All Episodes
Previous Next
June 30, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:16
June 30, 2014, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi folks, welcome back.
Thrilled and delighted to be with you, as is the case every day.
Rush Limbaugh behind the golden EIB microphone.
We're on the left coast around Los Angeles this week.
And leading up to the Independence Day holiday, a three-day weekend this year, Independence Day on Friday.
We've got a best of show that day, right?
Very, yeah, patriotic best-of show.
And then we'll be back on Monday live and direct from the EIB Southern Command.
The telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882.
The email address, LRushbow at EIBNet.com.
Now, I don't know whether these rulings are narrow or not.
Time is going to tell us this.
What future legal cases spring up from these rulings, what behavior results in the workplace will determine many interpretations.
But there is something here that is conclusive.
Even if you want to call these rulings narrow, can somebody explain to me what constitutional argument Barack Obama has advanced?
What did he win in any of these things?
If these are narrow rulings, what did Obama win?
Nothing.
Obama is taking it on the chin.
Obama is 04-13, and this may be 0 for 15 now, with these two cases.
And some of those, and he's 0 for 12 or 0 for 13 last week with unanimous Supreme Court rulings against him.
He has run up against the Constitution several times this past week and been rebuked by the court, whether unanimously or whether by five to four decisions.
So narrow or not, you cannot take away the fact that it's been a pretty good week for the Constitution.
And narrow or not, you cannot deny that it's been a pretty bad week for the community organizer-in-chief because he is now reduced to saying, well, I'll just do an executive order.
I'm going to do what I want anyway.
If they won't get it, I'll just do it myself.
And thereby exposing his beliefs and his strategery at the same time.
All these people in Washington, they take an oath to uphold, defend, protect the Constitution.
And therefore, the Constitution was defended and protected in two rulings today.
So Obama and the boys that take that oath, they ought to be happy, right?
However, they aren't.
Now, I want to go back, ladies and gentlemen, to the Jeffrey Toobin Sunday, not because it's Toobin, but because he read Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg dissenting opinion, which, by the way, is 35 pages long.
Now, that's pretty sweeping dissent for a narrow ruling, 35 pages.
And she whines a lot in her dissent.
For example, until today, religious exemptions have never been extended to any entity operating in the commercial profit-making world.
I knew I was right about that.
I knew that in that sense, I don't know what you call it, landmark, but it certainly is unprecedented.
We've never had this kind of a ruling which allowed a for-profit, and boy, the commercial profit-making world.
Oh, those are fighting words, profit-making world.
That their religious beliefs can trump Opponents.
It's never been affirmed as such until today.
So I want to go back and listen to the Tubin Samba as he analyzes some of the things that Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg said in her sweeping dissent.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissenting opinion is devoted to the proposition that it's not narrow, that the idea that a privately held company can exercise religious beliefs in deciding which benefits and which customers to deal with is potentially a very broad idea.
In fact, you know, she points out that there are religious owners of companies who believe in the separation of the races.
Should their religious beliefs be honored?
There are people of conviction and faith who believe that homosexuality is evil and immoral and don't want to engage in business with gay people.
They could take advantage of these rulings.
You mean like a bakery in Colorado that refused to bake a cake for a gay couple getting married, and they were pursued and sued and lost and decided to get out of the business.
Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg also says the Supreme Court's ventured into a minefield with this ruling.
She writes in a decision of startling breadth, meaning it isn't narrow for those of you in Rio Linda.
The court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, that's showing Dracula the cross to say that word corporate.
They hate them because corporations are not people.
You understand that.
Corporations are evil organizations that kill customers and screw customers and cheat customers and injure customers and destroy the planet and do all this horrible stuff.
They bring filthy oil out of the water and the land.
It's just, you know, yuck is what corporate.
They are not people.
So it's not incidental that she includes this word here numerous times in the dissent, even though it was a corporation that was of her grabs, narrowly held, closely held corporation.
The court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships.
