Rush Limbaugh Program - March 25, 2013, Monday, Hour #3

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 25, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program

32:04

March 25, 2013, Monday, Hour #3

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	No, no, I'm telling you, you can't say that.
	I can't tell you the number of times people tell me you can't say that after I've said it.
	Well, even before they say you can't say that.
	And there's a bunch of stuff that you're not supposed to say.
	Let me give you an example of this gay marriage business.
	There's no question that the Supreme Court deciding the definition of marriage is going to lead to a it's going to be another round of Roe versus weight effects on our culture.
	I mean, the in the UK, by the way, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh 800-282-2882, if you ought to be on the program.
	In the UK, United Kingdom, abortion does not cause anything like it causes in this country in terms of uh controversy and constantly at war with people being at with people being at war with each other, because it was it was decided by a vote of the people.
	In this country, back in 1973, the Supreme Court, nine men, black robes, said that they see the word abortion in the Constitution, and that women are entitled to one, and it's right, it's right there.
	So it's not there, but these nine guys, well, at least five of them said it is, and one of them wrote an opinion on it, and it became the law of the land, and it has led to strife and controversy that will never end.
	And gay marriage, I think is going to do the same thing.
	If the Supreme Court once again does for gay marriage what it did for abortion, then we're gonna have never-ending cultural riff, strife, controversy over this, and it's gonna keep our culture and society ripped apart like abortion has.
	Now, what you can't say in discussing this, if you advocate it being left up to a vote of the people, what you can't say is that every time the issue has been on a ballot, it's lost.
	Even in progressive California, Proposition 8 lost.
	The proposition was to redefine the meaning of marriage to include people of the same sex.
	It that did not even pass in California.
	So the Supreme Court is being asked to overturn that on the basis the people of California acted and voted unconstitutionally.
	And if they do that, see what you what you can't say is that if left up to a vote of the people, it won't become law.
	At least as we sit here today, the vast majority of people in this country oppose it, contrary to what you hear in the media, and if it were left to a vote to the people, it would it would be voted down.
	But you can't say that.
	And what you also can't say is that the reason it's at the Supreme Court is precisely because it would be voted down if put to a vote by the public at large.
	And you also can't say that the Supreme Court is supposed to be insulated from the ebb and flow of popular culture movement and opinion.
	You can't say that.
	So you can't say any of the stuff that I just said.
	So I really didn't say it.
	But because you can't say it.
	But that's what if, and if the Supreme Court goes ahead and finds that marriage can be whatever we want it to be, that it's not what we say it is now, I guarantee you it's it's gonna lead to the continued roiling of our culture and society, as has happened with uh with abortion.
	Plain and simple.
	You see, the courts, what what you can't say is that the courts can't let the people decide because the people always decide the wrong way.
	Always.
	And that's why it has to be called a civil right.
	Because if you call something a civil right, no matter how wildly unpopular it is, then that opposition is bigotry.
	And therefore bigotry can be ignored.
	So the but you can't say any of this, really, so just want to be careful.
	Don't try this on your own out there.
	But you can't say that the reason gay marriage is being portrayed as a civil right because it allows opponents of it to be called bigots.
	And what do you do with bigots?
	You put them down, you ignore them, you make fun of them, and you discredit what they believe.
	So that's why it's a civil right.
	You can't say any of this, though.
	That's why it's up for a vote.
	Because the people would never do the right thing.
	The Department of Homeland Security, moving on to another topic here.
	The Department of Homeland Security has announced, well, I don't know if they announced it if they just did it, but one way or the other, they're buying 1.6 billion additional rounds of ammunition.
	And the government, various government agencies have been buying up ammo in great quantities for quite a few weeks now.
	And I have seen, by the way, on several conservative blogs, people say, don't look at folks, this is no big deal.
	When you break it down by the number of agents and the fact that there's target practice, it's really not that I've seen four or five different conservative bloggers try to calm people down.
	It's no big deal.
	This is really not that much ammo.
