All Episodes
Previous Next
March 29, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:31
March 29, 2013, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program documented to be almost always right, 99.7% of the time it's Friday, and that means from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday!
That's great, and we've already taken a phone call.
It is amazing.
We had three yesterday.
We had three calls yesterday.
We took three.
And we've already taken one today, and we'll be taking more.
If you're on hold, hang in there.
We'll get to you this this half hour.
It's 800-282-2882.
Open Mind Friday.
Callers can talk about whatever they want.
I don't have to care about it.
I don't have to be interested in it, which is the rule uh Monday through Thursday.
No, I want to check the email during the break, and then people say, Well, what do you mean you're talking about the definition of these words and how they've the definitions that the left uses corrupts?
Um environmentalism.
What does it mean to environmentalism means stewardship?
It means I mean the average ordinary person, you throw out the word environmentalism, and it means protecting and preserving and being responsible about it.
But that's not what it means to the left.
Environmentalism is not even code language anymore.
Environmentalism means that we're destroying the planet and the climate, and therefore we have got to use government to get bigger, to limit people's freedoms, because it's people's freedoms that are doing the destroying.
It's people's freedoms are buying the wrong cars.
They're using the wrong fuels.
They're they're irresponsible with their home thermostats.
That's what environmentalism means now.
Environmentalism simply gives the left another excuse to invade your life and grow government to tell you what you can and can't do.
And it's my my point here is that every faction of the Democrat Party is a battering ram today.
They're out to destroy the institution of marriage.
They want to destroy the notion of borders.
They are destroying education.
They're destroying private sector health care.
Private property ditto.
They are destroying the Constitution and free markets.
The bottom line here is, folks, just this is not even arguable.
Statists, big government types, the left, they don't build anything.
They dismantle.
They destroy.
They tear down.
They pillage until nothing is left.
Greece.
Cyprus, Spain, Italy, Detroit.
Wherever you go, wherever they are unchecked, you find destruction in the name of emancipation or improvement or enlightenment.
Words like voter fraud mean nothing if the Department of Justice will not prosecute it.
Voter fraud is something that doesn't happen.
Voter fraud, that's we we laugh at that.
That's that's just a bunch of paranoiacs making an accusation.
But when voter fraud is rampant, elections have no meaning either.
Shovel ready jobs, what did that mean?
It did not mean shovel ready jobs.
Stimulus, what did that mean?
Shovel ready jobs there weren't any stimulus, nothing was stimulated.
What shovel ready jobs and stimulus mean, slush fund and crony capitalism.
Media doesn't mean media anymore.
Media means propaganda.
Governing doesn't mean governing.
Governing means campaigning.
What doesn't mean jobs?
Oh, yeah.
The jobs act, Obama's Jobs Act did not mean jobs.
It meant bigger government.
It meant another commission.
But it didn't mean jobs.
everything the left does is a battering ram.
Everything the Democrat Party does today, they're battering every institution and tradition that they can see to break it down.
Because for whatever reason they consider themselves they think they think they don't fit in traditions as they exist.
Here's another example.
Just it it this is not new.
We've had this before, but it it's no pushback.
Manassas, Virginia, this is CBS News out of Washington.
A waitress, a server, out of the male or female, I'm not sure which doesn't say, a waiter or waitress, a server at a restaurant called Buffalo Wild Wings.
You ever been to one of those?
I don't know if it's a chain or not.
A server at Buffalo Wild Wings refused to serve Prince William County police officers because their guns were displayed.
The Manassas Park Patch, which is, I guess, is a little local newspaper, reports that the employee would not serve the cops.
They were plainclothes.
The employee would not serve them, despite the cops showing him, I guess it was a him, their badges.
The server reportedly told the officers that it was a gun-free establishment.
I can just hear this.
This guy is out of the new Castrati, and he's part and part.
This is this is the kind of behavior that the left and the media cause with all of these never-ending frenzies and crises.
It's how you can get a kid thrown out of school for a pop tart shaped like a gun.
You have an accident that occurs.
it is assumed that it will happen everywhere now because the country's flawed.
