All Episodes
Previous Next
June 26, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:33
June 26, 2013, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Okay, folks, let me ask you what area of disintegration of the United States do you want me to start with here today.
You want me to start with the IRS scandal?
You want me to start with immigration reform?
You want me to start with uh Obama's Green Initiative, which will be the final nail in the coffin of the U.S. economy.
Do you want me to start with a Supreme Court decisions today?
What do you want me to start with?
The court.
I'd say I'd rather give you some polling data to start with, and then I'll get to the court stuff.
I'd rather actually rather start with some information just into the EIB network on polling data.
In the first story, by the way, greetings, L. Rushbow here, which you know.
Telephone number you also know.
800 282-2882.
Great to have you, folks.
Thank you for joining us today, as always.
Story from the Daily Caller.
Immigration reform critics are flooding the United States Senate with telephone calls.
You are overwhelming, and it is working, apparently.
Critics of the Democrat-led immigration rewrite are bombarding Senate orifices with thousands of phone calls.
Advocates say that those calls are keeping numerous wayward Republican senators from joining the Democrats' immigration bill.
And by the way, in a closed door meeting today.
John Boehner told the Republicans that the House will not bring up the Senate immigration bill in a closed door meeting today.
A national review reporter tweeted this out that Boehner has told House Republicans the House will not bring up the Senate Amnesty Bill.
And one of the reasons why, no question about it, is your phone calls.
Now it's funny.
Well, it's not funny, but it's interesting how the state controlled media is not reporting this.
It's almost as if they don't want us to know that it's going on.
Because after all, it might give us the crazy and dangerous idea that letting our voices be heard is working.
And the last thing that the drive-by media wants you to know is that your opinion and your action and your phone calls is having an impact.
Apparently, this is one of the lessons that the drive-by's learned from when the push for amnesty was shot down back in 2007.
It's the same thing that happened then.
You and millions of others literally overwhelmed Washington with your telephone calls and shut it down.
So now they try to keep you distracted with other news, even Obama scandals until amnesty is a done deal.
But the daily caller, Neil Monroe, is the reporter.
And you might remember Neil Monroe.
He's the guy that the media chased all the way to the Washington Monument from the White House Rose Garden when he dared to ask the dear leader a question at a White House ceremony.
Imagine that, a reporter asking the president a question.
Supposedly broke tradition format or whatever.
The drive by started chasing Monroe out of there and they ripped him to shreds.
That's the guy that has the details.
Critics of the Amnesty Bill are bombarding Senate offices with thousands of calls.
Advocates say those calls are keeping numerous wayward Republican senators from joining the Democrats' immigration bill.
500 calls yesterday and right now, and they're just ringing nonstops at an upset staffer at the office of Mississippi Republican Senator Roger Wicker, who has voted on both sides of the issue.
Five hundred calls, that's just a one senator.
That's probably the number that are getting through.
That's not the total number of people calling.
That's just the people getting through.
And that's just the one senator.
Protesters have sent hundreds, thousands of calls to Rob Portman from Ohio.
According to a staff member, the vast majority of calls have been on amnesty.
We've been getting calls on that for a couple of weeks, said a staffer for Bob Casey, the Democrat senator in uh in Pennsylvania.
Now you won't read about this anywhere else in state control media.
And again, John Boehner, according to a national review reporter, tweeted out that uh Boehner has told House Republicans the House will not bring up the Senate immigration bill.
Now, you know, one of the targets for this, one of the many reasons Dingy Harry is putting the pedal of the medal on this is the August recess.
They know that UT Party people go to town hall meetings.
And they traditionally conduct town hall meetings during the August recess.
Now, this isn't an election year, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of these members actually cancel town hall meetings, but those that have them, you're gonna be you're gonna be there, you're gonna storm these things, you're gonna let people know what for.
And Denji Harry wanted amnesty passed both houses before members went home, so it didn't matter what happened to the town halls.
That's just one of the many reasons why they're putting the uh the hurry on this.
Now, polling data.
Washington examiners, 77% of Americans oppose the Schumer Rubio welfare benefit for immigrants.
77% majorities of Americans are telling pollsters that they do support the idea of giving citizenship to illegals, but a new poll from the National Journal suggests that that may change as they are better informed about what the legislation does.