Again, we were right on the money here in assuming this could include small business.
Sole proprietorship.
She's worried.
Partnerships, sole proprietorships can opt out of any law, except tax laws, they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.
Here's another passage from her dissent.
The court's determination that RFRA extends to for-profit corporations is bound to have untoward effects.
Although the court attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations, its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private.
She's right about that.
That's why these leftists think it's narrow, think hobby lobby, big company.
But she's just said sole proprietorships, partnerships.
The logic extends to corporations of any size.
She even links in her dissenting opinion to a list of large private companies that should include Cargill, Koch Industries, the notorious Koch brothers, Dell Computer, which may also be eligible to opt out of the mandate under the court's ruling.
Religious Freedom First Amendment is what RFRA means, is the acronym.
But note the inclusion of the Koch brothers in her opinion.
Now, the regime, the Obama administration has colluded.
Now, this is just, I'm bouncing off Ruth, well, Bader Ginsburg here, but the Obama administration has colluded with the 57 Muslim governments in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation on UN Human Rights Commission Resolution 1618, which calls on member countries to make speech that could incite hostility to religion illegal.
Now, follow me on this.
The regime, the Obama administration has colluded with 57 Muslim governments in something called the Organization of Islamic Cooperation on UN Human Rights Commission, which had a resolution.
Resolution calls, and the Obama administration colluded in this resolution, calls on member countries to make speech that could incite hostility to religion illegal.
Now, Islam prohibits homosexuality.
I give you as example A, the Sultan of Brunei, who just announced the institution of Sharia law in Brunei, which has led to a massive boycott here in Los Angeles of the Beverly Hills Hotel, which is owned by the Sultan of Brunei.
Now, I just wonder here if Justice Ginsburg just incited hostility to Islam by complaining about religions that ban homosexuality.
Let me read to YouTube and transcript again.
In fact, you know, she points out that there are religious owners of companies who believe in the separation of the races.
By the way, does anybody know which company that is?
I don't.
I mean, not denying.
I just, I don't, what company believes in separation of the races today?
Should their religious beliefs be honored?
There are people of conviction and faith who believe that homosexuality is evil and immoral and don't want to engage in business.
Well, the regime has colluded with 57 Muslim governments in stating that speech that could incite hostility to religion is illegal.
And did she just do that?
I asked, it's an ironic question.
Did she just incite hostility to Islam because Islam prohibits homosexuality?
So has Justice Ginsburg just incited hostility to Islam by complaining about religions that ban homosexuality?
I'm just asking.
I don't expect to get an answer.
I'm just asking.
People of conviction and faith who believe that homosexuality is evil and immoral and don't want to engage in business with gay people, are they going to have the right to be able to do this now?
So she's quite properly concerned that this is somewhat broad and not narrow.
Now, I'm going to take a timeout here.
I've got other things in the monologue segment I intended to get to, but I've got a lot of people waiting on hold who want to talk about these two cases.
So before moving on to anything else, I'm going to do that.
We'll take a brief time out.
We'll come back and get to your phone calls.
I'll thank all of you who've been holding on since the program began patiently very much for doing so.
Sit tight back before you know it.
Ha.
Welcome back.
The regime, ladies and gentlemen, before we get to the phone, just late breaking news here on the regime.
The latest kid serving as the White House press secretary, a guy named Josh Ernest at the White House briefing today, and I'm assuming this quote is accurate, is putting out an purposely misleading information.
Today's decision jeopardizes the health of women employed by these companies.
There's a part of me that says Obama likes these rulings.
Remember, everything is political.
Everything ends up politicized.
That's how they see the world.
That's why I kind of created a few rushes.
I'm tired of politics.
You know what?
We've got to stop.
Is everything not political?
I agree with you, except the left makes everything political.
And if you disagree with it, you have to do so all the time.
The aggressor sets the rules in any fight.
They clearly are.
So today's decision jeopardizes the health of women employed by these companies.