	It breaks down to like, you know, a hundred rounds per agent per year.
	That's nothing.
	When you figure that some of that's going to be target practice, uh firing range duty, this kind of thing.
	So the effort is underway to make it look like it isn't that big a deal, and that it's actually somewhat common.
	But when you add to that that it's creating a shortage of ammo, then people start getting concerned.
	And in this current climate, with this particular administration, see context again.
	Nothing is simply an isolated incident.
	People are not that dumb.
	Okay, you you have a number of elements that people believe.
	We have a very activist administration in terms of growing government, um, very statist-oriented administration, a government that wants to control as much as possible.
	They want to control life in general, people's lives specifically, health care and so you add to that, they're buying up a bunch of ammo.
	You add to that a bunch of progressives are trying to get gun bans passed, like Diane Feinstein and that the assault weapons ban, of course, that went up in smoked, no pun intended in the Senate.
	Uh and and that that may have died for a long time.
	So, in in this what people are saying in context, in lieu of all these efforts to control guns failing, then what the regime is doing is buying up all the ammo so that the guns that you do have are useless.
	Which, of course, then kind of cuts against their theory that guns kill people.
	Because if you can't get any ammo for your gun, your gun is by definition of the regime.
	Useless.
	So people are quite worried about this.
	And further in context, after buying up all of the ammo or a lot of it, now they want to fly drones over the country where you can't fire back at the drone.
	So people are worried.
	Bottom line, people are very concerned about this.
	And they're n when the analysts come out and say, don't sweat it.
	It really isn't that much ammo.
	It's no more than a hundred rounds or a hundred and fifty, whatever the number was.
	I don't remember specifically, but the analysts I've seen is it's not that much.
	Look at all the agents we have in the various government bureaucracies.
	It really isn't that much ammo per agent.
	And there's a number of these analysts saying that.
	And yet people are very, very worried because they know the kind of administration this is.
	It's got people admittedly concerned.
	From the UK Daily Mail, ladies and gentlemen, a scruel in London...
	Actually, it's Canve Island in uh Essex has banned.
	Are you ready for this?
	They have banned triangular shaped pancakes.
	A school has banned triangular-shaped pancakes on health and safety grounds after a student was hit in the eye by a pointed end of a pancake during a lunchtime food fight.
	Now here I thought the only danger in school was these Pop Tart shaped like guns.
	But oh no.
	Now we've got pointed pancakes.
	Triangular shaped pancakes that can hurt people.
	In the schools.
	Dinner ladies at the comprehensive school were told to cut flapjacks pancakes into squares or rectangles from now on after the boy was sent home complaining of a sore eye after being hit in the eye with the pointed end of a triangular-shaped pancake.
	Now, doesn't a rectangular square pancake also have a point?
	So yeah, at a right angle, but you can still say that it still could come to a may not be as sharp a point as a triangle.
	But why not just whatever happened to good old-fashioned round pancakes?
	You can play frisbee with them if you want.
	Surely that wouldn't hurt anybody.
	Surely that wouldn't hurt anybody.
	The spokesman for the Essex County Council confirmed the ban this morning on triangular shape pancakes, saying that it was true.
	The new ruling on pancakes with flapjacks, which have been served at this school for 15 years, was imposed by the head honcho there, Gil Thomas, soon after the incident in the cafeteria last Wednesday.
	Now these pancakes must be getting pretty stiff after 15 years.
	The boy complained to staff that his eye hurt after he was struck in the eye by the corner of a flying pancake.
	He was sent home for the afternoon, although his injuries did not merit a treatment at hospital.
	Are you kidding me?
	I'm not I'm nope, not making this up.
	Folks, it's happening all over the world.
	The progressives are just making a mockery of everything.
	Okay, brief timeout, sit tight, we'll be back much more straight ahead as another excursion into broadcast excellence rolls on.
	Okay, let's go back to the phones and we go to Orlando.
	This is Jonathan.
	I'm I'm glad you called Jonathan.
	Thanks so much for waiting, and welcome to the EIB network.