According to the latest United Technologies National Journal Congressional Connection polls, 77% of Americans oppose giving government benefits like food stamps and Medicaid to illegal immigrants before they become citizens.
Not only do 90% of Republicans oppose that, 65% of Democrats do as well.
Well, now the first part of the story, majorities of Americans tell pollsters they support the idea of course they're gonna say that.
They don't want to be tarred and feathered.
Same thing with the you know, the the wilder effect in taking a poll on Obama.
Nobody's gonna say what they really think because they don't want the pollster, even if it's a phone robo call to think that they're a racist.
Same thing here with immigration.
So the story says that majorities tell polsters they favor giving citizenship to illegals, but when they find out that they're gonna get all kinds of welfare benefits and so forth, that changes on a dime.
77%.
So folks keep talking.
Keep talking to your neighbors, keep talking to anybody.
Keep telling people what this amnesty bill really is.
And once they find out what it really is, there is dramatic opposition to it.
And even without this, Obama appears to be in trouble.
I don't know what ramifications any of this is gonna have, but I still wanted to pass it on to you.
A new Fox poll released yesterday shows that Obama's troubles have only gotten worse since the previous Fox poll.
As of now, Obama is upside down by a full eight points, only 43% approving of his job performance, while 51% disapprove.
It's the Fox News poll.
Last month, Obama was at 44 approval, 50% disapproval.
Now, I know what you're saying.
What is this matter, Rush?
What is Obama approval disapproval?
I mean, he's not gonna run for election.
What does it matter?
What it indicates is a ship.
remember only in the first year of the guy's second term here, folks.
We're only in the first year.
Obamacare has yet to be fully implemented.
Amnesty is out there being debated.
Well, not debated, trying to ram it down everybody's throat.
Obama proposed yesterday, if he gets, you know, we opened the program yesterday.
Uh I told you that I had encountered people over the weekend that were telling me what a bumbling idiot they thought Obama was.
For the surface reasons, can't speak without the prompter.
And I said, What are you talking about?
This guy, from his standpoint, is the most successful president in my lifetime.
This guy's got, I mean, I his first term alone, look at what he got.
He people have been trying on the Democrats side to get national health care for 55, 60 years.
He did it.
The stimulus.
Um his objectives on the economy, shrinking it, and growing government.
He's had phenomenal success from his standpoint.
Now it does not mean success for the country, but it does for him.
This is why.
Dare I remind you, I said I hope he fails.
And he has not failed from his standpoint, from the standpoint of the left, from the standpoint of the Democrat Party, he has not failed.
But he's only in the first year of the second term.
And this green energy thing that he proposed yesterday, depending on where you read, you can find media people thought it was no big deal, not enough.
I of course, I read, as I've mentioned, I don't know how many times, I hate to be redundant about this, but people are new tuning in and reaching everything.
I read the tech blogs.
The tech blogs are made up of young impressionable elitist type kids.
And they all think that they are scientists, engineers, and as such, they totally believe the science of global warming, whereas you and I look at the fraud of global warming science.
They have swallowed it, hook, line, and sinker.
It's fascinating.
It is literally fits, it's it's a fascinating thing to expose yourself to see how these people are lassoed by the leftist power structure.
Uh they think that it's all science.
They think it's undeniable, and as such, they, many of the tech bloggers, they're disappointed with Obama's green energy.
It doesn't go nearly far enough.
In fact, one of the sites talked about how this thing actually does more harm than good.
From their perverted perspective on this.
The point is that depending on where you look, you'll you'll find differing opinions on Obama's green energy.
What you need to know about it is that it is a continuation of Obama's war on the private sector and traditional sources of energy for which there are no replacements yet, for which there are no substitutes.
There's nothing to take the place of oil, yet Obama wants to get rid of it.
There's nothing to take the place of natural gas.
Obama wants to get rid of it.
There's nothing.
It's crony capitalism.
It's cylindra after cylindra after cylinder.
It is an absolute boondoggle.
It's but if it happens, folks, it's it's a bad, bad thing for the U.S. economy if it happens.
So, but it hasn't yet.
It's just at the proposal stage.
So the 2014 midterm elections loom.
And they continue to gain, actually, in importance.
So the Fox News poll, his approval numbers weighed down.
He's upside down, only 43% approval.
In the same poll, 70% want more investigations of what happened in Libya.
Benghazi.