You take Columbine or you take Sandy Hook and you assume that that's the natural thing.
That's the natural state of affairs in the country because of the second amendment.
Which is another thing that is being battering rammed right now.
In addition to our borders.
So you've got this little new Castrati guy out there who's probably looking at his tweets and he's watching television or whatever, and he's hearing all of this, the danger posed by gun-shaped pop tarts and whatever.
And so these two cops, plainclothes cops come in with weapons.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry, but this establishment does not serve weapons uh uh people with weapons with we just don't do it.
And in fact, there was no such policy.
This is a gun-free establishment of we are not going to Thurview.
The general manager of the Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant ended up apologizing for what happened.
He said there is no reason why those officers should have been asked to leave.
It wasn't that they were refused to be served.
This little server kicked them out of the restaurant.
Am I the only one?
I I read this and I this sent me to the moon.
This ticked me off so much.
Because I can just see it.
I can just see this little new Castrati guy in there who has been influenced by all of this panic and crisis and frenzy about guns, and here come a couple off-duty cops, the guns visible, shows them the badge, and this is the weapons-free establishment officer that we know allow them in here, and you must leave.
And they and the cops, not wanting to cause any trouble, left.
The cops didn't even push back.
So the general manager apologized, said there's no reason, there is no reason why those officers should have been asked to leave.
The police officers are always welcome in my establishment.
And even though we do have a no-gun policy, as a company that excludes off-duty cops, as a company we are community-oriented, we appreciate everything that police officers do for us.
Darryl LeClair, who was in the restaurant, witnessed the incident, said it should have never happened.
For this to have happened at all is just absurd.
No, it's not absurd.
It's standard operating procedure.
This is exactly what you get.
Now, we've had stuff like this before.
In the 1960s.
You know, when the when the when the leftist crowd they hated the cops, the pigs.
We've had stuff like this before.
What's different now, in my view, is that there's no effective political opposition.
There is no pushback to the re the rejection of the Constitution is in full force, and there's no pushback.
So there aren't any real principled alternatives.
So without without principles and pushback and and a firm and stable legal construct, we've we have the unraveling of the country.
Where some little new Castrati server can take it upon himself to kick a couple of off-duty cops out of a restaurant.
And feel righteous, by the way.
And probably, you know, go to Twitter or Facebook wherever he goes and tell a story he's a hero.
And it's just another in a long line of never-ending assaults on decency, goodness, institutions, traditions, which are for the uh protection of everybody.
Another soundbite, by the way, this afternoon, Fox News Channel happening now.
This was just moments ago.
Subject gay marriage.
The host John Scott talking with the former New York Times correspondent, Judith Miller.
And this is how that went.
Rush Limbaugh has said that the argument has been lost because in his view, marriage ought to be between uh a man and a woman only, but when you start talking about gay marriage, you've already lost the battle.
Well, that's pretty much what uh Chief Justice uh Roberts said.
I mean, he said marriage has been defined traditionally as you know a union between a man and a woman since time immemorium.
So you have the conservative media, those who question that this is a civil right, challenging that.
Yeah.
Imagine that now, folks.
Yeah, that's right.
Marriage, it has been defined traditionally as you know.
A union between a man and a woman, but it's the conservative media that doesn't want to grant this as a civil rights.
Not a civil right, it's a contractual agreement.
But once it looked once it became a civil right, uh, again, definitions, words mean things.
Once that happened, that's I'm just telling it, so it was over, combined with no pushback.
Inevitable.
I don't know how soon it's gonna happen.
But uh but it is.
Here's the C-span bite.
This is where I have now crossed over a straight political analyst to a celebrity who makes news.
And it's last night, C-SPAN, the host Bill Scanlan, moderating a discussion on the intersection of so-called infotainment programming and political journalism.
Scanling and the panelist, American University Professor Jane Hall.
She, I don't know if she still is, but she used to be on the Fox show on Saturday that analyzed how the media did their jobs on stories the previous week.
I don't know if she's still on that show or not, but that's that's who Scanlan C-Span's talking to here.
News from the both celebrity and political world, Rush Limbaugh, gay marriage is inevitable.
