All Episodes
Previous Next
July 7, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:42
July 7, 2014, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings, welcome back.
Great to have you, Rushland Boss, serving humanity.
Simply by being here, executing assigned host duties flawlessly, zero mistakes.
And it's a thrill and delight to have you here.
Our telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882, the email.
Address Lrushbow at EIB net.com.
And ladies and gentlemen, the assault on the founding of this country continues by leftists and Democrats everywhere.
There is a New York Times piece that I ran into over the weekend.
And yet you talk about historical revisionism.
The New York Times arts beat reporter is named Jennifer Schussler.
She might pronounce it Schussler, S-Ch U E S S L E R. She's the Arts Beat reporter.
So she reports on the beat of the arts.
And she says that the removal of a period at a critical, crucial point, a declaration of independence, would dramatically change its meaning from common understanding.
It is her assertion that removing the period would provide government with powers on par with those of the people.
In other words, her point is that the Declaration of Independence was never meant, and the Constitution, by the way, in association, was never meant to limit government to the extent that we all thought.
She's also been aided by a left-leaning professor's failure to comprehend an English language.
I found this at Newsbusters, and then I I looked it up on my own.
And the New York Times story is this.
If only Thomas Jefferson could settle the issue, a period is questioned in the Declaration of Independence.
A scholar is now saying that the official transcript of the Declaration of Independence, produced by the National Archives and Records Administration, contains a significant error.
Smack in the middle of the sentence beginning, we hold these truths to be self-evident.
That sentence contains a significant error.
The error, according to Danielle Allen, a professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, concerns a period that appears right after the phrase life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the transcript, but almost certainly not in the original.
In other words, a period has been added.
And it is her contention that adding the period serves to change the original meaning.
Now it's absurd on its face.
Let me just say this she doesn't have a point.
This is literally absurd, but that's not the point.
The point is the attempt here.
Now the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document in our system anyway, but that's again not the point.
Her effort here is once again designed to continue this all-out assault on your and my understanding of the founding of this country.
I'll get to the entire sentence here in just a second.
Now, she says that the period is an errant spot of ink that was unintended.
And it contributes to what she calls a routine but serious misunderstanding of the Declaration.
The period creates the impression that the list of self-evident truths ending with the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
But as intended by Thomas Jefferson, she Argues what comes next is just as important.
And that is the essential role of government.
And that what comes next is instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed and securing those rights.
So here's let's take a look here at the two versions.
Here is, I'm going to read this to you with the period in it that everybody has assumed should always be there.
And this is a declaration of independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Period.
There is also, I might add, in the original document, a short dash at this point, which I will come back to in a mere moment.
So let me start again.
We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Period dash.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Now I'm going to read it to you again without a period.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Now, the meaning, the logic of that sentence or paragraph doesn't change at all.
The three God-given rights are still life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Whether there is a period or not does nothing to increase or decrease the perceived importance of governments in attempting to secure these rights.
However, all of this is moot.
Because if you first I have to repeat, this I don't know that this woman even knows that the declaration is not a legal document in this country.
I don't know if Dr. Jennifer Schuessler even knows this.
But everybody does know that the founders of this country were rejecting an oppressive government and were establishing a government of, by, and for the people, the consent of the governed.
That they were limiting the role of government.
The first ten amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights are all about limiting the role of government.
None of that matters.
What is true, the historical record, not true.
This is an attempt.
She's a college professor.
She's teaching college students.
She is attempting to convince them, and anybody else who'll read here, that the Declaration of Independence intended to establish a very powerful government in order to secure the rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
That's what her intent here is.
And she says that that period is not a period.
It's a speck of dust that ended up in the original parchment that ended up being transcribed, but it's not there.
And her point is that without the period, the sentence just flows without a stop and grants equal power to government, in fact, maybe even more power to secure those rights.
Now again, I just I want to stress uh here, ladies and gentlemen, that this is bogus.
It's I'm only bringing this up not because there's an issue here.
The woman has no point zero zilch nada, but that isn't the point is the attempt and who these people are.
And I literally, I I I have been beside myself, I don't know, the last six years, trying to think of any number Of ways to inform the people of this country just who we're up against, just what the modern Democrat Party and its leftist counterculture has become.
Actually, has been for quite a while.
There is an all-out assault on the founding of this country.