They want more investigations of the IRS.
They are not 70%.
Now the Fox poll.
Just so you understand, the Fox poll has never been a poll that has been tough on Obama.
The Fox News poll has always been.
I don't know.
It's fairly supportive of Obama.
The Fox News poll has not been in any way, either in the way it's conducted or the way it's reported, it has not been in any way biased against Obama, like some people on the left think.
So these are important numbers.
It's a legitimately accurate poll, as it turns out, at least the way it compares with some of the others.
So this is big.
70% want more investigations.
Washington Times, Obama job approval underwater, 61% of independents did.
Disapprove of Obama's job performance.
The Gallup poll has similar numbers.
So some people might say, well, Rice says it's too little too late.
No, it isn't.
No, it's not.
This is just the first year of the second term.
And nothing is etched in stone yet.
Now I know we've got these Supreme Court decisions today, and they represent the visible fracturing by the judiciary of American culture and American tradition.
The Prop 8 decision, basically, that decision really not on the merits.
That was simply the court saying that the people.
See what happened in California Prop 8.
The original supporters of Prop 8 backed out of it during the appeal process out there, and a substitute group, forget their name, took it up.
They handled the appeal at the Ninth Circus level.
The Ninth Circus made their ruling on it, whatever it was.
Supreme Court took the case, and the decision was whether or not this substitute group defending Prop 8 was legitimate.
And the court ruled today they're not.
They didn't have standing.
They don't have standing to appeal, they don't have standing to go forward.
And so the case is sent back and remanded at its last decision, which was the Ninth Circus saying Prop 8 unconstitutional.
So same-sex marriage can continue in California.
Once again in California, the will of the people overturned by the judges.
And now it's happening at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Scalia's dissent today in the Defense of Marriage Act decision, I want to read portions of it to you.
It is unlike any dissent, any justice I've ever read about any case.
And that's because Scalia says that the majority in the Doma ruling was unlike any majority that this court has ever produced.
That it was filled with venom and rage.
It really, if Scalia's dissent is right, what it means is that the common ordinary fisticuff arguments between left and right in this country have not taken over the Supreme Court, and the law and judicial restraint, temperament, and all that has evaporated.
And the court is no different than a bar room now.
And whoever has the largest number on one side, the loudest voices and the most insulting voices wins.
I gotta take a timeout.
You sit tight, we'll be back and roll right on with the rest of today's exciting excursion into broadcast excellence right after this.
Hang on, folks.
The printer's got stuff in it I didn't know what's his saying.
Hang on just a second.
All right, welcome back.
Rushlin bought the EIB network.
Now, one thing on one thing on Boehner and the tweet from National Review Online saying that Boehner will not bring up the Senate immigration bill.
Don't stop pounding them, folks.
Remember what Senator Cruz said.
Just call them.
Keep calling your senator and your members of the House of Representatives, your members of Congress, keep calling them.
We don't know that this is actually true, and it could be true now, it could not be true tomorrow.
Boehner may change his mind on whether to bring it up.
And it doesn't preclude the use of the conference committee.
So it's important to uh keep pounding.
It is working.
It is having an impact.
And I'll tell you, there's you know, there's another way we know it's having impact, is it's it's not being reported.
Daily Caller is the only place that's reporting it, and the uh the reason for that is that the media doesn't want you to know.
Nor does the Democrat and Miss Obama.
They don't want you to know it's it's it's working.
There's no question about that.
Now uh went long in the first segment, so that means this segment is short.
It actually means this segment's over.
But we'll be back here in a second.
Ha, welcome back.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh, the middle of the week, Wednesday.
Here on the EIB network.
Okay, with uh with all of today's Supreme Court decisions on all of the gay issues, all the fact was we had uh DOMA, we had Proposition Eight, so now all the gay issues are behind us.
And so the Republicans don't have to worry about now, right?
I mean, we're told the Republican Party is told that you guys gotta get with it.
You need to cave on gay marriage.
You need to understand we're talking about basically basic civil rights here.
You guys are gonna have to get with it.
You Republicans, the gays don't like you, the Hispanics don't like you, women don't like you because of abortion, you're gonna so the uh uh gay marriage, uh California can continue, uh DOMA grants federal benefits to um uh gay married people in 11 states in the District of Columbia.