It does not.
It does not.
Where did it end?
How did it end up?
That women are not supposed to buy their own contraceptives.
When did this take hold?
That this is somebody else's response, particularly when you can do it for $9 a month.
And then Josh Earnest said, we will work with Congress to make sure that any women affected by this decision will still have the same coverage of vital health services as anyone else.
And don't forget, these people view pregnancy as a disease.
The feminists and militant leftists have always, in their sort of convoluted support of abortion, have always portrayed it as a disease.
And so they're taking medication to treat medical conditions such as pregnancy.
And even in the AP story, contraception is among a range of preventive services that must be provided at no extra charge under Obamacare.
Contraception is among a range of preventive, preventive, sir, preventive, sir, as though it's a disease, a sickness.
That's exactly how they've, well, one of the many ways in which they've gotten to this point.
Okay, to the phones.
We're going to start in Midland, Michigan.
Greg, great to have you, sir.
Do you still have your water turned on, or is that just Detroit that's had half of their water turned off?
My water is working great.
Great, great.
So the UN is not in town trying to alleviate the lack of water where you live.
That's good.
That's good.
No, no, we have plenty of lakes in Michigan, so we're all good.
All right, cool.
Yeah, well, first-time caller, so I really appreciate you taking my comment.
This is in regards to contraception.
You know, contraception is a personal choice.
And when there's things that go inside my body that I can't control, health care, yeah, should, you know, insurance companies should cover that.
But when you start crossing that line of personal choice, you're opening up a whole new door to a whole new list of things that could be added to that.
For example, my gym membership.
Wait, wait, just a second.
Wait just a minute, though.
We've got to make sure that you said, did I hear you right?
You said contraception is a personal choice?
It's a personal choice.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
No, no, no, no.
That's where you're off path.
Contraception is not a personal choice.
It's a right.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, some might think that, right?
But it's a personal choice.
So, well, it's my right to go to the gym.
Should they start paying my right to go to the gym?
It's my right to sit in front of the TV, which now studies will show that it affects your health and your mental state.
So should they start paying for my cable bill?
Should they, I know a young lady that used to cut herself.
That was a personal choice.
It's her right.
It's her body, right?
Should they start covering those costs as well?
Well, once you cross that line, Rush, it just opens up a whole new list.
Bingo.
Once you dive into.
Once there is no personal responsibility, once everything you do is actually something that happens to you, then you become a victim.
And when you become a victim, then you are victimized by somebody.
And when you are victimized by somebody, it's largely going to be a conservative or a Republican, in which case you can then petition the government to fix it.
So in your example, contraception, that's not a choice.
That's a right.
And when you got pregnant, you were victimized by nature.
You may not have even intended it.
It doesn't matter that you took the steps necessary to cause it because you don't have that kind of power, not in the way the left looks at the world.
You're a victim of something.
And so when your other examples, let me tell you how that is going to manifest itself.
Those things will manifest.
You talk about your gym membership.
Under Obamacare, it is entirely possible because they're in charge of who gets what kind of medical care and how much treatment and how much money is going to be spent on each case.
They are going to be able to say someday if they want to, at some stage in life, if you get sick and if some belief exists that if you had gone to the gym earlier, if you had exercised, you wouldn't have been sick.
So they're not going to cover you for previous decisions that you've made.
And because of your age, and it just doesn't make sense to invest in whatever it would take to cure you because of your age, it'd be better spent on younger, more potentially productive people.
You may be, they may, someday may be able to require you to do a certain amount of exercise, may be able to limit the number of days or hours you can watch TV if you are going to get health care.
This is the kind of sweeping control over people's lives that Obamacare is going to end up providing the government.
Now, I know the people that don't want to hear about politics, that would never happen.
Come on, Rush, that's so extreme it would never, it's exactly what kind of power they seek.
And if you, it's the old death panel argument.
