clinton said, it's hard to overstate the emotion we feel about this, but this is really painful.
Well, our heart bleeds.
You know, we're really crying.
There's not a dry eye in the house here, Mrs. Clinton.
But I didn't know you were liberal.
I thought Mrs. Clinton was tacking to the right.
I thought she was moving over there to position herself as a moderate.
What's she getting all upset about here?
It wasn't her, Rove was talking about, was it?
Well, her reaction makes it look like it was.
He sucked them in here, folks.
He was talking about liberals, and the Democrats all know he's talking about them, but he never called, never never said the Democrats are guilty of this, just a bunch of liberals.
But Pataki was having none of it, as I said, uh in a what the post calls here a rare attack on uh Hillary Rodham Rodham.
Pataki said it's hypocritical of Clinton to ask him to uh chastise Carl Rove when she didn't say a word about Senator Durbin.
I have absolutely no intention of asking him to apologize, Pataki said.
Senator Clinton might think about her propensity to allow outrageous statements from the other side that are far beyond political dialogue.
Uh Chuck Schumer said these comments of Roves that we just played for you turned my stomach.
What he said is not only a slap at New York and all those who suffered, it's a dagger to the heart of what America is all about.
I'd give him a day or so.
If he retracts and soundly apologize, it's one thing.
But if they try to stonewall and back off, I think resignation would be called for.
So they were just behaving as you can uh predict and imagine.
Because folks, it's just like when you accuse Democrats in the Senate of opposing a judicial nominee because of his faith.
You have you have hit the bullseye when you say that, and they react like stuck pigs.
And they have they're reacting like stuck pigs or reacted like stuck pigs to Rove.
Uh, and and of course, that caused the Democrats to react as they did because it was the truth.
You know, you don't get these kind of squeals from people unless you've hit the nail on the head.
You don't get this kind of outrageous response and and vitriol to try to change the subject unless you've hit the nail on the head.
We have a little montage here of um the I think this is Democrats.
Yeah, this is Democrats responding to Rove.
We got uh Pelosi, Schumer, Lautenberg, and Hillary Rodham Rodham here in this montage.
For him to try to exploit 9-11 for political purposes, once again, just shows you how desperate they are.
There's a certain line that you should not cross.
And last night, Carl Rove crossed that line.
He didn't just put his toe over the line, he jumped way over it.
It's outrageous that he would suggest that those of us who disagree with him politically want to aid the terrorists.
The only way we'll know for sure as to what his real intention was last night in New York City is whether or not he retracts these comments and apologizes for them.
Uh Mrs. Uh Rodham Rodham, the smartest woman in America.
Uh can't believe that you don't know for sure his intentions.
I know what they are.
His intentions were to say what he said.
He said what he means.
Words mean things.
This was not sugar-coated, Mrs. Clinton.
It's not hard to understand.
He meant exactly what he said.
What I can't believe is how you got fooled into responding to it as though he was talking about you.
When you're obviously a moderate.
Well, you're sitting there, you're on the foreign relations committee.
You voted for the war.
Why are you acting like he's talking about you?
And of course, to these other clowns saying once again, just shows how desperate they are.
It's that's Pelosi.
Uh Lautenberg, it's outrageous that he would suggest those of us who disagree with him politically want to aid the terrorists.
What's all this Abu Grab and Gitmo stuff about?
If not aiding the terrorists, Senator Lautenberg.
And who is it that's down in Ghetto?
These are people from Afghanistan.
That's where we first went in the war on terror.
That's who's down there, Senator.
And also we're supposed to act like uh give these people trials and be concerned about their feelings and their conditions and so forth, and yet you don't want us to assume that you're acting as defense lawyers for these terrorist suspects down there.
Now, Rove was right.
There's been all kinds of people that have done the research.
And I, you know, I don't want to I don't want to sit here and repeat things that I'm sure you've already uh already heard.
Uh maybe you haven't, but uh a number of people have done the research.
Uh and this all focuses, it it centers around moveon.org and related 527 organizations.
That's who Rove was primarily talking about, because you can source the very facts he cited, right to move on.org, and move on dot org has made a play to take over the Democratic Party.
In fact, uh I'd say the Democratic Party has lost itself to move on.org.
The reason Durbin said what he said is to placate move on.org types.
Durbin doesn't really believe what he said.
I firmly believe he doesn't really believe.
If he does believe, it's even worse.
Uh but but but the fact of the matter is that they're all out.
All this all this the Hillary going in there and and uh Barbara Boxer uh when it's time to count the electoral votes in uh in early January, and they tried to stop it because of the voting irregularities in Ohio, that was to appease the move-on.org crowd.
But the move on.org people certainly did oppose any kind of a military response to 9-11.
They had a petition out there circulating, and they had a number of members and a number of people and other related website leaders out there suggesting that the worst thing we could do would be to respond militarily or to start a war, that we needed to have dialogue.
Rove was exactly right.
He nailed these people.
And if you want, I don't know if you need it, I don't because I don't know how much has been done uh since then, but we could post on the website a number of quotes and and uh bits of evidence that would uh that would establish this.