Folks, again, I don't mean to be self-serving here.
I really don't.
This is why I have decided to write children's books about the history of this country, about the founding of this to counter this kind of stuff.
It's just absurd.
It is, it is meaningless.
It's not educated, it's not scholarly.
It's not intellectual, but it is assumed to be all of that.
Now I imagine if she's ever asked about, oh no, they're limbos is exaggerating my intent here.
I was just trying to have some fun.
It is an interesting point, but I don't have they'll downplay it for public consumption, but I'm I'm I'm telling you that they're going to do everything they can.
This is part and parcel of the all-out encompassing effort to change in as many minds as possible the purpose and role of government in everybody's lives.
And they'll change the culture, stop at nothing.
Your right to life, your right to liberty, your right to pursuit of happiness is all government's responsibility.
That the founding fathers wanted a big government to grant those rights and then to protect those rights.
Now there's another big area where her argument falls flat totally, and that's the right to life, because this government does not stand for that.
This government's for the right to abortion.
Now you can you can get mad at me all you want, but I'm just telling you facts here.
There's any number of ways to refute this, is my point.
Now there's another thing.
If you look at the original document, and I don't have it here to show you, but if you take the time to look at graphic portrayals of the original document pictures, you will find scattered throughout the declaration that there are flourishes,
dashes of various length throughout the Declaration of Independence, and for the longest time people have, well, well, what are these dashes?
Are they dashes or these decorative?
Or are they there as a form of punctuation?
They're not straight.
They are they're decorative dashes, if you will, wavy lines of varying thickness, and they all differ in length.
Now, the popular conception is that the founders and the signers of the declaration, the authors wrote the thing to be read aloud, and the dashes are indeed dashes, and the longer the dash, the longer the pause.
One should make in reading the doctrine, either silently or aloud.
And there is, in fact, after this period that this woman says should not be there, there is one of these dashes.
So her point is lost any number of ways.
But again, I'm just bringing this up to you, not to argue with her, although I find it necessary to refute her anyway.
That's that's that's what this is going to become.
This is another one of these things where we get up and we look at what's happening and we see another assault, and all we have time to do is stand up and stay stop.
We're just trying to defend the country.
We don't even have time to advance an agenda.
We're too busy yelling stop to the left multiple times a day.
And this is just the latest example of the onslaught.
So I'm gonna read this to you again, exactly as it was written and intended to be heard and read.
And something you know, you've read it yourself, you've heard it, I don't know how many times.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Period dash.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Well, that right, how in the world, whether you're talking about a non-existent period, a phantom period, how in the world can you say that the original intent of the paragraph without a period is meant to connote a big government when the last phrase of the sentence is deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Right there.
The role of government is subordinated to the people.
But it doesn't matter to this scholar, it doesn't matter to this feminist who is attempting to claim that the original founding father declaration of independence was designed to establish a big government in order to secure and provide those rights.
And I just I I have to say again that my my guess is at some point this is going to be a subject matter, very serious subject matter, on various cable news network programs.
And you will have scholarly debate on both sides.
And you will have people who will argue persuasively that this woman has a point that there shouldn't be a period in there, and that this founders, they I can hear it now.
They knew these rights are massive.
Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
They'd never spelled, been spelled out before.
They knew a big and compassionate and powerful government was necessary to provide and secure those rights.
I just want to warn you.
So we've got to deal with this.
But in doing it, we win the argument.
In dealing with it, we end the argument, except it's not about winning or losing the argument to the left.
It is about creating a mindset, create some doubt, and to continue their illusion, their effort to convince as many people as possible that a big government is necessary.
It was desired, it was part of what the Founding Fathers originally intentioned, and therefore we should not object to anything that's happening in America now because it's exactly what the founders intended.
Ladies and gentlemen, they tried this, and I don't expect too many of you will remember this.
They tried this with the Second Amendment a long, long time ago.
They tried monkeying around with punctuation and pauses in the second amendment to try to change the meaning of a well-regulated militia comma.
They've that's a sentence fragment.
They don't already know what that means.
And they tried, the left did, to persuade as many people as possible.
A second the second amendment didn't say what it says.
The Supreme Court came and said, yes, it does.
It does say that.
But they tried.
Now, I'll tell you something else.
This assertion here that there should not be a period, and that that changes dramatically the whole sentence.
