All Episodes
Previous Next
April 29, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:37
April 29, 2015, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
What's that?
Oh, of course there's more going on out there than just Baltimore.
Exactly right.
We're not going to get sidetracked here.
We never do get sidetracked, the EIB.
Come on, you know this now.
They don't get anything past us here.
Just hang in there, be tough, folks.
There's a reason the program is three hours every day.
We've already got one down two to go, starting on the second now.
Great to have you with us.
If you want to call, be on the program, just dial 800-282-2882 in the email address.
Lrushmore at EIBNet.com.
Oral arguments, same-sex marriage, Supreme Court yesterday.
Some uh funny and interesting aspects, salient points coming up.
First, a couple of other things.
Are you aware of the controversy Budweiser has found itself in?
I thought you would know your big beer drinker in there as a sports guy.
All you drink Miller Light.
But you still, okay, all right, that makes sense.
Bud Light, we're talking about here, has a new tagline.
Just getting they're getting destroyed from the sewer that is Twitter.
By the way.
Did you see what happened to Twitter?
Somebody leaked the financial report for the quarter that Twitter was going to report to Wall Street, like all major corporations do.
And the leak was that Twitter, the bottom fell out of Twitter in terms of its value.
The uh the two co-founders of Twitter lost a combined $750 million, and maybe $750 million each.
The bottom has fallen out of the stock price, essentially at Twitter, and it's on the basis of sales.
It's not, it's not on the basis of popularity.
I mean, people are still using Twitter as much as ever, maybe even more.
They're having trouble monetizing it.
Which in a way doesn't surprise me.
Some of Twitter is fun and interesting, obviously, but there is a couple of sewers, rivers of sewage that come out of Twitter.
People are popular there, and they're they're uh they're having a dramatic effect on uh on our culture.
It's uh it's one aspect you just wish you could wave a magic wine and maybe well ignore what comes out of that sewer of filth from that.
It's a small number of people, too, that uh are responsible for making themselves look like they are tens of thousands of people.
It's an amazing trick that they have pulled off.
But anyway, uh Twitter is just all a Twitter over Bud Light.
Because they have a new tagline that people say promotes rape.
Here's what the tagline is.
Bud Light, the perfect beer for removing no from your vocabulary for the night.
And here comes the Twitter verse, all outraged.
They're saying that Bud Light is promoting the rape culture in this country.
There is no rape culture in America, number one.
It's a myth.
Like so much of liberalism.
So much of the so many of the allegations they make and the assertions, it's all dribble.
There is no rape culture.
We have people that rape, yeah, there's no rape culture.
We have bad actors in virtually every aspect of life, but to call it a rape culture is a concoction of the left that once again is is done so as to demand even more liberalism in society and more limits on freedom and more guilt by association,
such as that Rolling Stone story, University of Virginia big stories, rapist running loose at the fraternities at UVA turned out, not a shred of truth to it.
And the left's response, well, it doesn't matter.
That story might not have been right, but it's still happening.
And so this story was good because it raised everybody's awareness.
And that's what we as journalists are here to do to raise awareness.
No, you're not.
Journalism is not about raising awareness.
Journalism is about telling people what happened when they weren't there to see it themselves.
That's all it is.
But now it's become the vehicle for moving the agenda of The Democrat Party raising awareness.
The perfect beer for removing no from your vocabulary tonight.
The response to this was so angry and so outraged that Bud Light has apologized.
And they're going to get rid of it.
Image was first posted on Reddit Monday night by a user and then picked up by the another website called a consumerist.
And by yesterday afternoon it started to make waves on social media for the company's apparent tone deafness when it comes to the role alcohol plays in rape culture.
This is part of this Buzzfeed writing this story.
So there's a rape culture just like there's global warming when there isn't.
Just like there's climate change man-made when there isn't.
Rape culture.
Yes, it's just assumed we got a phony story, a fake story asserting rape culture, and it's automatic.
Now there's a rape culture.
And Bud Light was playing right into it with this tagline.
The perfect beer for removing no from your vocabulary for the night.
Now what must you what must you think?
What must be your baseline of knowledge to read that tagline and assume that the company is promoting rape?
Who in their right mind would think that's what Bud Light is trying to do?
Is promote rape and get away with it.
And only due to the villigence of the social warriors on social media was Bud Light caught and humiliated and made to properly apologize.
And they publish a couple of tweets here from the aggrieved Twitterati, expressing their anger and outrage.
In a statement to BuzzFeed News, the vice president of Bud Light, Alexander Lambrecht, said the message was one of a hundred and forty different taglines on the bottles.