This issue of uh where celebrities or major media personalities make news about politics.
It's more and more common.
Now you have a lot of figures in the media like Rush Limbaugh, who is a very powerful figure still in the Republican conservative side of things.
I guess you would call him a celebrity in a lot of ways, in the sense that he carries a lot of weight what he says.
If he's a celebrity, he is also making news and setting a political agenda in many ways.
That makes me a list, baby.
A list.
You know, folks, it just it's too bad that being able to work at your job without having the government take half of your earnings isn't a civil right.
It's just too bad.
Being able to buy whatever size soft drink you want is not a civil right.
Just look at all the things they'd have to leave us alone on if we can simply play their game, change the language and say, my 32 ounce Pepsi is a civil right.
I'm only going to give the government 30% of what I earn.
I have a civil right to keep 70% of what I earn.
Here's Scott in Los Angeles.
Scott, thank you for calling.
It's great to have you on the EIB network and open line Friday.
Thanks, Rush.
And it is a I'm going to change the definition of Good Friday and say a Friday where I can talk to Rush is now considered good.
I dig it.
I like it.
Hey, yesterday you spoke and you said, and and I've been a big fan of this definition of the word marriage.
I've actually got a dictionary open here that it says that it's a man and a woman that joined together to found a family.
How long is that going to be, by the way?
How many years are going to be before you go to the dictionary and it doesn't say that?
Well, these dictionaries, the binders are falling off them.
I'm going to hang on to them.
But if the liberals get in here and they decide to change the dictionary in here, they're going to have to use an eraser or white out.
Well, that's what's underway, I guarantee you.
Well, you were talking yesterday, you said that you wanted to be an Obama.
And my fear is that your wish is going to come true.
Because if Obama continues to change this country, we will cease to be Americans, and we will all become Obamas.
Well, I understand your point, but that that wasn't, and you know this.
I know that wasn't your point, but I just thought it was funny when you were talking about that yesterday.
I'm like, we're going to end up.
Well, I'm sure in a lot of people, it's why I took some time with it, because a lot of people, I'm sure when they heard me say I want to be an Obama thought I'd lost my mind and and didn't quite know what I meant.
I could see by the look on people's faces across the glass here that there was rampant confusion.
Oh no, what the hell does this mean?
And so I was I was simply illustrating absurdity by being absurd.
And the point that I was trying to, I'll go through it again very quickly here.
The gay marriage people say that they want to be married, but married is the union of a man and a woman.
As Judith Miller Joseph's in time immemorium.
That's what it's been.
It's it it genesis, it's in the Bible, folks.
That's what marriage is.
Marriage created by God, it's had its evolution, it's it's gone through its phase, but it's always stayed a union between a man and a woman.
But people who who who don't want to marry people the opposite sex now say they want to get married.
And just because they want to get married, they should be allowed to.
The definition is wrong.
So to illustrate what they're doing, which you know, I I just I try to make things as clear as I can.
To illustrate what they're doing, I said, I want to be an Obama.
The Obamas have more rights than I do.
The Obamas haven't been elected to anything, but look, they get millions of dollars in government benefits.
I mean millions.
They live the lives of royalty.
The Obamas are globally admired and have not to do anything for it.
They just have to have the name.
They're globally admired in a way that I'm not.
So my self-esteem is wounded by not being an Obama.
I want to be an Obama.
And they won't let me be one.
And that isn't fair.
And now my self-esteem is wounded, and I'm hurt.
So I want to be considered an Obama.
And don't you dare tell me I can't be an Obama just because I'm not an Obama.
Just because by definition, I'm not a member of the family.
It doesn't matter to me.
I want to be one.
And so the law has got to change.
If I want to be an Obama, my civil rights are being denied, my economic opportunities are being infringed upon.
My my ability to be respected and admired all over the world is being damaged by the fact that I am not allowed to be an Obama.
And so the law's got to change.
The law has to change so that I can be an Obama.
I need to change the definition of what a family is.
And don't tell me that I already have the same legal rights as, say, Michelle.
That's not good enough.
I want to feel like an Obama too.
