All Episodes
Previous Next
March 27, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:51
March 27, 2013, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 podcast.
No, I'm not kidding.
The word for it is whore.
What he did was he just became a total whore on this issue.
There's no question about it.
No, no, no, no, no.
Folks, the show started and my microphone went on when it shouldn't have.
And that's unfortunate, but it happened.
Anyway, greetings.
Great to have you here.
Yes, male prostitute, exactly right.
Just don't, don't, don't do anything that might make somebody think I'm a conservative.
That's what's behind that.
Gutless, gutless whore.
Anyway, greetings, welcome back, folks.
Great to have you here.
The uh Rush Limbaugh program and the EIB network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Um, you know, I get a note from a friend last night, and this is really a good point.
This guy, he was he was in California about the same time I was.
I was in Sacramento in 1984 through uh 1988.
And I remember, and I'm sure all of you who were of um adult years were paying attention back then, which it seems like yesterday to me.
The 80s seemed like yesterday to me.
It does not seem like ancient history.
It's tough for me to realize that to a lot of people, the 70s and 80s are ancient history, and I loved them.
I mean, they just didn't they seem like yesterday to me.
Still like I'm living them in a sense.
Anyway, I can remember I was in Sacramento and and uh one of one of the world's most famous feminazis came to town, this babe named Andrea Dworkin.
They had to to get.
Whenever she went to a restaurant, they had to expand the door.
They had to send a carpenter in there and enlarge the doorway so she could get in.
She anyway, she came in, and she was one of the roving band of feminists that was preaching against marriage.
As slavery, she was a lesbian, and sex in marriage was rape.
And remember the law professor at the University of Michigan, the otherwise erst law famous feminist, what was it, Catherine McKinnon?
Remember, with teaching.
This is just what, 25 years ago, with teaching, 20 years ago, 25, teaching that even the sex in a loving marriage was rape because it involved the subjugation of women.
Now look where we are.
Now the same people who were out there trying to tell everybody that all marriage was slavery.
Now look at the big reversal that's taken place.
Now, why do you think explain what do you think explains the difference?
I don't know if it's up my head.
I mean, I could come up with a couple of different theories, but I hadn't thought about it till last night when I got the uh email, because the the note from my friend pointed out that five, ten years ago, the whole notion of gay marriage hadn't even been heard of.
I mean, not popularly.
There might have been pockets of places in the country where it was bubbling up and being talked about, maybe 15, but but clearly it wasn't that long ago where not only was gay marriage not on the docket, but marriage itself was impugned and blasphemed and criticized all over the place in modern liberal doctrine.
And now look at the massive reversal that we've had.
Now there has to be a reason for it.
And of course, all of this coming under the umbrella of love is simply the marketing.
And but I'll tell you, you know, there was I've had a chance now to look at some of the oral arguments, and some of the liberal justices had some of the most penetrating, sensible questions yesterday.
Like um the uh wise Latina, the Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, she was saying, you know, we don't have any experience with this.
We have no way of knowing, and we've got countless centuries, multiple centuries of experience with with uh opposite sex marriage.
Opposite sex marriage, but we don't know anything about same-sex marriage.
And she went on to say, i given the terms in which you are selling, she's telling you to Ted Olson, she made more sense than Ted Olson made.
She said, given the way you are selling this is my word, not hers, given the way you're selling this, how are there any limits on this behavior as long as this is a right?
Where are there any limits on this in terms of who can marry who and how many times and so forth?
And Olson started arguing, well, we're not just it's a right based on behavior.
And that that caused her to well, not flip her wig, but to really uh she nailed the guy.
I mean, it was it was it was classic.
I think I've got that somewhere here in the um Yeah, here it is.
Here it is, Judge uh Justice Sotomayor, Mr. Olsen, the bottom line that you're being asked here, and it's one that I'm interested in the answer.
If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?
And the why is Latina is right, at least on this one implied point.
If the re if this restriction is unconstitutional, what restrictions are not unconstitutional?
For example, marriage, you look it up in the dictionary, it's a union of a man and a woman, but all of a sudden it isn't going to be.
It's going to be a union of a man and a man, a woman and a woman, or that's her point, where are the restrictions?
If marriage no longer means what it means, what state restrictions with respect to the number of people?
This is the liberal justice asking this question.
