All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 5, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:28
August 5, 2010, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
The views expressed by the host on this program, documented to be almost always right.
99.6% of the time, the views expressed by the host on this program are not to be doubted.
Happy to have you here.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882.
Email address lrushbaugh at eibnet.com.
Judge Vaughan Walker, California did not just slap down the will of 7 million voters.
Those 7 million voters were put on trial.
A kangaroo court where everything was stacked against them.
He wanted to make it a show trial.
He wanted cameras.
U.S. Supreme Court said, no way.
7 million California voters, your vote just wasn't overturned.
You were on trial.
And now, marriage has been codified as homophobia.
According to this judge, the only reason marriage is between a man and a woman is because heterosexuals have been discriminating against gays because they're homophobic.
And so marriage, if this is upheld, marriage is simply codified homophobia.
And the purpose of this, of course, is to just rip to shreds the traditions and institutions that have defined the United States of America.
This trial, Judge Walker, Judge Vaughan Walker, this trial, and I put that in quotes, was truly bizarre.
But most importantly, the sponsors of the initiative ended up being on trial.
The voters of Prop 8 ended up being on trial.
I mean, same-sex marriage, same-sex marriage laws have been the subject of previous trials, Iowa, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, elsewhere in California.
In none of those trials, none of these previous same-sex marriage trials, were the thoughts of those who were either for or against the initiatives in question put on trial.
The thoughts, the imagined thoughts, the perceived thoughts.
In other words, those of you who voted for Prop 8 in California are victims of hate crimes or guilty of hate crimes.
You were thinking discrimination.
That's what this judge has said.
Truly unprecedented.
Never before have people been put on trial for their thoughts in same-sex marriage cases, but it's now happened.
It's happened in other trials.
That's how we get hate crimes.
If you really hate somebody and murder them, it's worse than if you just murder them.
That's also been codified into law.
But Judge Walker put the proponents of Proposition 8, especially the people from Project Marriage, on trial.
He even tried to subpoena their emails.
He, the judge, tried to subpoena their emails and other writings.
None of this, none of that should have anything to do with the constitutionality of the legislation or the proposition that was passed.
Here is his conclusion at the end of his ruling.
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.
Indeed, the evidence shows that Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.
That is a legal ruling from a federal judge.
So it's unconstitutional because he thinks it's not rational.
The evidence shows that Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.
How does he arrive at that?
Because it was done by people who are moral prigs.
How in the world does he come to this conclusion?
How do you get to the conclusion that the only reason marriage exists is because of homophobia practiced by heterosexuals?
And the result of their homophobia was to create marriage.
And so now, marriage in California is codified homophobia.
This is, you've heard the word bastardization tossed around about a number of things.
This is a true bastardization of the law, bastardization of the Constitution.
And it's a clear example of the personal policy preferences of a judge becoming law.
Pure and simple.
I know you'll want to weigh in on it.
We'll get to your phone calls here in just a second.
Other news, new claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week, according to government data, underscoring a weak labor market and the fragile economic recovery.
Initial claims for state unemployment benefits rose 19,000 to a seasonally adjusted 479,000 a week ending July 31st.
It's the highest level of claims since early April.
But last week they went down, didn't they?
It went down a smidgen.
They're up now, but last week it was the lowest it's been in 20 years.
Now it's the highest it's been since April.
Analysts talked to by Reuters, partisan political operatives, had forecast claims dropping to 455.
We're still talking unreasonably high numbers of people out of work.
The numbers of people who've given up trying to find work continues to expand.
Scott Wren, a senior equity strategerist at Wells Fargo Advisors in St. Louis, said the bottom line is that any recovery in employment is going to be very slow.
It's likely that we are still at 9.5% unemployment or awfully close to it by the end of this year.
Non-farm payrolls probably fell $65,000 last month after declining $125,000 in June.
That's Reuters, AP.
New jobless claims rise to $479,000.
The Labor Department said Thursday new claims went up by 19,000.
Now, when the AP was, when they were trumpeting that seasonally unemployment claims had declined the first two weeks of July, which I just referenced, they neglected to note, we pointed it out here, that Obama Motors had skewed the unemployment numbers down with his unprecedented move of not taking a two-week layoff to retool, a detail we did point out.
Now they trot out this information, try to explain why the jobless numbers are higher.