So whereas you're looking at this as, well, shouldn't they, I mean, if they're going to cover a woman's contraception, why shouldn't they cover my cable bill and this kind of thing?
Because it's making you sick, right?
Right.
If you go to the gym, you're trying to make yourself better.
If everything is designed in some way, shape, matter, or form, it's either going to make you sicker or cure your sickness or make you healthier, shouldn't they pay for it given you're not responsible for anything?
And that's what you're thinking is.
Yeah, and I'm totally against all that.
I think that healthcare should be provided for those that I can't control what's going on inside my body, therefore it's out of the way.
Wait a minute.
No, no, wait a minute.
With everything known today, quote unquote, about what causes cancer, you might be able to prevent it, say, by not eating certain things.
I mean, look at the cockamami beliefs that every day we are treated to about what causes this sickness or that sickness.
So you get the point.
I've got to run.
Back after this, folks.
Now, listen, folks, it's what the last caller's point.
I got a short change there in my summation by having to go to the obscene profit break.
But his point was, hey, I don't control what goes on in my body.
Meaning, if he gets sick, he didn't do anything to cause it.
But yet a woman who gets pregnant took action to make it happen.
Whether she intended it or not, she still did.
But his point was, let's say, I come down with, take your pick.
He comes down with Crohn's disease.
I didn't do anything.
Well, not so fast.
Not so fast.
If you end up with socialized medicine, single payer, with the government in charge of every dime that's spent, you're going to have a whole bunch because we don't have the money, folks.
First and foremost, we don't have the, we're $17 trillion in debt.
And there's no amount of money too small in order to get something like this passed.
But then once that happens and it's fully implemented, then there's going to be all kinds of cost consciousness.
There's going to be all kinds of people limiting the amount of money you've spent.
It's the nature of things.
So you might think you did nothing that resulted in you getting Crohn's disease.
But what if they can provide some scientific research that says that if you got up at 10 o'clock in the morning on Tuesday while camping out and decided to drink water from a lake that was not government approved and had some sort of thing in there, even though you didn't know it, you still gave yourself Crohn's disease.
Then you may not be entitled to health care because you didn't exhibit proper personal responses.
If you don't think something like this is going to be part of it, you need to readjust your thinking.
It's no different than the death panel existence, which is, there's no question that it exists.
And Obama even alluded to it with that mother or the daughter on ABC's primetime special asking about her mother giving a pacemaker to him.
She's too old.
We'll give her a pain pill and finish her days that way.
So they're clearly prepared to make decisions on who gets treatment based on how much it costs and how old they are and whether or not it's going to make any financial sense to invest in someone who's not going to be productive or whatever.
But the fact that this is even being contemplated is evidence that it exists.
And you know, every day you wake up, you're doing something that's causing you to get cancer or causing you to die prematurely or causing you to get sick or do something every day.
It may be drinking too much coffee.
It may be eating too much saturated for whatever.
You know every day there's this stuff out there.
And so the opportunity for you to say, wait a minute, I didn't cause this, the odds are that they're going to be able to construct a case that you did at the minimum with negligence, by not properly informing yourself, by not trying to take the greatest health care for yourself that you could.
All the guidelines are there.
You shouldn't smoke, you shouldn't drink.
And if you've done that and you come down with Crohn's disease, well, what do you expect?
Anything to get out of spending the money, particularly if you happen to be a Republican.
Obama has shown favoritism in these waivers that's purely political, whether people want to admit it or not.
And yet on the other end of this at contraception, Pregnancy, you have to engage in specific behavior for that to happen, whether you intend it to or not.
And yet, his point was, why should they have everything paid for when they took action to make it happen when I didn't do anything?
Because, well, wait a minute.
It's going to be perhaps someday that you did cause whatever afflicts you.
But in the case of women who get pregnant, they've said it up for years, it's a disease that needs treatment.
It's a sickness.
You remember the stories we've talked about here about over the many years of this program, certain feminist groups have come out and pointed to all the negative health characteristics associated with women who get pregnant and women who give birth.
