All Episodes
Previous Next
June 27, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:28
June 27, 2005, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ladies and gentlemen, I guess it's fair and accurate to say today that the Constitution is meaningless.
The Constitution must not mean anything.
It must not stand for anything.
I guess the Constitution can be bent in shape to 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 general all-around good guy all combined here, one fuzzable, harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
Now, if you want to be on the program today, feel free.
The telephone number is 800-282-2882, the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
I swear, folks, 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, but 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 10 people.
This court is incoherent, folks.
I have to tell you, I was, you know, I get up every morning when I was away and I'd go through the news.
When I saw that decision on property rights at New London, Connecticut, I said, and people say this is a conservative court.
And let me tell you a little story.
I went to a dinner party on Saturday night, and it was up in 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.
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 in the dumps.
It was, you know, I had to do a Norman Vincent Peale and a, not Norman Vincent.
What's the positive power positive thinking guy?
Norman Vincent Peale 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 Saturday night because they're just totally down to the dumps.
And this decision came up on property rights.
And one of the people of the dinner party said, well, you know, I run into liberals all the time.
And they're not nearly as wacko as the fringe Democrat kooks are.
But they still say they're Democrats because, and 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 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 didn't.
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 lost their homes, basically have now lost their homes because a big developer wants to come in, raise those homes, and put up a giant shopping center and office park and all of that.
The state of Connecticut said, yip, yip, yip, yip, yahoo.
We're going to get more tax revenue from this new development than 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 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, 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, this is another thing.
I'm getting so fed up watching television today.
The press, everybody's 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, 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 a Supreme Court fight.
So all down on the dumps, there was no retirement today.
But there's going to be, at some point, there's going to be a Supreme Court retirement.
And here we, 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-Rodam.
Sorry, 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 Karl 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 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 in the coffee and understand that 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, a Congress can be overridden with a veto.
A president can be overridden with a veto override.
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 going to 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 may as well be meaningless.
And this incoherence on the Ten Commandment cases today is just mind-boggling.
Anyway, I got to take a brief break here.
We're 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 Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network.
People say, what can we do to change the court?
There is a way you can amend the Constitution.
And frankly, this is the way to go about it.
Amend the Constitution to give the Congress power to override Supreme Court decisions by a two-thirds majority vote of both houses.
Amending the Constitution is a very hard thing today to do, purposely so.
I mean, it ought to be hard to amend the Constitution.
But, you know, getting to a point here where the Supreme Court is so all-powerful and unchecked that it's a process somebody's going to have to start considering.
This property thing, I mean, you can talk about the Ten Commandments all day.
That's just incoherent.
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 does that tell you?
They just were, they were, and I'll tell you something else the New York Times is happy about or unhappy about.
You know, George Pataki and a number of people 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 do we have to do?
Why do we have to turn this into a hate America memorial?
It'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 memorial site of the World Trade Center rebuild.
So here you've got the New York Times, the paper of the little guy, and they're not.
They're the paper of the elites, and they prove it, agreeing with the survey.
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 strain of Marxism and socialism that frightening is scary.
It just really is to write derogatorily and sneeringly and snivingly of the concept of property rights.
It's just over the top.
And I'll guarantee you that nine out of ten times, whatever the government ends up doing with your property is going to end up being a boondoggle.
It's going to end up being an embarrassment.
It's going to be wasting away and rusted in 10 years.
It's just like some of these public housing projects that have been built all over the country that are now eyesores and embarrassment.
You know, waterfront land goes first too, and I'll tell you, because that's what everybody wants.
I think even the turtles might be screwed in this one.
I think the liberals might even say, screw the sea turtles in their nesting regions on the beach because you're not going to stop the private property owners the government approves of are going to provide all this tax revenue from building what it is that's going to require or generate the tax revenue.
Let's talk about the Ten Commandments displays.
This is just simply incoherent.
First thing is the Constitution does not prevent the public display of the Ten Commandments, period.
It doesn't prevent it.
Now you're going to have to, if you want to display these things in public, you're going to have to have a similar display of secular 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 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 that 5-4 ruling and another decision involving the positioning of a six-foot granite monument of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas Capitol, Justice Sandrade O'Connor was the swing boat.
Second ruling life, likewise, by a 5-4 margin.
Justice Scalia released a stinging dissent in the courthouse case.
He wrote, what distinguishes the rule of law 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 going to do about going into court now, placing your hand on the Bible and swearing to tell the truth?
It's just as incoherent as it can be.
And 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 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.
They don'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 Texas case.
So that's pretty much the Supreme Court.
They had some of the common sense rulings.
I think they sent the internet file sharing case back to the lower court for trial.
That means that these FTP sites, file sharing sites, can be sued if they allow this peer-to-peer file transferring, person-to-person, in other words, for the purpose of beating copyright laws.
And that's a common sense ruling.
I mean, that would make sense.
What else do the idiots do here today?
Well, cable service, that one makes sense, too.
The 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 Anchorman, Play-by-Playman, America's Truth Detector.
Wonderful to have you with us.
The telephone number 800-282-2882.
Let's move on to Karl Rove.
I also was out last week when this happened, and I'm sure that 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 got to tell you this.
I came in this morning, and Snerdley walks in, still half asleep, and asked me how the vacation was.
Typical sucking up.
He doesn't really care.
And I was going through it, and I said, but I still worked every day, Snerdley, 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 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 I saw it Thursday morning.
He said, well, hubba, hubba, hey, doooba-duba.