Some of the increase stemmed from difficulties the government has in adjusting for seasonal factors.
The Labor Department expected a large decline in claims last week as many auto companies usually put their plants temporarily shut them in July, early July.
Claims were expected to rise during the shutdown, then fall.
But this year, Obama Motors and other manufacturers skipped the shutdown, so claims didn't fall last week as much as expected.
Now, this is ridiculously hilarious because when AP was trumpeting all these seasonably unemployed claims that declined for the first two weeks, they were citing Obama Motors and the fact they didn't shut down.
Now they're blaming all this because Obama Motors didn't shut down.
Trot out this information.
Try to explain why the numbers are higher this week.
We're waiting for the AP to put the blame on hot weather.
Through they blame snowstorms.
They blame snowstorms in January and February.
Now blame the hot weather.
I mean, I don't know about you, folks, but where I live, local news personalities, journalists, and reporters are going out and interviewing officials and authorities who are saying stay in a cool place and drink lots of fluids because it's very hot out there.
Yeah, it's August.
And so you people wouldn't know what the hell to do unless local news went out and found some local authorities to remind you to stay in a cool place and to drink lots of fluids.
Sharon Angle is right.
Nevada U.S. Senate candidate sees her campaign as a battle to stop Democrats in Washington who want to expand entitlement programs and make government our God.
She's right.
She said this in an interview with a Christian radio network.
She describes her effort to oust Dingy Harry as a religious calling in a war of ideology.
It's a war of thoughts and a war of faith.
Democrats seek to expand entitlement programs and make government our God.
Quick timeout.
Let's get to your phone calls when we come back.
Don't go away.
It's a love roller coaster.
Great to have you back, folks.
L. Rush Ball behind the Golden EIB microphone, the fastest three hours in the media.
We started in Milwaukee today.
Jerry, you're up first.
Nice to have you on the program.
All right, Rush, I agree with this Republican-appointed judge.
The judiciary, one of the most important aspects of it, is to ensure that the rights of the minority are protected.
Obsolete people have the right to pass laws, the majority, but the Constitution of not just the federal government, but a state government, ensure that the rights of the minority, even a dislike minority, are protected.
In terms of one time, the right to votes rush only men marrying men should vote.
It's sad people like you that are helping the left destroy the country.
It's uninformed.
Well, the minority is not allowed to break the law.
The minority is not allowed to tell the Constitution, to rewrite the Constitution of the Federal Bench.
The minority is not allowed to look at the Constitution, say, I don't like this, and simply write parts of it out.
Besides, the minority in this case is not even really concerned about equal rights.
The minority in this case is trying to bash and destroy the U.S. Constitution.
And it's ignoramuses like you who don't know what you're talking about who are helping them get away with it.
You call here and you read a prepared statement as a caller, pointing out it's a Republican.
It doesn't mean anything who appointed this guy.
His ruling is what matters.
Anyway, take it to some other show.
Maybe you'll have better success there.
Gene, Columbia, Missouri.
I don't have much patience for these people today, folks.
Just a warning.
Gene and Columbia, welcome to the program.
Nice to have you here.
Thank you, Rush.
And it's an honor to be able to speak with you.
You bet.
I'm calling because I don't know if the election is even going to solve the problems in this country.
And I'm very conservative, but I don't think, you know, look at what's happening in California.
Let's say most of the conservatives win the election and in midterm elections, they don't have to accept it.
There'll be other judges.
I think it's already too far gone.
Well, okay, if we're too far gone, then what are you going to do?
I think the states are maybe looking at succession, maybe another civil war.
And to tell you the truth, I'm ready for it because I'm so hopping.
I'm mad every day.
I know.
You're mad.
You're mad every day.
Other people are depressed every day.
Look at what people in this.
This is a reasonable woman.
She's talking about secession.
Civil war.
She's not alone, folks.
This is not the rantings of extreme kookism anymore.
Minorities do not.
You know, if we give way to the minority every time, we got minority rule, which is what we've got, by the way.
And look where it's taking us.
Minority rule.
So your midterms aren't going to make it.
We need a revolution.
We need secession.
She's mad.
A lot of other people are mad.
Well, some might say the Civil War is already on, a nonviolent one with no arms having been taken up, but some would say a civil war is going on, not started by us.
If you're of the opinion the Civil War is underway, it's been started by the American left years and years and years ago and is just now intensifying.