And so the uh issues off the table, issues off the table, and so now the the gays are free to turn out and support Republicans now.
Well, this is this is we're told about how this works.
New York Times celebrating the Supreme Court's gay rulings today, rightly so.
The New York Times have been the major proponents for gay rights.
Here's their headline news analysis with gay marriage, a tide of public opinion that swept past the court.
There was a phone caller to CNN today, one of the uh proudest days of my life today.
Something happened today on CNN that I can't tell you how proud I am.
I didn't even know about it until Cookie sent me the audio soundbite uh roster.
I take it it wasn't CNN, it was C-SPAN.
And they were doing their Washington Journal show.
The host, Greta Bronner, was taking viewer calls on the Supreme Court's decision.
You know, invalidating parts of the voting rights act.
And uh the host said, David in Madison Heights, Michigan, Democrat caller line.
Hey, what's your thoughts on this, bud?
I'm outraged as an American.
I was born an American first, not under a party.
So we're all Americans first.
The crooked Supreme Court, and by the way, Scalia sounds exactly like Rush Limbaugh when he talks.
It's a perfect match.
They couldn't win under Citizens United.
So they're gonna take the next step, and that's to take away the voting rights of Americans, not a certain party, but Americans.
So there you have it.
A qu I don't think this is not about the gay rulings.
I thought it was.
It was about it was about the uh uh voting rights act yesterday.
They were that's not the point, so the point is that the caller said scalia sound just like me.
I mean, that I can't get a better compliment.
I have said over the years that if I didn't have my brain, I'd rather have Scalia's, or I'd like to have Scalia's.
And so now here's a caller to C-Span say Scalia sounds exactly like me when he talks a perfect match.
You can't, from my perspective, you can't get a bigger compliment than that.
Speaking of Scalia, his dissent today in the Defense of Marriage Act ruling is breathtaking.
In his view, what's happened here?
The Supreme Court has now demonized opponents or proponents, rather, the supporters of traditional marriage, as it has been understood for thousands of years.
The Supreme Court majority, in its ruling, actually uses language that insults and demonizes the people who support marriage as it's been since the beginning of time.
Now, if you ever had any doubt that the left is intolerant and fully invested in the low art of personal destruction through smear tactics, just read Scalia's dissent in United States versus Wade.
In this dissent, he quotes the majority and illustrates how they smear.
In the Supreme Court rulings, smear supporters of traditional marriage as a means of justifying their opinion.
What Scalia says is that the majority in the DOMA case, in order to arrive at their decision, actually says that the supporters of traditional marriage and what they name call that the there's no legal reasoning here, or very little.
Scalia says the majority has arrived at its point of view because the opponents of homosexual marriage are reprobates and bigots.
It's disgusting.
It demeans the Supreme Court, and it's turned the Supreme Court into nothing different from any venue in this country where people argue.
And it proves that we are up against people who don't give a damn about the rule of law or about basic decency or about decorum.
I have often said that what animates people on the left, what motivates them, what informs them is defeating us no matter how, no matter what, no matter what it means.
That their hatred for us overwhelms anything else.
And no matter the result, victory that includes impugning and demeaning and insulting us is what they seek.
It's what makes them happy.
Now the left politicizes everything.
And in this case, hardball politics became the name of the game.
Hardball politics bare knuckles rather than learned judicial reasoning.
So now it's not just schools or doctor's offices or where you vote, the military, the NFL football games, now it's even the Supreme Court that has been turned into an advocacy unit of the Obama administration.
Not even hiding it.
The majority decision in DOMA makes it plain that the majority of the Supreme Court is nothing more Than any other aspect of the team advancing the Obama agenda.
The Scalia dissent is extraordinary.
And the court's majority opinion in this case has poisoned any opportunity for reasoned civil debate going forward.
It really is striking.
I'll share with you excerpts from Scalia's dissent when we get back.
Mr. Schnerdley, a quick question for you, sir.
Do you think in either of these cases?
Proposition eight remanded and sent back, or DOMA found to be unconstitutional, in either case has gay marriage as of today, because of either or both or any of these decisions now been found to be constitutional.
All right, both of these are well, on top of both of them.
Is gay marriage now been as a result of these two decisions?
Is gay marriage now been said to be constitutional by the court?
It hasn't, not yet.