	Hi.
	Hey, Rush.
	Hello.
	Yeah, hi.
	Thank you for taking my call.
	I wanted to address something you were talking about before with Cyprus.
	Yes, sir.
	And you didn't take it far enough.
	You gotta remember that a lot of the money that's on deposit in Cyprus right now are Russian oligarchs who are getting their money out of Russia and depositing in Cyprus.
	And so a lot of that money that's being seized belongs to Russians.
	And so now you've got the European Community Bank seizing Russian earned money.
	Money that was earned.
	Well, this actually is true.
	Um how much money are we talking about though?
	We're talking about obscene amounts of money.
	With with a population of less than two million people, how many of them do you really think have over a hundred and forty thousand dollars in Cyprus?
	A lot of the money that's on deposit in Cyprus is from external sources.
	It's not from Cypriots.
	Well you one thing you're right about uh Putin and Medvedev have raised hell about this.
	They are not they're not happy about it.
	So what do you think the Russians will do, nuke them?
	No, no, I'm I'm just saying that you we now have a situation where money that wasn't even earned or produced in the European community is being seen to prop up European countries.
	And the same thing is going on here in the States.
	The media holds up this shiny little bauble that's called the stock market and says, look at how it's been growing.
	But nobody points out that that stock market, that that 401k that you have money invested in, buys less than 90% of what it would have bought as little as two years ago.
	That you have a government flooding the numbers that's pulling out the price of gas, pulling out the price of food, for inflationary purposes to tell us that inflation is not a problem I gotta go to the supermarket.
	I gotta drive to work my money isn't getting me as far as it used to that money that money in your 401k is being seized and you're not aware of it.
	So this is going on all over the world and it's already happening here in the United States.
	Well look, okay, it's it's it's being seized by virtue of inflation, yes.
	I don't want anybody to get the impression that your accounts are being pilfered the same way they are in Cyprus.
	That's not what he means this is this is not is nobody's running in there and taking your 401k while you're not looking and not telling you and giving not yet.
	Now the Democrats have a number of people who proposed the the the popular plan on the table for your 401k is based on the fact that you get a tax deduction for what you contribute.
	As you know, if you if you contribute a thousand dollars to your 401k you get to deduct a thousand dollars from your taxable income.
	The government has figured out that that deduction is costing them money and they don't have any money.
	They need it.
	Now the amount of money it's costing them is minuscule compared to the debt, the deficit or any other comparative that you want to use it's minuscule but it's still the money that they think is theirs.
	So the plan that has been proposed by a a professor at the new school and supported by George Miller, Democrat from California and a number of others would be this the government will come and buy your 401k from you at the value it was before the financial crash they will buy it.
	They will give you that money and put it in your 401k account it'll stay there.
	But it's the days of being able to contribute to it are no more contributions permitted to your 401k instead the government is going to promise you anywhere from one to three percent growth every year.
	That's it.
	You can't grow the principal anymore you are not allowed to contribute well you can contribute to it but there won't be any tax deductibility granted.
	That's the plan on the table to eliminate the tax deduction you get with your annual contribution or 401k or your your IRO whatever you have.
	But what his point is that with you can see it in the cost of uh gasoline and food and so forth.
	The value of your 401k is shrinking.
	The amount of money the government will have to pay you or the banks look to pay you is decreasing because of the value of money declining because of inflation.
	And in that sense, uh your 401k is becoming less valuable, and you could say that the inflation benefits the government, therefore the but nobody's running in and confiscating it like is happening in Cyprus.
	And our wonderful caller did not mean to say that.
	He is a brilliant man who is simply talking about the effects of inflation on the value of money, and how the government is causing the inflation with the printing of money and purposely devaluing your 401k at their to their benefit.
	And that's his point.
	The other thing to remember, these banks were Cyprus's only source of income.
	And they've just blown that up.
	And who who in their right mind is going to put money into a Cyprus bank again?
	Who in their right mind would leave any money in a Cyprus bank right now?