And you notice, you notice, ladies and gentlemen, how Obama will not hold press conferences.
The media doesn't care about this.
He runs around the country claiming credit for things, assigning blame for things.
He went to Ford today.
We have the soundbite.
Where is this soundbite?
I think it's number three.
I've got the, I'm changing my order on the soundbite from what I said.
Where is it?
I can't find it.
Never mind.
I'll have to find it during commercial break.
He went to Ford.
He started praising the federal bailout.
It is number three.
Play the assembly.
don't have the transcript right in front of me i can't find what i ah here it is this is uh This is this morning.
Obama spoke to the Ford Motor Company Chicago Assembly Plan.
And during the speech, you had the Ford plant employees cheering against the Obama bailout.
MSNBC happened to pull away from coverage at that point.
Now, Ford was in better financial shape and was able to weather the storm without federal assistance.
President Obama speaking to a friendly crowd there in Chicago.
Hey, bumped out of the friendly crowd.
The Ford Motor employees cheering the fact that they didn't take a federal bailout.
And then the dunch reporter, Craig Melvin, Jabrella, President Obama, speaking to a friendly crowd there.
It was not a friendly crowd in Chicago.
The crowd was cheering the fact that they had not taken any federal bailout money.
It was a repudiation of Obama.
MSNBC had to cut out.
So he's around.
He's claiming credit for all of these things, assigning blame for things, but he will not subject himself to a press conference, even when most of the fake media is friendly.
And the reason for this is twofold.
He's really not that smart, folks.
This is part of the myth that Obama's superior in intellect and intelligence, smarter than all the rest.
He's not really that smart.
I mean, can we be honest?
Here's a guy who's come up with policies, and he claims that what he's trying to do here is fix the economy and create jobs, and everything he's doing is destroying that.
How smart is that?
He doesn't want to prove, he really doesn't want to illustrate how he is not smart.
His policies are indefensible.
I mean, there's no way Obama can defend his economic policies.
There's simply no, that's why they're going back to bashing Bush.
Obama cannot defend one policy.
So he doesn't even want to stand up there, have a press conference.
He doesn't want to have any scrutiny whatsoever.
It's a lot easier.
Go out and make pronouncements, sends a wife over to Spain, go golfing, jump on a plane to Chicago, have dinner with Oprah, have the media fawn all over you, do all of that rather than do anything subsetive.
Snerdley, when I say minority rule, I'm talking about minorities, lesser numbers, the left in this country.
The left is a minority.
We're being ruled by a minority.
We had this caller, this guy from Milwaukee, talking about the rights of the minority.
If the minority gets everything it wants all the time, then we have the minority ruling, and that's not a representative republic.
I'm not talking race here at all.
Talking politics, the American left, we are being governed and ruled by a minority.
Here's Drew in Long Island.
Drew, welcome to the EIB Network.
Great to have you here.
Thank you for having me, Rush.
I think you're a great man.
Thank you, Rush.
It was wonderful.
Listen, I wanted to ask you, do you believe that two people of the same gender should be afforded the same rights, maybe not to be called marriage, but to be afforded the same rights as two people intergender that would be married?
You know, in California, in California, they already are.
In California, you're talking about the civil unions.
In California, gay people already have the same rights that married people have in the context in which you're speaking, which is benefits, right?
Exactly.
Well, benefits, because everybody wants benefits.
Nobody wants to do anything on their own.
Everybody wants benefits.
And in California, they've taken care of it.
The civil union has been established.
You don't have to be married to get the same quote-unquote benefits, visitation rights, and all that that married people have.
Well, benefits in terms of, you know, health care and insurance in the US when you're paying for more than one person.
Right, yeah.
You know, these are the things that in the eyes of the people that are pushing for the unions, the gay people out there, because I have a lot of gay friends, in their eyes, this is about those rights.
But behind the scenes, the politico's eyes, as you said, is to, in my opinion, is to destroy the constitutional rights that we have.
Yeah, and that's why I said earlier in the program that I think these most gay people are not gay activists.
Most people are not.
No, they're not.
No, they're not.
They're being used.
They're being used as the latest battering ram against the Constitution.
But do you believe that gay people should have the right to have a civil union?
Do you believe that they should be, you know, that their wishes should be respected just as anybody else choosing a life partner?
Well, you know, it doesn't matter what I think in this case.