What state restrictions with respect to the number of people with respect to that could get married?
The incest laws, the mother and child, assuming that they are the age, I mean, I could accept that the state has probably an overbearing interest in protecting a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left?
She's basically asking the advocates, where do you stop here?
That the argument that many people on the right have made, well, okay, what's to stop somebody from marrying their dog?
Oh, God, don't be silly.
We're talking about people here.
We're talking about this judge, this liberal justice asked the lead lawyer for the uh for the proponents of gay marriage that question.
And as I was, folks, I must say, as I was skimming the transcript from some of the oral arguments yesterday, some of the questions that the justices asked seemed to me like the kind of questions that only used to come up on sanity tests in saner times.
I mean, they were asking, as Justice Sotomayor did, is there any reason why a man can't marry four women?
Is there any reason why a woman couldn't marry her child?
Now these are the kinds of questions that courts used to use to establish that somebody's a lunatic, because everybody agreed there were crazy ideas.
Now they're being asked seriously, the request carrying a desire for an intellectual answer to this, when it used to be thought of as absolute wacko, to even consider this stuff.
Now the proponents are being asked, well, where are the limits?
If you if you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?
You see, one of the problems that that has not the correct way to phrase this, because most people don't even have a problem with this, but it still is a problem.
One of the problems with this is this total ignorance, or if not ignorance, the willful Ignoring of the fact that rights don't come from courts, and that rights don't come from other people, and that rights don't come from governments.
And whether Justice Sotomayor knows it or not, that really is the root of her question.
When she says if you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?
A right comes from God.
A right is natural law, the the the the right to be free, the natural yearning of the human spirit, as founded in our uh established in our founding documents.
Rights are not laws created by government.
Rights are deduced by natural existence, natural law.
That's been totally lost.
That's been from the low information crowds concerned, rights come from law, from government, uh from your side winning and giving you permission to do stuff.
Rights have become non-judgmental behavior, largess.
But I just I've I've I found this uh fascinating.
You you've said in the cases decided by this court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriage raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, is it an entirely different thing?
This is what Olsen's saying, and if you if a state prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct.
If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it's prohibiting their exercise of a right based on their status.
That is nonsense.
That is utter now.
It sounds brilliant to people that have no understanding of where rights come from and how how is a how is a man marrying a man any more or less conduct than a man marrying two women?
Both conduct, but these people no, no, no, restriction would apply.
Why?
What what once we're once we're redefining it here, where does the redefining stop?
A liberal justice, the wise Latina asking that question.
He made more sense than Ted Olson did about this.
It is clear the court doesn't want any part of this right now.
That's the one thing you read the oral argument transcripts, and it's clear they don't want any part of this.
They don't they don't want to touch this yet.
Um they're not comfortable with it.
And I think, well, not all of them, because some of the liberal justices can't wait to proclaim this the newest latest, greatest uh hip right and so forth, but uh even then some of them just that if they could kick this down, I think they're regretting they took the case.
So it is going to come down to standing, probably.
Uh and and whether or not, since the state of California didn't defend it before the Ninth Circus, whether the people who did uh in arguing it at the Ninth Circus have standing before the Supreme Court.
Uh Ted Olson is the lawyer arguing for homosexual marriage said that banning gay marriage was picking out a group of individuals to deny them the freedom the court said is fundamental.
Well, banning polygamy would also be picking out a group.
You know that there are people who would marry their pet if they could.
I mean, they leave their estates to them.
And they're just engaging in behavior.
So it is a can of worms that gets opened up.
But none of that matters.
All that matters is that love is involved here.
Love trumps everything, love conquers all.
And when there's love involved, nobody has a right to say no to it.
Nobody has a right to say anything about it.
There's not enough love in the world as it is, and who are we that stand in the way of decent, good, productive love.
Just a bunch of fuddy duddies, a bunch of people want to deny other people um a good time.
Anyway, I can take a brief break here, folks.
Sit tight, and we'll be back and continue all the rest of today's program coming right up.
Don't miss it.
Anyway, folks, the bottom line is that all of this is academic.
This is going to happen, whether it happens now at the Supreme Court or somehow later it is it is going to happen.
It's just the direction the culture is heading.
There is hardly any opposition to this.
The opposition is that you would suspect exists, is in the process of crumbling on it.
There is a gay mafia that has inflicted the fear of death, political death in the Republican Party, for example.