	That's that's the short-sighted nature of these uh of these yokels.
	But he's right, our money is being taken by having such low interest rates combined with uh with with the the inflationary aspects taking place.
	So, Jonathan, thanks for the call.
	Brief time out, my friend.
	Sit tight much, much more straight ahead.
	By the way, folks, when it comes to Putin, I actually think he probably doesn't care that his oligarchs are getting ripped off.
	I mean, they're taking the money out of uh out of Russia, which he probably doesn't like, and he probably doesn't like all these guys becoming as filthy, wealthy as they are, because they're wealthier than he is, and he would interpret that as a threat to his power.
	And so he might not actually I could be wrong.
	You know, instinct would be that he'd be ticked off at uh Cyprus and the European Union for taking Russian money, but in fact he may not be all that upset about it.
	Wouldn't take much to find out, which we'll probably learn soon enough anyway.
	Okay, to the audio sound bites, Michael Bloomberg leaves no doubt now who he is and what he's all about.
	Meet the press yesterday.
	David Gregory said, will you target people, Republicans and Democrats who don't support a ban on weapons, an assault weapons man who don't vote for background checks, will you spend money to target them in 2014, the midterm race?
	I have a responsibility, and I think you and all of your viewers have responsibilities to try to make this country safer for our families and for each other.
	And if I can do that by spending some money and t taking the NRA from being the only voice to being one of the voices, so the public can really understand the issues, then I think my money would be well spent.
	So, yeah, I'll spend whatever it takes to get people to do the right thing.
	Even the people that don't even know that they're doing the right thing, I'll do it.
	Somebody has to make them do the right thing.
	So Gregory said, well, you're telling people what they can and can't do.
	Why is that government's job to do that?
	We're telling them what science says is in their interest or isn't in their interest.
	We allow you to smoke.
	We just don't let you smoke where other people have to breathe the smoke that you that you're exhaling or comes from your cigarette.
	The same thing with obesity, which incidentally is a public interest because we're going to spend five billion dollars on treating people with obesity in our hospitals in New York City alone this year.
	But regardless, where's the line?
	Where is it too far for government to go?
	I do not think we should ban most things.
	I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom.
	There you have it.
	If there are any doubt, I don't think there any was, but if there was any, we there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom.
	We allow you to smoke.
	We just don't let you smoke where other people have to breathe it.
	But we allow you to smoke.
	Folks, here's the deal.
	Liberal policies are being imposed on the entire nation.
	They are being imposed and they are to be.
	Those that haven't been will be.
	That's the deal.
	Liberalism is being forced on the entire nation.
	If they cannot achieve it by the vote, then they will achieve it by judicial fiat.
	There is no saying no to the liberal agenda.
	There is no no.
	Well, you can say no, but it's not going to count.
	If you don't want it, and if a majority of people don't want it, doesn't matter.
	It's going to be forced on you.
	The reason this matter, gay marriage, the reason homosexual marriage is before the Supreme Court is before because the people of California voted no.
	Proposition eight, they voted no.
	The courts, obviously run by the left have said otherwise.
	The other issue before the court is the Defense of Marriage Act.
	That was passed by Congress, and that was signed into law by President Clinton.
	Whether by direct vote or through their representatives, in both instances, the people said no to homosexual marriage.
	Now the liberals are trying to force five or six justices to say yes.
	And that's that.
	And that's why it's being called a civil right.
	You put civil right in front of any piece of legislation, and the odds are it'll pass because nobody's got the guts to vote no to a new civil right.
	Civil rights in this country means one thing.
	The end of discrimination based on race, usually, but now to include sexual orientation.
	So you say that there is a civil right being denied when two people of the same sex can't get married, then what does that make the opponents?
	It makes them bigots.
	People that oppose civil rights are called bigots.
	And what do you do with bigots?
	You ignore them and you put them down, you impugn them, and you use them to advance your cause.
	I dare say that if somebody wanted to legalize, take take something that you find reprehensible.
	I don't know what it would be, but it's but everybody opposes it.