It exists.
Civil unions have come up as a way of mollifying people wanted to say, look, marriage is what it is.
Let's not bastardize it.
I mean, if you want the benefits, if you want visitation rights, if you want to be able to be on an insurance policy, do it with civil unions.
Notice it didn't satisfy.
It did not satisfy.
Granting everything they wanted on the benefits side did not satisfy the judge or anybody else here.
So it's a false notion.
And I was in California in the early and mid-80s during the zenith, the modern era zenith of the rise in popularity of the gay rights movement.
What I remember back then was they just leave us alone.
That was one of the major mantras of the political gay rights movement.
Just leave us alone.
But now they don't want to be left alone at all.
Now, if marriage is not between a man and a woman, I've raised this before, but I think it's a valid logical conclusion.
If marriage is not between a man and a woman, then what should the definition be?
If we're going to say that marriage is codified homophobia, that marriage between a man and a woman only exists because men and women heterosexuals have been homophobes and the way they sought to discriminate against gays is to not allow them to get married, define marriage as only between a man and a woman, and now that's out the window.
Judge taking care of this.
So what is marriage?
Is it between two adults?
Is it between two consenting beings, two consenting objects?
Where does it stop?
Why two adults?
Why not three?
What if three adults decide that they want to get married?
Well, some of you might get off on that.
Some of you might like it, especially if two of them have health benefits and you don't.
But which strange reason to get married, but I guess there are all kinds of reasons for it.
If the adults are loving and responsible, why not three in a marriage?
Why not?
Or more, for that matter.
I mean, if marriage is not a union of a man and a woman, what's a family?
We can define that however we wish it to be defined.
Who am I?
Who are you?
Who are you to tell anybody what marriage ought to be?
As far as the judge, who should decide that the judge should decide everything, it appears.
If the people cannot even be trusted to define marriage, how can they be trusted to define anything else?
This goes to the core of our country, the core of our existence.
Self-government.
But we can't be trusted to self-govern ourselves.
If we can't be trusted to define marriage, then how can we be trusted to define anything?
If we are bigots because we are heterosexual, then we're bigots for all purposes.
Of course, I realize how irritating it is, but that's what this judge said.
This judge said he has codified marriage as homophobia.
So we're not trusted.
The people can't be trusted to define marriage.
What can we be trusted to do?
According to this judge, nothing.
According to the left, nothing.
They are God.
They have to do all the defining.
Now, if heterosexuals are bigots because they're heterosexuals, then they're bigots for all things, right?
And they're bigots for all purposes, then they're not rational.
They're not capable of self-government, right?
And ergo, that's how you get a decision like this.
It's sick.
These 7 million voters of Prop 8 were put on trial by this judge and found to be incompetent, bigots, homophobes.
And that's why what they did had to be overturned.
Well, once you go down that slope, anything we vote can be overturned because we're not competent.
Walker's ruling makes it very clear, ladies and gentlemen, the judge here makes it very clear that marriage is simply homophobia.
Why do we think that a two-person marriage is morally superior?
Where did this come from?
Why does society, I don't care what country you go to, and I don't care what era you cite, marriage has always been between two people, a man and a woman.
How did that happen?
I'm asking rhetorically.
You don't need to shout at the radio and tell me I know what you're saying.
How does this happen?
Where did this kind of bigotry begin?
That a two-person marriage is morally superior.
Prejudice is mentioned 16 times in this guy's ruling.
14 times you'll read the word fear.
In this judge's ruling, here's Andy in Manhattan.
Andy, welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
Nice to have you here, sir.
Thank you, sir.
And I also want to thank you for voicing your opinion against the Ground Zero Mosque.
I myself am a 9-11 hard hat, and we have been fighting this thing tooth and nail since it started.
And it seems all our elected officials have abandoned us and let us down.
So now it's basically down to us blue-collar workers coming together, pledging not to do any work on that site.
So that's what I'm reduced to, Rush.
Somebody called yesterday and made mention of this possibility that the people going to build it might just refuse to.
Well, you see, I'm not putting any faith in the union leadership, as you know.
They can be easily swayed.
So what I'm doing is I'm a construction super in New York.
I'm going around to all of the big construction sites because I do all the big work in New York City.
And I've been going up to the guys, I've been talking to them, and Rush, it's unanimous.