So the the supporters of the celebrants in these two cases might be getting a little bit ahead of things here because the constitutionality of gay marriage was not proclaimed here today by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Here's a little bit of Scalia's dissent.
The majority concludes that the only motive for the Defense of Marriage Act was the quote bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group.
Stop and think of this.
Scalia in his dissent says that the majority, Anthony Kennedy and the four libs, in their ruling said the only reason that the Defense of Marriage Act was passed was because supporters of it want to harm a politically unpopular group.
Just that allegation has nothing to do with the law.
This has nothing to do with adjudication of cases.
This is Antonin Scalia saying the majority attacks the supporters of the Defense of Marriage Act as having as their sole motivation, the only motive, was to harm homosexuals.
And they proceed from there in declaring it unconstitutional.
By the way, it was Bill Clinton, a Democrat Congress and a Democrat president who made this law possible.
And they were pandering.
The Democrats back then were pandering to a majority opinion in this country which wanted to maintain the definition of marriage as that between a man and a woman.
And Clinton is running for re-election.
It was Clinton who signed DOMA.
The majority in the Supreme Court has just raked Clinton over the Coles as a bigot.
And a Democrat Congress over the Coles, accusing them of having as their only motivation the wish to harm homosexuals.
Scalia continues, bear in mind that the object of this condemnation is not the legislature of some once Confederate Southern state.
The object of this condemnation is our respected coordinate branches, the Congress and the Presidency of the United States.
And in this case, the presidency was held by Bill Clinton.
And so Scalia's pointing out that the majority in this case was accusing Clinton and the Democrat Congress of passing DOMA because they only wanted to hurt gay people.
Laying such a charge, Scalia writes, should require the most extraordinary evidence.
And I would have thought that every attempt would be made to indulge a more anodyne explanation for the statute.
The majority does the opposite, affirmatively concealing from the reader the arguments that exist in justification for DOMA.
So it gets worse.
Not only does the majority in the decision today accuse the people who supported DOMA of doing it only to hurt gay people, he then accuses the majority of concealing the just arguments for the statute.
He says the majority makes only a passing mention of the arguments put forward by the act's defenders and does not even trouble to paraphrase or describe them.
Imagine, I imagine that this is because it's harder to maintain the illusion of the act supporters as unhinged members of a wild-eyed lynch mob when one first describes their views as they see them.
The court mentions none of this.
Instead, it accuses the Congress that enacted this law and the president who signed it of something much worse than, for example, having acted in excess of enumerated federal powers or even having drawn distinctions that prove to be irrational.
Those legal errors may be made in good faith, errors though they are, but the majority says that the supporters of DOMA acted with malice, with the purpose to disparage and injure same-sex couples.
It says that the motivation for DOMA was to demean, to impose inequality, to impose a stigma, to deny people equal dignity, to brand gay people as unworthy, and to humiliate their children.
This is in the majority opinion.
Scalia is pointing it out and saying it's reprehensible.
And the majority is citing these assumed motivations.
You won't find anywhere in the record of DOMA.
What I just read to you being the reasons people wanted it to become law.
This is what the libs assume people who support same uh uh uh uh uh traditional marriage believe.
So you have a bunch of hacks disguised as as as judges on the Supreme Court today, impugning the motives with no evidence of the supporters of the Defense of Marriage Act.
And Scalia is beside himself.
He thinks this is the last area that any court should be going to, impugning the motives which are unstated and could and cannot be known, while ignoring the record, which has testimony and hearings and all sorts of other data that was made available in support of the act.
I'm sure Scalia says that these accusations are untrue.
To be sure, as the majority points out, the legislation is called the Defense of Marriage Act.
But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn demean or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements any more than defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn demeanor humiliate other constitutions.
To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this court.
In the majority's judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reason disagreement.
To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act with the purpose to disparage injured, degrade, demean, and humiliate our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens who are homosexual.
All that simply for supporting an act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence, indeed had been unquestioned in virtually all societies For virtually all of human history.
Okay, so here's here's basically what happens.
Everything's going along just fine.
Everything's cool.
And then all of a sudden, homosexuals say, you know what?
We want to be married.
And the people who don't think that marriage is anything other than a man and a woman say, no, no, no, no.
Marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.
That's what it means, that's what it's always meant.
And so the people who want the change then attack the defenders of the status quo as being hateful bigots.
▲
Export Selection