They conveniently ignore the very true link between abortion and breast cancer.
That's also been established, but they ignored that.
For the purposes of the left, people like today's modern-day Democrats, pregnancy is a disease and it makes a pregnant woman a victim, a victim of a man who would not listen to the word no, a victim of society which tells young girls that the guy will never leave you if you get pregnant, whatever.
They want as many people to be victims with no claim to personal responsibility whatsoever because that makes those people subservient, docile, and dependent.
That's what illegal immigration and amnesty is all about.
Here, Grib soundbite number five.
It's to make this point in a somewhat sensible way.
This was in Brownsville, Texas.
You know, we had it last Friday.
Nancy Pelosi was going to go to the border, and she's going to greet these kids arriving from El Salvador and Paraguay and Central American countries.
And she did.
She went down there and she did.
She went to some of these refugee crisis centers and she actually said, I would love to take all of you home.
She did.
She said, I would love to be able to take all of you home.
Well, she's got room for 50 or 60 of them in all the properties she and her husband own, but she's not going to take one of them home.
But this is at a press conference she held Saturday in Brownsville, Texas.
This crisis that some call a crisis, we have to view as an opportunity.
If we believe, as we do, that every child, every person has a spark of divinity in them and is therefore worthy of respect.
What we saw in those rooms was a dazzling, sparkling array of God's children worthy of respect.
So we have to use, as was said this morning, the crisis that some view as a crisis, and it does have crisis qualities, as an opportunity to show who we are as Americans, that we do respect people for their dignity and worth.
Well, how do you oppose that?
So here's Pelosi.
It's an opportunity.
And we want to show them dignity, sparkling array of God's children.
They're just, these kids are lucky they made it out of the womb.
Because if you're in the womb, Pelosi doesn't look at you that way.
But if you do make it out of the womb, then of course you become a God's child.
And you are sparkling.
And you are worthy of respect.
And You have dignity and you have worth and you have value.
Parentheses to us as future dependent voters.
Close parentheses.
Political opportunity is what this is.
A great political opportunity.
There's no way tens of thousands and multiplied that of potential new Democrat voters is a crisis.
Why is Obama talking about deporting them?
He's saying he wants to send them back home.
Well, how many has he sent back home?
That's a thought.
None.
But he's saying he wants to send them back home.
That they can't stay.
Did he say they can't stay?
No, he didn't.
He wants to send them back home.
Right.
He wants $2 million, $2 billion.
Sorry.
He wants $2 billion to fund their return home.
Sort of.
But they can stay until he gets the $2 billion to send them back home.
Right.
Do you realize Nancy Pelosi has never once spoken about Tea Party supporters in such glowing terms as she has spoken about these illegal alien children from Central America?
Do you realize that?
Nor has Obama spoken of the Tea Party supporters, which are Americans, who are Americans.
Senator Dick Durbin says that President Obama, quote, will borrow the power that is needed to solve the problems of immigration.
Senator Turbin made the comments at a press briefing on immigration last Thursday while urging Boehner to bring an immigration bill to the floor for a vote.
I don't know how much more time he thinks he needs, but I hope Speaker Baker will speak up today, Turbin said.
And if he does not, the president will borrow the power that is needed to solve the problems of immigration, and he shouldn't be sued as a result of borrowing the power.
Now, when you borrow something, you usually give it back.
So I don't know how that would, I don't know how that would work.
could build a pretty good fence for two billion dollars uh but i don't does it that that's inhumane to build a to build a fence to say that I know.
Slap me.
Slap me.
Sparkling jewels.
Sparkling jewels of God.
Well, they are human beings.
There's no question that they're human beings.
There's no question they've got dignity.
And, well, and they might deserve respect.
The question is, that entire entitlement break the law.
It still comes down to that.
Does the law mean anything or not?
The Pope, Il Papa, Pope Francis.
Get this opening paragraph.