These guys will rather sit home than lift a hammer or a nail that contributes to constructing this insult, this dagger in the heart of the 3,000 families that are suffering and have to relive the suffering if this thing actually goes through.
This is happening all over the country.
In New York, it's over the mosque.
In California, it's over this.
In Arizona, it's over immigration.
In Missouri, it's about health care.
Everywhere, all across this country, there are people feeling outrage and defiance, exactly as you are.
You know, the White House reaction to you?
Andy, is we dismiss you.
The people of Missouri, Arizona, dismissed.
It doesn't mean anything.
What you think doesn't mean anything, Andy?
I know.
It's like you said earlier.
They're going against the will of the people.
This guy, Matt Stringer, and Mayor Bloomberg.
You know what?
I would love to ask Mayor Bloomberg, if it was his daughter that perished in one of those buildings, would he feel the same way today?
Would he have the same opinion?
Would he be so generous about just letting anyone come in there and desecrate the memories of those lost?
Why should that be the standard?
He was the mayor for crying out loud.
There are 3,000 New Yorkers in New Jersey, Connecticut.
Why should he have to know any of them personally in order to be morally correct on this?
I mean, I get what you're saying, but why should he have to know anybody who personally perished?
I don't know anybody who personally perished, and I'm still outraged by it.
Rush, I was at the Winter Garden.
When we rebuilt it right after 9-11, the Winter Garden was a smoldering ruin.
And four months later, we reconstructed the whole entire thing.
And I was there with Pataki and Giuliani and Bloomberg.
And they promised that they would rebuild this site.
And here it is a decade later.
It's barely, it's barely being built up right now as we speak.
And now they're going to allow a mosque a stone's throw away.
Right.
And guess what year they want to start construction on the mosque?
Oh, the finish date.
It's classic.
Go ahead.
You tell them, big guy.
9-11, 2011.
Exactly.
9-11, 2011.
That's when they either want to start it or finish it.
I'm not sure which.
9-11.
That was their finished.
They wanted their finished date.
They actually switched it, and they actually switched the name from Cordoba Initiative to Park 51 because of the connotation of them building mosques on conquered lands.
It's the start date is 9-11, 2011.
That's when they want to start building the mosque.
9-11, 2011.
I'm not making it up.
Andy, thanks so much for the call.
As for Bloomberg, don't forget when the Times Square bomber was caught.
Don't forget, Bloomberg's honest guy is obviously upset about healthcare.
Obviously, a right-winger just ticked off about healthcare, some silly social thing.
It couldn't possibly have been an Islamist or jihadist.
Times Square Bomber.
No, no, no.
It had to be somebody ticked off about healthcare.
It had to be some right-winger.
This building, by the way, is the only building on that block that does not have landmark status.
That's why the vote of the Landmark Commission was, well, interesting, fascinating.
It's the only building on that block that is not landmarked.
It's not landmarks.
And go ahead and build a mosque.
They want to start construction 9-11, 2011.
The mosque will be done first.
The mosque will finish before, as I said, the Freedom Tower.
Not making it up.
There are 26 buildings on that street.
23 of them have landmark status.
Other three are pending.
The Landmark Commission voted to deny landmark status to the building that will be torn down to become the mosque.
How can anybody deny what the ramifications are?
Looking at it rationally, I've learned that trying to explain the irrational rationally is only going to frustrate you.
Got to take a break.
Quick timeout, back after this.
Don't go away.
Something that many people are in need of.
An emotional rescue.
The stones.
Ladies and gentlemen, you run a small business.
You know that protecting your assets is important.
And so are the files on your business computer.
They're important assets.
You can't afford to lose them.
A computer disaster, which will happen.
There's no question.
A computer disaster will happen to everybody.
It can happen anytime.
That can lead to lost time, lost customers in an instant.
Your customer records, all your presentations, important files, poof.
Il Gono.
Doesn't matter, though, if you are backed up.
Carbonite Pro, get Carbonite Pro and automatically backup the files on all of your PCs, no matter how many you have and no matter where they are located.
One account, one monthly bill.
You can track the backup status across all of your PCs with Carbonite Pro's central dashboard.
And with Carbonite Pro, every person can access their own backed up files from any computer, even from their iPhone or BlackBerry, with a free app.
Prices start at just $10 a month.
Remember, one account, just one monthly bill for all the computers in your small business.