A lot of money.
Donate most of it to the Democrats, but the social societal peer pressure on this is immense.
And it's one of these things that people say this is not worth the political fallout of a post.
It's not worth trying to educate people as to what problems might result from this.
It's not worth the historical explanation of why there is marriage and what its purpose is.
It just isn't worth it.
It's not worth standing up and fighting it.
It's gonna be it'll be like the Republicans in every budget deal.
Well, you know what?
Well let Obama have to say we'll stop him the next time.
And it's just gonna be one of these uh things kicked, uh, cans kicked down the uh down the road.
You remember we had this story for you at Florida Atlantic University.
A student protested a class assignment, which he was told a stomp on a piece of paper that had the word Jesus written on it.
He refused to do that.
And he got kicked out of the university.
Well, the governor of the state, Rick Scott said, what the hell is this?
And he wanted to know from the university what they were doing.
Anyway, the university is now backpedaling on this, and I I think the student has uh has been given an apology, and there will be no punishment.
They're wiping the record clean for the student, and they are reinstating him for a plan to complete the course without that professor who made everybody in the class, you remember this, write the word Jesus on a piece of paper that made him stand up and stomp on it.
Student refused, he got kicked out of school.
Now, the professor here we we told you was named DeAndre Poole.
He is untenured at Florida Atlantic University, but in addition to teaching, whatever this course is, this guy serves as the vice chairman of Palm Beach County Democrat Party.
And he's a professor at Florida Atlantic.
But regardless, the incident is now been uh has now been closed, and uh students been apologized to, and he's back in course, back in college, back in school, uh, and will be given a chance to complete the course with a different professor, somebody who's not a vice chairman of the Palm Beach County Democrat Party.
I saw something, I don't have the uh audio on it because I have instituted a ban on anything that happens on MSNBC, and I'm not lifting the ban, even for this.
But when I saw this last night, I have to tell you, I just I just got viscerally sad.
I became depressed, and I didn't try to disguise it.
I just it was a a feeling of utter frustration at what is happening in our country, particularly culturally.
There is a personality on MSNBC whose name is Touré, and he's black, and he is a young fool.
He is a classic example of somebody who is dangerous Precisely because of what he thinks he knows that isn't right.
And he took it upon himself to try to destroy Dr. Ben Carson.
And he did it in a vile, almost uncivilized manner.
The things that he said about Ben Carson were just filthy.
They were despicable.
It was worse than calling him an Uncle Tom.
And it was just, and what depressed me was, is that Ture, this young fool Ture, doesn't deserve to be in the same conversation with Ben Carson.
This Ture can live a thousand years.
He'll never be anywhere near what Ben Carson is.
And he doesn't get called on any of this trash that he talks.
And we're back, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
No, I'm not I'm not going to play any of the audio from this Terray person on MSNBC.
His name is uh Terray Neblet, N E B L E T T, is one of these guys that goes with the first name Tore.
And he's just a he's just a young fool.
An arrogant, condescending young fool.
And of course he's afraid of Ben Carson.
Now we talked about this last week.
The Democrats and the drive-by media do not have anything on Ben Carson yet.
They got nothing on him.
He's stellar.
He is ideal citizen.
He's a wonderful human being.
He performs surgery on the brains of babies.
He saves lives.
He has, as you all know now, an up from nothing story from Detroit, which is inspirational in every way.
The Democrat Party does not want African Americans to hear.
And that's why Ben Carson is a threat.
Ben Carson shows another way.
He illustrates a route to success, productivity, contentment, citizenship.
That African Americans are told is not possible in this racist slave state known as the United States.
But there is Dr. Ben Carson, one of many examples that illustrates the folly and the lies of the contentions that come from the civil rights coalition of the Democrat Party in this country.
So this young fool on MSNBC decides to attack Ben Carson on the basis that he's nothing but a white man's token.
A white Republican's token.
He's just perfect.
He is nothing more than the latest black guy to come along that white people can accept and embrace for one reason only.
And that is to prove they're not racist.
So Ben Carson's not worth anything to anybody.
The only reason Republicans have embraced Ben Carson is because they can say, look, see, I got a black friend.
I'm not a racist.
And the reason this is depressing to me is that Ben Carson ought to be held up as a role model for virtually everybody in this country.