The whole paragraph, it's it's it's nothing, it's it's completely incorrect grammatically without a period.
If you don't have a period in this paragraph, it is completely ungrammatical, and there is nothing else in the Declaration of Independence that is ungrammatical.
Nothing.
They were painstaking about that.
It's just absurd, but just tireless.
They just cannot stop.
They can't accept what is, they don't like it.
They're doing everything they can to change it in people's minds.
They're just doing everything they can to get as many people as possible to emotionally accept And support the whole idea of a big, powerful, and by definition oppressive, because that's the only kind of big powerful governments there are is oppressive.
Here's uh here's Fred, Prospect Heights, Illinois.
We head back to the phones.
Thank you for waiting, Fred.
Great to have you with us, sir.
Well, I enjoy the program, Rush.
My theory is the people coming in from South America, the young uh children.
Uh we need them because uh we have uh women marrying women, men marrying women, and young men and women get married and not producing enough to keep uh society going.
Wait a minute.
Let's see if I understand what you're saying here.
You're saying that we need this influx of young children from Central America to counter the fact that men are now marrying men and that women are marrying women, and we we need we need people in here to make up for that because of what?
What what what is wrong with men marrying men?
Well, we have to produce young people to keep the country going.
Oh, I get it because men are marrying men and women are marrying women, we're gonna have a population or replacement birthright ah, I like Europe.
I got it.
I got so be c ah, I see where it's not only that uh men and women are getting married and they're not producing enough.
Yeah, it's at contraception, it costs a damn much.
Um actually it's so cheap.
Yeah, you uh Fred, I I must admit I I had I had not seen it this way.
I'm sorry, folks, this Jennifer Schusler woman just I know that that it's absurd, but because I know these people, I I I feel it necessary to shout this.
If if we are to believe this woman, Thomas Jefferson and the others declared independence from England because they felt that England's royal government and monarchy was not powerful enough.
That's what she wants us to believe.
We declared independence because we wanted an even more powerful government than that which we were up against, and that is just absurd.
And what used to be that people like this were free to think what they but they would never be hired anywhere.
Because this is just dumb.
But now this is a tenured position, more than likely.
Have you um have you heard about the the unbeknownst to anybody mood survey that Facebook did on hundreds of thousands of its users?
Facebook messed with almost 700,000 news feeds, and they wanted to see how that would play with the moods and minds of Facebook users.
But they didn't tell any of the Facebook uh user base that they were conducting these tests.
They would alter the news feeds, they would change them in ways that they thought were designed to depress moods and elevate moods.
And then they somehow were able to measure the results.
And once this was learned, there was outrage throughout the tech community.
There was outrage throughout everywhere when people found out that Facebook did this and didn't tell anybody that they were monkeying with the content of the news feeds, all to try to artificially impact the moods of their users.
Now, even the uh the scientific journal that published the results, the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Expressed its misgivings.
Now the UK Guardian had a story about this.
And uh and they said that this official journal admitted look, Facebook doesn't have to adhere to scientific principles.
They're private company and uh these Facebook users have freely given their private information to Facebook.
Facebook hasn't stolen anybody's data.
Facebook hasn't invaded anybody's privacy.
Everybody on Facebook just provides everything Facebook needs to know in order to do their research, and so nobody ought to be having a cow here.
But the rub is that Facebook did not offer anybody the chance to opt out of this.
They were being surveyed, tested, examined, manipulated without their knowledge.
And the tech community is simply livid about this.
And as I read the story, I have to be honest, as I read the story, I was hoping that that one of the people reporting on this would have the same attitude about an all-oppressive government that does the same thing.
Facebook uh has seemed not to understand that the revelation of its research methods is a revelation of how the company thinks about its users, is how one of the criticisms is worded here.
Facebook has seemed not to understand that the revelation of its research, i.e., manipulating the moods of its users, is a revelation of how the company thinks about its users.
And that's bad.
Facebook doesn't care.
Facebook looks at these people and they manipulate it's just very bad.
It's very, very bad.
It's almost as bad as the NSA spying.
So Cheryl Sandberg, who is the chief operating officer, said, We never meant to upset you.
We didn't mean to hurt you.
We didn't mean to upset you.
And then there's this passage from one of these little tech bloggers writing about this.
There's something oddly myopic about a company complaining that government does things in secret while itself considering it is perfectly at will to do the same thing.