You only pay for the amount of backup that you need.
All the details and a free one-month trial are at CarbonitePro.com.
Go check CarbonitePro.com, Chicago.
This is Hans.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Pleasure to speak with you.
Thank you very much.
I had a question, and I don't see any coverage in the press.
Shut up, the first lady of the regime, is in Spain with her entourage.
I find it fascinating that they couldn't find a spot in the United States to go to to spend all this money on their vacation.
I can't believe that SEIU isn't complaining because think of all of the hotel staff that would have gotten tips and been employed and all the wonderful things they could have done with all of the money that they're spending.
It's an interesting observation.
Frankly, one I hadn't thought of because I'm more interested in the fact that while everybody in this country is tightening their belt, some cannot find work.
We are being preached to, and people are being told it's Bush's fault while Mrs. Obama's doing a Marie Antoinette impersonation, 40 people, 40 rooms, or 60 rooms, 40 people, 2,500 bucks a night.
But think of the economic stimulus that would have been here in the United States.
Yeah, that's true.
Very true.
They probably couldn't find anything suitable for their tastes in the United States.
More importantly, you're probably not going to see a lot of media about this.
They didn't want to be seen in the United States living this extravagantly.
That's probably your answer.
Anyway.
Very amazing.
Hands, thanks for the call.
I appreciate it very much.
Tom in Minter, Ohio.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
How are you doing?
Very well, sir.
Thank you.
Congratulations on your marriage.
Nothing but the happiness.
I appreciate that, sir.
Thanks much.
I have a question for you.
You've been talking about the minority rule, minority rule.
And I've been thinking about this for months.
Isn't this like apartheid in South Africa where the minority, not that it's race, but the minority liberals in the viewpoint of the way Americans think now are ruling and jamming down the throats of all the conservative thinking people?
In South Africa, you mean the minority of the blacks?
Yeah.
I mean, it's just like reversed.
Not reversed, but it's...
I wouldn't compare this to apartheid, because apartheid was racial.
What's happening here is not racially based.
I mean, this is, we've got to...
I mean, it's not racial, but it's the minority is ruling over the...
Precisely.
By ignoring the Constitution.
Right.
By bastardizing it, by rewriting it.
Yes.
By ignoring the will of the people, not only ignoring the will of the people, but telling us that we're not smart enough to govern ourselves.
Every which way from Sunday.
Mark in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call, Mega Dittos.
Thank you, sir.
Listen, one of the things that you've taught us so effectively over the years is to follow the money.
Right.
And when I listen to this discussion about the marriage and defining it, you know, one of the things that's being eliminated, or at least they're trying to eliminate, is the estate tax exemption.
However, the marital exemption is unlimited.
And so this could be a scheme.
I don't know, Rush.
I thought I'd run this by you.
Is this some scheme to once again avoid taxes in perpetuity, perhaps?
Well, I don't know.
I mean, I'm not sure what you mean by the, what is the marital exemption?
Well, when you have a husband and wife, and let's say they have an estate, it doesn't even have to be as big as yours, Rush, but they've got a significant estate.
When one of them passes away, the estate goes to the spouse as well.
Tax-free.
Tax-free.
That's right.
There's no tax on that from an estate tax standpoint.
It's an unlimited marital deduction is what they say.
So would that be part of this, too?
Because if we redefine marriage, then they'll be eligible for this as well, this unlimited way to pass on.
Well, I don't doubt that that has been used as the benefits side of this.
People being discriminated against not being permitted to have the same benefits as married people.
Therefore, there's discrimination.
And I would assume that that's being used to fuel the fire of those who think they're being discriminated against.
But I really think that the big picture here, what this is all about is destroying the United States, destroying the U.S. Constitution, ripping and tearing apart the traditions and institutions that have defined the country.
There's no question that you can get them all fired up by saying, look at what you're missing here.
You can't get married, and so you're missing out on a free inheritance when the partner passes away.
No doubt that's been used.
Seem like same thing with health care benefits and all the other.
But the main objective is the United States.
That's what's in the crosshairs.
Back after this.
Well, another exciting excursion into broadcast excellence.
The second hour of the program today is now officially wrapped up and in the can.
One hour remaining, and we will continue to get to your phone calls.
And I've got some audio soundbites here I got to take a look at, put in order and see what we've got.
We'll get to all that when we come back.
▲
Export Selection