	Somebody can propose it and call it a civil right, and it might have a chance of becoming law simply because of the power of those two words, civil rights.
	So same-sex marriage and wiping out the Defense of Marriage Act is now a civil right.
	People oppose it are bigots, and nobody wants to be a bigot.
	But the thing you can't say is that if left to a vote of the people, same-sex marriage loses.
	Every time it's been on the ballot.
	I think so far it's 30 times.
	State ballots, initiatives and other things, and the Defense of Marriage Act at the federal level.
	It's never passed.
	You wouldn't know that, would you, by listening to the pop culture media.
	You would think that this issue has overtaken everything.
	It's the most important issue to everybody and anybody, and that it has massive public support.
	And yet every time it's been voted on by the people, it has gone down to defeat.
	That's why the courts have to get involved.
	Because the people, according to the left, won't do the right thing.
	And liberal policies are to be imposed on the nation.
	Is the only way the country can become liberal is to have them imposed.
	People would never vote for this stuff.
	People never ever vote for liberalism when that's what they know is ahead of them.
	When they know that a candidate is liberal, I'm talking about nationally.
	When they know that a policy is liberal, when they know that a candidate is liberal, doesn't have a prayer nationally.
	That's why it has to be imposed.
	You don't say no to them.
	There is no such thing as losing.
	There's no such thing as defeat.
	The arena of ideas doesn't matter.
	That's why they don't care to debate anything.
	It doesn't matter.
	Whether you oppose something or not doesn't matter.
	It's gonna happen.
	We're gonna impose our will and way of life on you.
	Whether you like it or not.
	We're not gonna waste time trying to change your heart.
	We're not gonna waste time debating you and trying to change your mind.
	We're gonna impose it on you.
	And that's why we go to the courts, which is what's happening, which takes us to audio sound bit number 13.
	This week, ABC, round table discussion about gay marriage, Stephanopoulos talking to Carl Rove.
	This goes by in seven seconds.
	Carl Rove, can you imagine the next presidential campaign a Republican candidate saying flat out I am for gay marriage?
	I could.
	Okay.
	Carl Rove says that he can imagine in 2016, a Republican candidate saying flat out he's for gay marriage.
	Now I have one question.
	If left up to a vote of the people, same-sex marriage loses.
	So why would the Republican establishment be supporting it?
	Maybe that's a question that I'm not supposed to ask.
	But I'd like to know.
	If the issue would lose, as it always has, if left up to a vote of the people, then would why why are the Republicans for it?
	If it's a losing issue, why not let the Democrats own it?
	Well, we know the answer.
	Because the Republicans think there's a whole lot of answers.
	But the Republicans are in a totally defensive posture and they think that they're losing because they're not enough like Democrats.
	Which means they're not considered cool and hip.
	In one sense.
	But it still is interesting, isn't it?
	It would lose if put to a vote of the people, and yet the Republicans would support it.
	You remember how Obama warned the Supreme Court they better not rule against the will of the people right before the Obamacare ruling?
	He warned the Supreme Court they better not rule against the will of the people.
	Well, he never had the will of the people.
	The will of the people was never majority in support of Obamacare.
	But that didn't matter.
	He wanted to intimidate the court, and it appears that it worked in a couple of instances.
	But wouldn't the Supreme Court be overturning the will of the people of California?
	If they vote to overturn Proposition A. Another thing, folks, I'm not supposed to say or ask.
	Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network.
	No, I can answer my question about the Republican Party in gay marriage, even though it would lose to a vote of the public.
	The pressure is immense on Republicans to get hip with pop culture, Including immigration reform, uh, gun control, abortion, you name it.
	Remember, folks, liberalism is to be imposed on this nation.
	That's the goal.
	That's their goal, that's their objective.
	There aren't any votes.
	There won't be any popular opinion about it.
	It's going to be imposed unless people stand up and fight it.
	Sadly, my friends, that's it.
	We are out of busy broadcast moments for today, but there's always tomorrow, as there always is.

▲