And Facebook has been critical of the NSA and spying, and so this little tech blogger finds it hypocritical that Facebook would invade people's privacy and manipulate their moods just like the NSA is spying on people for the collection of data.
Worse, a former Facebook data scientist, Andrew Ledvina, revealed that this research project was similar to many others undertaken by Facebook.
You wonder, therefore, whether it's appropriate for the company to say, oh, come on, this was nothing, stop complaining, which is what Facebook has essentially said.
And then the blogger says, at heart, Facebook is its own sort of monopoly.
If those it's those who use it who've created that, the natural laziness, get this now.
The natural laziness and sheep-like quality of humans and the lack of any realistic competition has meant that Facebook's become the world's marketplace where everybody meets and chats while buying their vegetables and video games.
And they can clearly see that about Facebook and be offended by it and bothered by it.
But they can't see that their own government is guilty of the same thing.
It is a monopoly.
You have the natural laziness and sheep-like quality of humans and no competition.
Government can't be competed against.
Nobody can compete against government.
That's why there's not going to be a private health insurance market after long.
That's why I mean the government has endless resources, endless money.
It can print money.
You cannot beat the government in competition.
They are a monop, but these people don't see it that way.
And in fact, later on in the piece, the little blogger calls for government regulation on Facebook.
And I it just again, folks, I'm looking for any opening, any Opportunity to teach and open people's minds.
So they look at Facebook and they see a private sector monopoly manipulating the moods and treating people like sheep and so forth, and they don't see the same thing in their government.
And these people are not the only ones.
I mean, it's it's it's fact of life.
The government just breaks everything that it tries, and the same people who are victimized by government breaking something, demand that government fix it, and government just keeps growing and gets bigger and becomes more incompetent and messes more things up, and people keep asking the government to fix what it breaks.
But yet in the private sector, one of those examples, and they want to put that private sector business out of business.
No tolerance whatsoever.
We'll be back.
We will continue with much more on the EIB network right after this.
Don't call it.
Back we are to the phones.
This is Gordon in Sugarland, Texas.
Thank you for the call.
Glad you waited, and welcome to the program, sir.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Greetings from the Lone Star State.
Thank you, sir, very much.
Well, uh, I was telling Snerdley that I had a two-way by tea report from Bagram, Afghanistan.
About three weeks ago, my wife was putting together a carrot package to send to our son-in-law, who is a doctor in the U.S. Air Force and who is currently stationed at Bagram.
And while she was putting together the usual things, you know, beef jerky, candy, stuff to read.
I had just recently ordered a case of uh two if by tea.
Oh.
So I decided to slip a bottle into his care package, and I did.
And about a week and a half ago, we've got a report back that he absolutely loved it.
Wow.
Well, that's fabulous.
Just one bottle.
Yeah.
Poor guy.
What's he gonna do when that's over?
Well, I I know, I know.
I kind of put him and myself in a bind right there.
What flavor did you send him?
I sent him the regular sweetened.
Yeah.
And he said he was absolutely fabulous.
Well, I uh look, I I can't that that's that's great that you thought to include two if by tea in the tea package or the in the care package.
I'm I'm really flattered, and I I can't thank you enough.
And I'm really, I'm really happy to hear that he liked it.
You know, it could have gone the other way.
I mean, it's it's it's the best tea in the country, but you never know.
Personal taste is personal taste.
Absolutely.
So I I thought might maybe you'd get a kick out of hearing that.
Well, I do very much.
In fact, I I was in Afghanistan.
I did a I did a troop visit in conjunction with a State Department trip, the U.S. Aid, Agency for International Development.
And we were scheduled to go to Bagram Air Force Base.
And I had a rush to excellence type of appearance that I was going to do there.
And we had a mechanical on the C-130.
We were we were going to go there from Kandahar on our way back to Kabul.
And we had a we had a mechanical, and we had to spend the whole day on the ground in Kandahar, and never got to Bagram.
And I had, I had a I had with me a whole bunch of uh EIB store gear.
I had t-shirts, um, caps, a whole bunch of stuff that I I had to ship under separate cover later, and I never heard whether it got there or not.
I'm assuming that the military took care of it then that it got there.
But I was really, I got I got a military briefing in Kabul shortly after we arrived, and and Bagram was on the on the schedule, and we just we didn't get there because of the there was a it was an engine we took off for Bagram and had to go back to Kandahar.