He doesn't harm anybody.
He has no desire to harm anybody.
He's no intention harming anybody.
I don't know him.
I only know him via his media Appearances, but that's enough.
I know people who've met him, gotten to know him very well, and they have nothing but the kindest, greatest things to say about him.
And he's making routine television appearances, and they're playing sound bites of this young fool in his comments about tokenism and step and fetch it, and he's responding to them with great class and great dignity.
And he's saying, you know, this is a trick we learned in the third grade.
If you don't, if you can't, if you can't deal with people, you just start calling them names and insulating.
It was a it was a very classy and artful put down of this young fool known as Terry.
But that's not enough for me.
I mean, the fact that this is happening in our country and culture, it just frankly, folks, it just depresses me.
That commentary like that is promoted, applauded, rewarded.
And this was the epitome of despicable and just vile stuff that was said about someone who is not even close to these kinds of allegations.
It got me to thinking.
And this is another thing that's very sad to me.
This is a this is a very sobering, depressing reality, and we all know it, but this thing just event just drove it home even more from.
There's only one acceptable way to be black in America.
Only one.
Only one acceptable way to be black, and it isn't Ben Carson.
Now stop and think about that.
Ben Carson, his life, his story, not good, not worthy, not acceptable within the Democrat Party and the Civil Rights Coalition.
And if black liberals would work as hard at helping lift other blacks and other minorities out of the morass of misery that is life in the Democrat Party under socialism,
as they have worked hard to destroy people like Ben Carson, then maybe there might be some substantive real demonstrative improvement for life in minorities in this country.
But to turn one of the world's foremost baby brain doctors into some sort of step and fetch it, some sort of vile token shows just how ethically and morally and intellectually bankrupt the civil rights coalitions of the Democrat Party has become one
acceptable way to be black in America, and you'd better not choose the route that Ben Carson chose, and you better not choose the route that Clarence Thomas chose, or Shelby Steele,
or I could give you lists of prominent African Americans from now into this show, and not one of them is worth even a modicum of respect in today's Democrat Party.
And the fact that that party is triumphing, the fact that that party is considered the best place to be for minorities, it's the worst place for minorities to be.
It is the worst place for the disadvantaged to be.
It is the worst place for the discriminated Against to be.
It is the absolute worst place for anybody to be unless you're accepted in the elitist leadership circles of that party.
Otherwise, your life isn't going to amount to anything.
And if it does, then you're going to come under attack.
If you make something of yourself, if you're a minority in this country and you make something of yourself and you dare stray from the Democrat Party plantation, you are going to pay the price for that in terms of what is said about you in public.
Your reputation will be in their crosshairs for destruction.
Now, to his credit, Ben Carson said, if you don't have anything useful to say, you attack people.
If you feel that your house of cards has been discovered and starting to come unraveled, you become very desperate.
Intelligent people tend to talk about the facts.
They don't sit around and call everybody names.
That's what you can find in the third grade playground.
And that's exactly right.
MSNBC is a third grade playground.
And it's recess all the time, and there are not any teachers.
Addressing the racial aspects of his detractors.
Carson said they feel if you look a certain way, then you have to stay on the plantation.
He said that he's been called an Uncle Tom.
He rejects the term, not for its racist context.
He he he rejects the Uncle Tom label on the basis of its inaccuracy.
He said, obviously, these young fools don't even know what an Uncle Tom is.
In the novel, Uncle Tom was very subservient, kind of go along to get along type of guy.
And Ben Carson's that ain't what I am.
I'm not subservient to anybody, and I'm not bending and shaping and just floating along to try to get along.
That's what Tour Ray Neblet is, is an Uncle Tom in the classic definition.
Subservient, go along to get along, do what you have to do to survive and get fame and prominence in the Democrat Party.
Basically be just be a despicable human being.
Now you can say that Ben Carson could take it, Rush.
Ben, he's a reasonable.
Yeah, I know we can take it.
There are a lot of people that can take it.
That's not the point to me.
The point to me is that it is standard operating procedure for the Democrat Party today.
That's normal behavior.
That's rewarded.
That's how you get promoted in the Democrat Party.
And it's sick.
It's despicable.
It's dishonest.
I don't have all the words to describe how just insane it all is.
But let me take a brief time out here.
Healthcare.
We got a couple stories here.
Try these headlines.