And he said, Yeah, yeah, yeah, that kind of missed the mark, and uh we regret it.
This is the Bud Light Up for Whatever campaign, now in its second year, has inspired millions of consumers to engage with our brand in a positive and lighthearted way.
In this spirit, we created more than 140 different scroll messages intended to encourage spontaneous fun.
But it's clear that this message missed the mark, and we at Bud Light regret it.
We would never condone disrespectful or irresponsible beer.
Of course not.
But that's what they were accused of doing.
The perfect beer for removing no from your vocabulary for the night.
I mean, I can think of a lot of things that are not rape that that might have to do with.
I mean, I'm not saying they're good, but you might say no to not having a beer.
You might say no to not going out.
You might say no to uh not studying or studying whatever, whatever.
Now look at what the Twitter verse focuses right in on.
Get this.
This is from the LA Times.
There's an island, Santa Cantalina Island.
It's about it's pretty big, 22 miles south southwest of downtown Los Angeles.
For decades, researchers have debated whether Santa Catalina is sinking or rising.
For decades, folks, which implies that this is long before all of this attention to global warming.
Now, there is a new study that makes the case that the island of Santa Catalina is sinking.
We are certain that it is sinking, albeit very slowly.
Okay, are you panicked yet?
You live in uh Southern California, California, and all maybe take trips, a lot of bed and breakfast locales.
Not too many people live there, about 4,000 people.
But it's a tourist destination.
It used to be just a rock.
Do you know who uh developed it for tourism?
William Wrigley, way back in 1922, the chewing gum magnate, turned it into a tourist destination, and it serves that role with varying degrees of hotels and marinas and this kind of Thing.
And there has been concern for decades over whether or not it's sinking.
So now Stanford researchers say that new underwater imaging suggests that Catalina Island could be completely.
Are you f are you worried yet?
Are you getting panic?
Do you perhaps go there a lot?
Do you maybe even live there?
The EIB network can't be heard on Santa Cantalina Island.
The LA Times has a story, your island is thinking.
Stanford has proven it.
Are you panicked?
Are you worried yet?
Here's the next line.
The Stanford researcher says that new underwater imaging suggests Catalina could be completely submerged in three million years.
Although that remains in dispute, it says.
Seriously, are you kidding me?
We get a news story about Santa Catalina Island that might be sinking, and if it is, it might be totally submerged in three million years, and that is a news story.
For what purpose?
Three million years.
Do you realize the global warming crowd doesn't think we're gonna make it for three million more years?
Stephen Hawking and the boys say we better colonize an asteroid or the moon or we're finished.
Three million years and it makes the news, and they can't even say it conclusively.
How absurd the whole point of this, obviously, is to promote the meme that the sea levels are rising.
What the story goes on to say is that people have been studying this for almost the whole century and last.
The imaging showed evidence of ancient beaches that the researchers said have sunk below the ocean's waves.
The images also showed a large underwater landslide that occurred about 500,000 years ago.
No!
Really?
Landslide 500,000 years?
Oh my god, it's still there?
How is this possible?
Oh my god, what are we gonna do?
It's gonna sink in three million years.
Oh no!
Unbelievable.
Simply unbelievable.
Samuel Alito, a justice, United States Supreme Court during oral arguments, had a question yesterday.
He said, Why not let four lawyers marry one another?
This did not sit well with the same-sex marriage crowd.
If we're gonna change the definition, he said, if we're gonna change the definition, why not let four lawyers marry one another?
It's fascinating, it's almost identical to a question I have.
I'm not accusing anything, I'm thinking like minds think alike.
Once you change the definition of marriage, where does it stop?
It doesn't just stop with people of the same sex getting married.
People in UK want to marry their dogs, and everybody's saying, well, it's okay, we've changed the definition.
In the same sex married crowd.
No, no, no, no, no.
You can't.
Why not?
You're the ones that wanted the definition changed.
Where does it end?
National Review Online has an editorial about this, and they make a really good point about this.
The old view of marriage contrasted with the new view of marriage.
An older view of marriage has steadily been losing ground to the newer one, and that process began long before the debate over same-sex couples.
On the older understanding of marriage, society and to a lesser extent the government needed to shape sexual behaviors, specifically the type of sexual behavior that often gives rise to children in order to promote the well-being of those children.
That was for the longest time, millennia.
An understanding in the old view of marriage that couples and government to a certain extent needed to shape sexual behavior to promote the well-being of children.
In other words, marriage in the older view was always about the long term.
Marriage was about children and raising them properly.