So the law has to be changed so that I am an Obama.
And if you if you if you think that's absurd, then you're a bigot.
You are a hater.
You are denying me the pursuit of happiness.
As something else, ladies and gentlemen, Preventing me from being an Obama is also denying me love.
The Obamas are loved.
And we can't deny anyone love.
I mean, I I I I want to be loved, just like the Obamas are.
But I can't be because they won't let me be an Obama.
The law has to change to accommodate what I want.
That would make me happy, make me loved.
That's what life's all about.
But alas, I can't do it.
And I'm just a lone guy.
I don't know anybody else who wants to be an Obama.
But me.
And I'm not enough to get it done on my own.
I need a whole movement out there helping me to move that idea along.
And I want to become an Obama.
We could all be Obamas.
What are we like if we're all loved and admired and...
Rich like that.
Just want something and take it?
Want to punch punish somebody, be able to do it?
Kyle in Orlando, Florida.
We head back to the phones open line Friday.
Hello, sir.
Great to have you.
Hello, Russ.
Many libertarian dittoes from Sunny University of Central Florida.
Thank you, sir.
Ill Mucho.
Um I wanted to call in, especially in light of the gay marriage issue coming to the forefront right now, that um being a college student, I'm pretty tied into the libertarian movement through social media and on the ground type things.
And um there's been a very unique change in the collective opinion these days, especially in light of the Rand Paul filibusters, well.
Well, yeah, collective opinion of libertarians.
Yes, that's what I meant, sir.
And um in that we're starting to assume the idea that we can only have and be happy with these puritanical Ron Paul type libertarians.
And a lot of them, um, a lot of us, I mean, are saying that in the future we're very content to take conservatives and move forward on economic issues and trying to limit the size of government in the world.
Is that right?
You libertarians are willing to take us in?
Yeah, well, or the other way around.
Oh, that's awesome.
That's awesome.
See, Obamas won't have me, but the libertarians might.
Yeah, we are very devoted to limiting the size of government through whatever means possible, and uh especially with the size of the debt, we want to come together with everybody as much as possible, and um a lot of the sort of you know, wacko FEMA death camp libertarian type people are going back into the shadows now,
and the people that just want a constitutional government are um really defining our uh voices right now through uh social media and um on the ground.
Where does marijuana fit in this?
Um marijuana is one of the bigger social issues because of the uh amount spent on the drug war and um various other things, but like just the other day on one of the biggest uh libertarian Facebook pages um have begun quoting Thomas Sow like crazy.
We are way more you know narrowed in on uh things that we can agree with you on, Rush.
Well, do you uh don't misunderstand the question, but uh but up until this uh this moment of inclusiveness that you've Experienced.
Was there animosity among you libertarians for us conservatives?
Well, I um I've been a longtime listener of your show.
I was raised a conservative and recently became more libertarian.
So I'm uh I'm more of a Rand Paul type conservative libertarian, but you can uh bet that there were great deals of animosity towards um conservative, you know, uh what is the what's the primary source of animosity for libertarians for conservatives?
I'd say that the uh the primary reason is that they do not believe that um republicans um are dedicated to limiting the size of government as they say they are.
Now obviously that's a big issue.
What about the borders?
Where do you guys come down on the border?
That is our most highly debated issue, actually.
But um I'd say that we skew towards um the sort of Rand Paul Rubio idea of uh solving it now and getting the border tight and opening up the uh the border for legal immigrants a little bit and having a pathway to citizenship uh for those who are here not causing any trouble.
This is another one.
I mean, I I don't mean to harp on this, but it's another example of language.
Illegal immigrant.
An immigrant means something.
Right.
To put illegal in front of it and and then as as though that is a kind of immigrant is incorrect, actually.
And to the extent that words matter, I think it's relevant.
Well, anyway, look, I appreciate the uh I appreciate the call, Kyle.
I I I um I I've I've I've had entreaties from uh from libertarians over the entire heast of um of my radio program.
And there are some problematic areas, and there traditionally have been.
And it a lot of it has to do with the uh the laissez faire.