Healthcare laws family glitch leaves dependents without coverage.
Uh-oh.
And then from Reuters, little hope seen for millions priced out of U.S. health overhaul by Obamacare.
But wait, but wait, it was going to make it cheaper for everybody.
Premiums are going to come down.
You're going to keep your doctor, you pre-existing condition free.
Stay on your parents' health care plan.
Free.
Whatever you need at a hospital.
Free whenever you want it and everybody gets covered.
Now wait a minute.
What is this?
Healthcare laws family glitch leaves dependents without coverage.
Little hope seen for millions priced out of U.S. health overhaul.
Health overhaul to raise claims cost 32%.
That's the third story.
That's AP.
So we've got the Hill.com.
We got Reuters, and we get AP today, all with horror stories about life down the road under Obamacare.
We actually have Ben Carson responding to some of these vile insults that are coming his way.
And he was on with uh Meghan Kelly on Fox yesterday afternoon.
And she said you think the people who just dismiss you as a token?
You think they have a prejudice of their own?
They feel that if you look a certain way, then you have to stay on the plantation.
I've heard some people refer to me as an Uncle Tom.
Obviously, they don't know what an Uncle Tom is because if they need to read Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel, Uncle Tom's Cabin, you'll see that he was very, very subservient, kind of go along to get along type person.
Obviously, that's not what I'm doing.
And what the left frequently does in some aspects of the right, too, is they try to make life so unpleasant for anybody who disagrees with them that people will keep silent.
I'm trying to get people to speak up because you know, this country is changing into something else.
And we need to make sure that we really want it to change into something else, and not just end up there and ask ourselves, how do we get there?
That's pretty pretty on point.
Country's changing one day people are going to wake up and say, how the hell did this happen?
That's exactly that's exactly right.
In fact, some of you probably sitting around saying can't wait for that to happen.
When all these young fools demanding all this stuff finally get it, and then it all falls apart on them, and you wonder, well, what happened?
And you're going to say, Well, we try to tell you.
You know, the little um little Schadenfreud from the Hill.com, Senator Ron Wyden said Tuesday.
Millions of workers' dependents.
Now that's communist language.
Well, a translation, many of the children of families.
Many children of people that have jobs.
Millions of children would still be left without options for affordable family health insurance under Obamacare.
Ron Wyden, he's a Democrat from Oregon, he said, without action, millions of hardworking Americans are going to be squeezed by the family glitch.
Many people be left with a false choice of taking family coverage through work that they can't afford or struggling to find a better plan in the exchange without a subsidy.
Wyden said there's a family glitch because workers will be ineligible for federal tax credits to help them buy into the health insurance exchanges starting in 2014, unless the cost of their individual employer-based health coverage premium exceeds 9.5% of a worker's household income.
You want me to run that by you again?
We are talking here about health insurance.
Health coverage in the United States of America coming your way thanks to Obamacare.
There is an upcoming family glitch.
Wait till you have to deal with the bureaucrat at the exchange trying to wade his or her way through this.
This is a nightmare waiting to happen.
The family glitch exists because employees will be ineligible for federal tax credits to help them buy into the health insurance exchanges.
Now, a lot of people, what do you mean?
Tax credits to help me buy into the exchange.
I thought my premium was going to come down 2500 bucks.
What is this exchange anyway?
What do you mean, exchange?
You realize how many people don't know what a federal tax credit is?
Do you realize when people hear the word subsidy, they have no clue what somebody's talking about?
Well, I take that back.
That they might know.
A subsidy is somebody else paying for it.
So they might know that.
But I mean, what a bunch of gobbledygook just to be able to go to the doctor.
Family glitch, because Employees will be ineligible for federal tax credits to help them buy into health insurance exchanges starting next year, unless the cost of their individual employer-based health coverage premium exceeds 9.5%.
I just want to go to the doctor.
What is all this?
Well, you can't.
There's a family glitch, 9.5%, subsidy federal tax credit at the exchange.
Uh and if your employer-based health premium exceeds 9.5% of your household income, I don't know what my household income is.
Well, then you're out of luck.
Just go die, and we'll move on to the next person in line.
That's it, my friends.
Out of busy time, busy broadcast moments for our first excursion into broadcast excellence hour.
But sit tight, much more straight ahead when we get back, which will be before you know it.
▲
Export Selection