I was out in the cockpit.
And of course, I was never worried because I never do get worried in an airplane.
Don't know.
No, we didn't come under snipper fire.
We and and we did not have to corkscrew down like Mrs. Clinton did when she landed there.
She she came under snipper fire.
In fact, it is said that that incident where she came under snipper fire may have contributed to the concussion problem.
By the way, Ed Klein, you know, who wrote the book uh Blood Clot, this guy continues to uncover information about about the Clintons and the and the Obamas, and and apparently well I don't I don't want to paraphrase it.
Yes, here it is.
I just happened to come across this here.
And it is again it's fascinating.
President Obama has quietly promised Elizabeth Warren complete support if she runs for president.
This is the fake Indian.
This is the female senator from Massachusetts who uh popularized during her campaign the whole notion, you didn't build debt, you factory owners, you private sector business people, you didn't build debt.
We did that for you.
You couldn't have become the billionaire the millionaire that you are if it hadn't been for us.
We're the ones that made it all possible for you.
You didn't do any and and apparently, you know, publicly Obama has remained noncommittal on the uh 2016 race, but apparently he got an assurance from the from the uh well, the Clintons got an assurance from him that if they would help him in 2012, with his re-election bid that that he would turn around and help Hillary.
And now, according to Klein, there's been sort of a stab in the back here, so much for that promise, at least here's what the deal was.
They're gonna keep quiet about Benghazi in 2012, if Obama would back Hillary in 2016.
And if Bill would help Obama in 2012 and campaign for him and support him, maybe not campaign for support, that that Obama would return the favor and support Hillary.
And now Ed Klein has learned that Obama has quietly promised Elizabeth Warren that she will get all of his support if she runs for president, which is of course a stinging rebuke to Hillary Clinton.
Publicly, Obama's remained noncommittal on the 2016 race, but privately he worries that Hillary Clinton would undo and undermine many of his policies.
And there's also a personal animosity, especially with Bill Clinton that dates from their tough race six years ago.
So, by the way, the little hidden gem in this thing is Obama.
Apparently Ed Klein learning that Obama is very worried about his policies being undone and undermined, and not just by Hillary.
You know, when I when I came across the fact that Obama is gonna stay in Washington, I mean, you've heard they're buying a house, maybe North Carolina, maybe buying a house out in Palm Springs, and maybe the Obama presidential library for social justice, whatever will be in Hawaii.
Very quietly, Obama's it's it's been reported, I think it was the Washington Post that Obama plans to stay in Washington a good deal of the time.
Now, most presidents get out of Dodge after they've served their term or terms in office.
If Obama stays, there's one reason why, and that's to make sure that what he's done here is not undermined by anybody.
Let's assume, take your pick, whatever Republican you want to win.
Let's say that Republican wins, and we got a Republican White House, we have a Republican House, and let's say we even got a Republican Senate.
Just to play with this.
And one of the first things that happens is that the Republicans get together and start trying to chip away at Obamacare and some of these other things.
And guess who's going to be on TV?
Within 10 seconds, Barack Obama, he'll be on TV with the friendly compliant sycophantic media.
And he'll be on TV talking about how this is why He hoped the Democrats had beat the Republicans.
This is why he almost tried to run for a third term, because the last thing in the world we can have is these Republicans coming along and undermining all of the transformational good work that we've done.
And there will be whoever the Republican president is, if somebody, if a Republican wins the White House in 2016, I guarantee you he's going to be harassed daily by Obama and the media.
Do not think otherwise.
It's flag this, July 7th, 2014.
Flag it, then this is not the first time I've said it.
It's going to be unprecedented.
This does not happen.
Former Clinton has gotten as close to it as any former president that in in our lifetimes.
And even he waited a while.
And then even he did it overseas, talking about Bush.
But you wait.
I don't care who even if a Democrat wins and tries to undermine Obama is going to do the same thing, mark my words.
I know a lot of you people don't believe this Elizabeth Warren, but come on, they're trying to talk her into it.
She'd never do it.
I got some audio sound bites coming up.
Ed Klein himself claiming that Valerie Jarrett has been meeting with Elizabeth Warren in secret.
And Valerie Jarrett is the power behind the throne.
So I'll have these two sound bites coming up for you.
Nobody's denying this yet either.
▲
Export Selection