Many many social conservatives think that full-fledged libertarians don't stand for any moral code, for example, at all.
That that is where you guys have some similarities with the left, in the sense that the belief, well, if if I can do it and it doesn't hurt anybody, then why should I not be able to do it?
And it's that not hurt anybody that becomes the and I think this is true for a lot of people.
People people's lives are not lived in a vacuum.
If you had no family.
I in fact, I don't think the case can be made that even a a single person with no family, whatever he or she does, doesn't affect anybody.
If you have a job and you engage in a behavior that's destructive to you, but theoretically not to anybody else, it still is destructive.
You're still you uh you work for somebody.
You're still impairing your ability to do that, depending on the behavior that we're talking about.
But I think it's my my big problem has always been that, this idea that whatever you want to do, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody is fine.
Because I don't think that type of vacuum exists, particularly within under the umbrella of citizenship and constitutional republicanism and the idea of what it is that constitutes a great America.
There has to be a unified sense of purpose among everybody.
And we don't have that now.
We we don't this country didn't unify on anything, I don't think.
As long as nobody's attacking us, and as long as there's no direct external threat, and some people think that's not a problem.
That's why I disagree.
There are internal threats to the sanctity of and the strength of the solidness of the country the population as it exists.
It's always been under assault.
It's always there's always been people that don't like the country as created and founded and so forth.
But they've always been in a minority.
And it's a question now if they are if they're still a minority they're pretty large.
But Kyle, nevertheless I appreciate the call.
I really do appreciate your taking the time.
We must take some time.
Be back with more right after this.
Don't go away It's open line Friday, Rush Limboy having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have and as always half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair I d I do think that we just had an olive branch extended here by um at least one college libertarian from Orlando and we don't we don't reject these olive branches out
of hand by any stretch of the imagination.
As opposed to the mind numb robots of the left at least they are actively engaged thinkers I don't think there's any question about that.
The last thing they are is mind numb robots.
Now some of them get caught up on on on some of the um you know personal behavior stuff but even that I think they're aware of what's going on.
They've thought about it and they've come to a conclusion but the re they are what they are because they've thought about it as opposed to having been programmed or propagandized for the most part.
Exceptions to everything of course here is Paul in Nutley, New Jersey.
It's great to have you on the program.
Hello Rush I'm thrilled to uh talk to you and this is an Olive branch from a gay conservative Catholic uh Rush Limbaugh fan and regular listener.
Love to have you out there man it's great to know you're there.
Yeah you know I I think you know in the Supreme Court case I think um it's in conservative core values not to have the federal government fight an eighty three year old woman for an inheritance from her partner um you know and spend that's DOMA.
Yes it's been Doma.
So you know Edie Windsor and Thea Spire were together for 44 years.
They bought a house together look once once that woman's a no-brainer.
What once the pictures of that shove the other what the case is all about is a three hundred and sixty thousand dollar tax bill that was caused by the law that Clinton signed in signed in in uh in nineteen ninety seven the defense of the marriage act.
So you know I think it's in our core values we don't need to make it any bigger than it is you know let's get the debate point out there that I think you know Clinton's defense of marriage act and Hillary's support for it over the years and and Obama's sound you know sound bites of uh defensive Well wait let's stick with Clinton and Domo.
Why did he do it in the first what what was the point of Bill Clinton and the Defense of Marriage Act.
You know the defense of marriage act I guess was you know kind of a compromise in um in defy you know as states were starting to enact um civil union and domestic partner it was to say that federally like i i uh if a state enacts domestic partner civil union in in my case in New Jersey or marriage in New York or other states they still would have to pay federal estate taxes if one of them died.
Okay so in Edie um in Edie Spiers case in United States versus uh in Edie Windsor's case of the United States Supreme Court case against her, the federal government is is wants to tax them three hundred and sixty thousand dollars for the the property that they bought over the course of their forty years together and for the retirement plan that they you know together budgeted you know and saved over the years.
So Edie and Thea were were legally married in Canada in 2007 and had you and Catherine gotten married in 2007 in Canada and you had an estate the same size of theirs if one of you died the other would inherit with no taxes.