By the way, this is a Reuters story.
I want to see if this jogs your memory.
Just the first paragraph.
Pope Francis, Whose criticisms of unbridled capitalism have prompted some to label him a Marxist, comma, said in an interview published on Sunday that communists had stolen the flag of Christianity.
Does that ring any of your bells?
Who was it that I think it was me that labeled the Pope.
What I said was that his economic, his attack on capitalism sounded just like a Marxist attack on it.
I said, it sounds like Marxism.
And that made big news.
Now, I didn't make the first paragraph, but that's they're referring when they say have prompted some to label him a Marxist.
And he then said, a 77-year-old pontiff gave an interview to Eu Mesagero, Rome's local newspaper, to mark the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, a Roman holiday.
He was asked about a blog post in The Economist magazine that said he sounded like a Leninist when he criticized capitalism and called for radical economic reform.
Oh, yeah, some obscure blog post in The Economist that said he sounded like a Leninist.
It got everybody riled up.
We remember that.
Don't you?
There was, I don't remember.
Anyway, he said, I can only say that the communists have stolen our flag.
The flag of the poor is Christian.
Poverty is at the center of the gospel.
Communists say that all this is communism.
Well, sure, 20 centuries later.
So when they speak, one can say to them, but then you're Christian, he said, laughing.
So what he's basically saying, well, I got to take a break.
See the clock.
I know, I know.
Back into second.
I don't know if the Pope is saying that Jesus was a communist.
I mean, I guess some people could read it that way.
He says the communists stole our flag.
And if our flag is rooted in solving poverty, and then that's, and the communists want to claim that's what they did.
I mean, you connect the dots if you wish.
It's just what he was asked about, what is this claim that you claim unbridled capitalism.
I don't know who practices unbridled capitalism.
Can somebody Hong Kong is as close as we've ever had to unbridled capitalism?
It was a false premise to begin with.
Anyway, let me, here's Ben in Stocton, California.
Great to have you on the program.
Hello.
Thank you for taking my call, Rosh.
I appreciate it.
Yes, sir.
In relation to the hobby lobby decision, I think it's going to open up a can of unintended consequences.
Let's say a Muslim-owned company wants to institute Muslim law and cut off someone's hand because they stole something.
It would be a closely held company that would be making a decision based on their religion.
Well, that is where the ruling here, I think, is narrow.
And let me try to explain this.
Because what the issue here is, is which people, regardless of institution, get to make decisions about how they live and what they pay for.
And the court said today that, look, in businesses that are closely held that reflect the views of its founders and owners, we're going to apply the First Amendment religious liberty.
Now, Ginsburg and Toobin, who reported what she wrote in her dissent, and I mentioned some of the passages she wrote, nobody is denying anything to anybody here.
This is the key that I think a lot of people are over.
And the left wants you to think that women are now going to be denied contraception.
Women are going to have to get pregnant no matter what, and they're going to have to have the baby.
That's what the left wants women to think.
There's no question they do.
But nobody is being denied anything here.
In this ruling anyway, if somebody wants abortion-inducing drugs, nobody is stopping them.
It's just today some people are now not required to pay for them who have contrary religious views.
But nobody is denying abortive fashions, contraception, or anything else to women.
And these parallels to civil rights issues or homosexuals or what have you, I don't think have any real application here.
The 14th Amendment protects minorities from unequal treatment.
And when you go on and make these absurd parallels, for example, forcing somebody to buy abortion-inducing drugs for employees, which they can purchase on their own without difficulty, and comparing that to equal rights, I mean, that diminishes the civil rights fight by these liberals.
But nobody, it's $9 a month.
But even if that's, even if it was $18 a month, the ruling only said that certain people can uphold their religious views and not pay for it.
But nobody is being denied anything.
The left wants to wrap every one of their policy demands, civil rights, because they know it works emotionally with people.
A brief timeout here at the top of the hour.
▲
Export Selection