Bry Byron York wrote about it, National Review Online uh late last week.
Uh but here, let me just let me just give you one.
We, the undersigned citizens and residents of the United States of America appeal to the President of the United States, George W. Bush, and to all leaders internationally to use moderation and restraint in responding to the recent terrorist attacks against the United States.
George Soros, war is false and misleading metaphor in the context of combating terrorism.
Dennis Kucinich, Afghanistan may be an incubator of terrorism, but it doesn't follow that we bomb them.
Marcy Captor, Democrat Ohio.
One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown.
Uh Reverend Sharpton.
The attacks of the World Trade Center are evidence that America's beginning to reap what it has sown.
Michael Moore, likewise to bomb Afghanistan.
I mean, I've never understood this.
Now the idea that that uh this is not what liberals think is preposterous.
And you can't separate the Democrats from liberals because they all went to Michael Moore's movie, they accept George Soros' money.
Uh they nominated one of these kooks to run their party.
Howard Dean.
So I was I was gratified to see it.
I was excited that Rove said this.
It was about time that this kind of thing was said, uh, you know, from the upper levels of the administration, because it needs to get it needs to be said from, you know, many quarters other than just in uh media.
And as I say, the the squealing, whining, shrieking reaction is evidence that the bullseye was hit head on.
Back after this, don't go away.
Your guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, chaos, despair, torture, humiliation, and the good times.
Rushlin bought the EIB network, and be patient, uh ladies and gentlemen.
The Ditto Cam will be coming up in the uh in the next hour.
Let's go to the phones while we have a moment.
Kenosha, Wisconsin, and Joe, your first.
Nice to have you with us.
Hello, sir.
Hi.
Um, listen, um, the way I see it, this ruling by the Supreme Court uh reverts power back to the state, doesn't it?
It's the local state that decides the extent of uh what the property right is.
When the bill of when the bill of rights was So what?
It was only a limited.
A government is a government's a government, just just because it What am I missing here?
Uh let me let me let me put forth for you a hypothesis, and you tell me if you think it's okay.
Okay.
Uh you live and you're middle class, you live in a you know, an average run-of-the-mill home uh on a lake there in Wisconsin with uh, you know, maybe ten or twelve other property owners.
And a corporate entity comes in and says, you know what, they say to the uh to the state of Wisconsin or even to the town of Kenosha, maybe both of them together.
You know, there is these hoses, these houses, dilapidated houses that you got there on the lake.
We want to build a major hotel and resort and golf course with an office park there.
And uh we need that property.
We need you to take that property so that we can build this, and your tax base is gonna go sky high.
You're gonna be collecting more tax base from from our property than you are from these little rundown shacks that are currently there.
And the the state of Wisconsin and the town of Kenosha say, good idea, and they come to you, Joe, and they say, guess what?
You lose your house.
Yep.
You think that's okay?
Oh, no, of course not.
I just like I understand that.
It's an opportunity.
This really isn't a question of liberal or conservative.
This is simply creating an opportunity for corrupt politicians to take bribes from from corporations.
It's corporate.
This is corporate, it's not liberalism, it's not not conservative.
Definitely it most definitely is liberal versus conservative because there's no conservative court in the land that would decide to kick you off your property for some other private citizen to build something else.
This is not the same thing as the state of Wisconsin saying, Joe, we need to put a boat dock there.
The state's gonna run it.
We need to put a road through your property to in to uh to improve living conditions here, and here's the price we're gonna give you.
It's a fair market value, and you can go move somewhere else.
This is the state saying to another group of private citizens who are wealthier than you, Joe.
They want your property, the government says fine, you can have it.
We'll take it for you.
This is not reverting it to the states.
This is not reverting it to local government.
This is the pre this is the Supreme Court allowing the states to choose which citizens they want to own what property where.
For the for the express benefit of the state.
The state and and the city of New London, Connecticut, are gonna get the lion's share of a new uh tax base because of this decision, while the existing homeowners uh get thrown off their property.
This my point is the liberals are running around saying that they defend the little guy.
They protect the little guy against corporate America, evil developers and so forth.
And yet, uh, who has been sided with here?
The distinction is, and it's important.
The distinction here is that the Supreme Court decided that the state can choose which property owner it wants on a specific tract of land.
Uh and that's not what the takings clause in the Constitution says.
It has to be a legitimate government interest.
What's just been established here is that the legitimate government interest is a better tax flow from richer, more elite people owning property than the little guy.
And you would never have a full bunch of conservatives siding this way or finding this way in a case like this.
But liberals who are mistakenly assumed to be for the little guy, actually are for big government, be it state, be it local, federal, whatever.
Back in just a second.
Okay, as I said, we're going to have the dintocam in the uh in the next hour.
It'll be on for the uh final two hours of the program.
Our podcasting continues.
And the number of Club Gitmo t-shirts and items from the uh from the Club Gitmo gift shop at rushlimbaugh.com just continues to astound.
▲
Export Selection