But in this case the federal uh government and our legal system has been fighting this eighty three old Lesbian for five years inheritance.
Here's the pr this is this is where everybody melts because the law was the law.
The reason I asked you why why did Bill Clinton push DOMA?
Bill Clinton's a liberal democrat.
What in the world was going on of all people to push the defense of marriage out?
What is the DOMA does what?
There's a lot of dissatisfaction with Clinton back in the day.
There were hopes when he got uh when he first got elected.
Remember the other thing that he gave us was um Don Astro Talon, the military.
And uh, you know, that was you know, that and Domer are probably the two most harmful things that have ever been done to gays.
And you know, but he did them in order to stay at sixty-five percent approval and to get re-elected.
Exactly because that was the prevailing public opinion of the time, which is not that long ago.
Doma's nineteen ninety-seven, right?
Now these two now that Obama looks at it and Hillary Clinton, they've evolved to change their mind on it, you know, because it's you know politically expedient.
But you know, I just think if if we can get the debate point out there that in this Supreme Court case, I don't, you know, I it's a conservative core value that there shouldn't be this unfair debt tax.
You know, and and and if you look at the dollars in it, I mean it's three hundred and sixty thousand.
So if Edie Windsor loses this case and she has to pay three hundred and sixty thousand, she'll be penniless, she'll qualify for Medicaid, and then, you know, in her eighties, as her health goes downhill, the government will be paying for her medical care.
If she gets to keep the three hundred and sixty thousand that they saved together in her half of the house, she'll be able to pay for her own medical care in her final years.
Well, in Clinton's case, I I think I think he he signed on the DOMA for a lot of reasons.
One of the reasons was that he didn't want to be accused of supporting same-sex marriage.
There just wasn't anything in it in nineteen ninety-seven to be gained by a politician for supporting same-sex marriage.
Now, on on this the the the two women that you're talking about.
Yes.
The law of the land is what it is, and we're we're now sympathy has has arisen.
Yeah, but you know, uh you say that, but it's really more complicated than that because they were New York residents.
So New York does recognize their marriage.
So they don't pay st state taxes, New York state estate taxes.
They only pay federal.
Um, you know, so you know, it it's more complicated.
And again, I just think that if we So what are you what are you that what what do you think conservatives should stand for?
They should stand for the um the idea that that uh two people that are partners though not married should benefit as married couples do uh at at that time to divide estates.
Yeah, I think when when you start off a conversation, you know, in my opinion, there's you know, I'm a Catholic, there's it's much different asking for the sacramental holy matrimony in the Catholic church, which I don't want, than to ask to be able to pass a half a house that we bought together onto the other one and to visit each other in the hospital.
So just like um Sarah Palin did in the debates.
I think it's fine for you know to eliminate the death tax for for um same-sex partners and for allow them to visit each other in the hospital.
You know, right now, if I go up at a hospital in New Jersey and one of us is sick and we have our civil union certificate to look at it and say, what the hell is that?
Later we could win in court, but I mean we'll get it.
You're ad advocating all of that be made legal but not marriage.
Uh I guess what I'm saying is that legally when we talk about taxes or visiting each other in the hospital.
Well, if these two women were sisters, if they were sisters, she would have to pay this tax.
Why isn't it discrimination if sisters can't get married?
If their sisters, yeah, I guess they would.
Um, what I say is um these are you know, two women that were under the radar screen for 40 years buying a house together.
What business does Obama's you know, Obama and Clinton have in spending millions of dollars fighting them in court to take the three hundred and sixty thousand half of the retirement plan in the house.
Single case is The problem is that the law is the law and it's applicable in this case.
Anyway, it's what it's all about.
I'm looking, I'm out of time.
Sadly, I really don't have any more, but I'm glad you called and I'm glad you're out there.
I appreciate your taking the time.
We'll be back.
We'll continue after this.
It's open line Friday.
Rush Limb bought a brief timeout here at the top of the hour.
We'll uh uh regroup and organize our remaining stack of stuff in the proper order in order to dazzle you.
And our remaining hour of this week, sit tight.
▲
Export Selection