It's about time the administration stood up here and started saying things like this.
And the thing that struck me immediately about it is I read 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 doing her best.
This is the smartest woman in politics, folks.
This is the smartest woman in America.
She got sucked in.
This was Karl Rove and her open dope and it worked.
Mrs. Clinton's out there reacting outrageously.
She can't believe what she's heard.
She's demanding an 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 Karl Rove?
I'm not going to denounce Karl Rove.
You didn't say a word about Dick Durbin.
I just couldn't stop laughing when I read the Democrats' reaction to what Rove said.
They're demanding that Bush fire him.
They're demanding an apology.
Some, I guess it was Mara Lyason 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, I know he's more than a campaign advisor.
He's in the policy office there at the White House, but still, well, you can't compare these two, she said.
I mean, that's just choice.
But all these Democrats out there caterwalling and moaning and whining about how mean and vicious and unproductive.
It wasn't useful 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 just laughable.
We have, just to recap, here's a little soundbite.
It's only 14 seconds, but just a sample of what Karl Rove said.
It was late Wednesday, last Wednesday, at a fundraiser 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 Karl Rove.
Liberals responded to September 11 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 firestorm.
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.
A 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 a 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 said the Democrats are guilty of this, just a bunch of liberals.
But Pataki was having none of it, as I said, in what the Post calls here a rare attack on Hillary Rodham Rodham.
Pataki said it's hypocritical of Clinton to ask him to chastise Karl 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.
Chuck Schumer said these comments of Rove's 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 apologizes, 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 predict and imagine.
Folks, it's just like when you accuse Democrats in the Senate of opposing a judicial nominee because of his faith, you have hit the bullseye when you say that, and they react like stuck pigs.
And they're reacting like stuck pigs or reacted like stuck pigs to Rove.
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 victory all to try to change the subject unless you've hit the nail on the head.
We have a little montage here of the, I think this is Democrats.
Yeah, this is Democrats responding to Rove.
We got 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, Karl 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.
Mrs. Rodham Rodham, the smartest woman in America, 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 sugarcoated, 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 you how desperate they are.
It's Pelosi.
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 Getbow?
These are people from Afghanistan.
That's where we first went in the war on terror.
That's who's down there, Senator.
So we're supposed to act like 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 sit here and repeat things that I'm sure you've already heard.
Maybe you haven't, but a number of people have done the research.
And this all focuses.
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 moveon.org.
And moveon.org has made a play to take over the Democratic Party.
In fact, I'd say the Democratic Party has lost itself to moveon.org.
The reason Durbin said what he said is to placate moveon.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.
But the fact of the matter is that they're all out, all this, the Hillary going in there and Barbara Boxer, when it's time to count the electoral votes in early January and they tried to stop it because of the voting irregularities in Ohio, that was to appease the moveon.org crowd.
But the moveon.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 know how much has been done since then, but we could post on the website a number of quotes and bits of evidence that would establish this.
Byron York wrote about it, National Review Online late last week.
But here, 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 bombed them.
Marcy Kaptur, 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.
Reverend Sharpton, the attacks of the World Trade Center are evidence that America is beginning to reap what it has sown.
Michael Moore, likewise to bomb Afghanistan.
I mean, I've never understood this.
The idea that 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.
They nominated one of these kooks to run their party, Howard Dean.
So I was gratified to see it.
I was excited that Rove said this.
It was about time that this kind of thing was said from the upper levels of the administration because it needs to be said from many quarters other than just in media.
And as I say, 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.
Be patient, ladies and gentlemen.
The Ditto Cam will be coming up in the next hour.
Let's go to the phones while we have a moment.
Kenosha, Wisconsin, and Joe, you're first.
Nice to have you with us.
Hello, sir.
Hi.
Listen, the way I see it, this ruling by the Supreme Court reverts power back to the state, doesn't it?
It's the local state that decides the extent of what the property right is.
When the Bill of Rights was so what?
It was only a limited government.
A government's a government, just because it what am I missing here?
Let me put forth for you a hypothesis, and you tell me if you think it's okay.
Okay.
You live and you're middle class.
You live in an average run-of-the-mill home on a lake there in Wisconsin with maybe 10 or 12 other property owners.
And a corporate entity comes in and says, you know what?
They say to the state of Wisconsin or even to the town of Kenosha, maybe both of them together.
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 we need that property.
We need you to take that property so that we can build this.
And your tax base is going to go sky high.
You're going to be collecting more tax base from our property than you are from these little rundown shacks that are currently there.
And 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 that's what happens.
I understand that.
This really isn't a question of liberal or conservative.
This is simply creating an opportunity for corrupt politicians to take bribes from corporations.
It's corporate.
This is corporate.
It's not liberalism.
It's not conservative.
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 duck there.
The state's going to run it.
We need to put a road through your property to improve living conditions here.
And here's the price we're going to give you.
It's a fair market value.
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 Supreme Court allowing the states to choose which citizens they want to own what property where for the express benefit of the state.
The state and the city of New London, Connecticut are going to get the lion's share of a new tax base because of this decision, while the existing homeowners get thrown off their property.
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, 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.
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 ditto cam in the next hour.
It'll be on for the final two hours of the program.
Our podcasting continues.
The number of Club Guitmo t-shirts and items from the Club Guitmo gift shop at rushlimbaugh.com just continues to astound.
It's just, it says to me, they're all still available, but sit tight.
▲
Export Selection