It also had a role in defining sexuality and sexual behavior.
That old view is now called bigotry by the people who hold a new and different view of marriage.
The new understanding of marriage says that it's primarily an emotional union of adults with an incidental connection to procreation and kids.
The old version, the old view of marriage held that it was a long-term institution for the express purpose of creating families, holding them together, raising children, promoting the culture, keeping it solid and together.
The new version of marriage is it's just something of the moment to satisfy the of the moment desires and emotional connection of two people in the moment.
That it has nothing to do with procreation or children.
And obviously, I mean, there's certain element of that can't be denied.
National Review Online says we think the older view is not only unbigoted, but we think it's rationally superior to the newer view.
Supporters of the older view of marriage have often said that it offers a sure ground for resisting polygamy, while the newer view of marriage does not offer that resistance.
But perhaps the more telling point is that the newer view of marriage does not offer any strong rationale for having a social institution of marriage in the first place, let alone a government-backed one.
The newer view of marriage is it's just something that people in the moment want to do because it's convenient or related to benefits or what have you, but that there is no institutional long-term value associated with it.
And the National Review editors say that the court should look at it in that light and then understand that it really isn't a matter for the court, because the court is about the Constitution, and the Constitution doesn't say a word about this.
The Constitution neither commands states to adopt one of these two understandings of marriage, nor forbids them to.
Quick time out, back with much more after this.
Don't go away.
You know what?
I think we ought to make it legal to marry the government.
it.
In fact, you could make the case that uh untold numbers of women already have.
And can you imagine the divorce settlement?
You marry the government and you file for irreconcilable differences, and you want half.
Here's uh Anthony Kennedy.
Oral arguments on the constitutionality of gay marriage.
Here's what he had to say about marriage defined as between one man and one woman.
This definition has been with us for millennia.
And it's very difficult for the court to say, oh, well, we we know better.
That little soundbite has the left fixated.
They are panicked, they are worried.
Justice Kennedy, of course, to them is the only member of the court who counts.
He's the swing vote.
He's seemingly the justice that never has his mind made up beforehand.
The other four libs, the other four conservatives, supposedly already locked in, Justice Kennedy, and when he comes out and says, Well, you know, marriage has had a definition for millennia, for that's thousands of years for those of you in Rio Linda.
And for us at the court to come along and say that we know better, I don't get that.
To which the same-sex marriage crowd was that's not what you're being asked to decide.
You're being asked to agree that this millennia old definition is bigoted and biased and discriminatory.
To which Justice Kennedy could say, so you want me to find that what has existed in nature for thousands of years is wrong, to which the same-sex marriage crowd was absolutely.
here is Anthony Kennedy again after he decided He needed to give the left something because he knew that the previous bite we just played would scare them.
You had some premise that only opposite sex couples can have a bonding with the child.
That was a very interesting point, but it's just a wrong premise.
Just a wrong premise.
That's it's not true that only opposite sex couples can have a bonding with a kid.
That's just a wrong premise.
And that's the heterosexual marriage lawyer swallowing.
So Justice Kennedy did what he does.
He throws out morsels and tidbits to tease both sides in the case and leave them hanging.
Here is the chief, John Roberts during oral arguments.
If Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can't.
Why isn't that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?
Uh what was that uh meaning do that money?
If Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, so you have two.
Oh, I get it.
If Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can't.
Why isn't that a straightforward question of sexual?
See, that's that's that uh that totally ignores Justice Kennedy's question about nature and millennia and definitions and so forth.
But I have to think even these people uh they will say things to keep the wolves at bay.
The bottom line is we have no idea what's gonna happen on this, except we probably do.
Yeah, just one more thing here before we go back to the phone.
Oh, two things, actually.
I just want to tell you what upcoming Mrs. Clinton and some bites of her speech this morning on Baltimore and what we need to do, and what she essentially did is to say that we need to dismantle the policies, policing policies put in place by her husband.
Back in the 90s.
Now, the media is not characterizing that way, of course.
I, El Rushbo am, but you will hear as uh we we get to that.
One other thing about gay marriage, and this I doubt that anybody will remember, but we predicted this.
National Review as well, Obama's lawyer yesterday at the Supreme Court said religious institutions may lose their tax exempt status if the court rules for gay marriage.
That's what the regime's lawyer argued yesterday.
Religious institutions could be at risk of losing their tax exempt status due to their beliefs about marriage if the Supreme Court holds that gay couples have a constitutional right to wed.
Now, of course, there is no such constitutional right, but that's never stopped the court finding one.
And uh Obama's attorney acknowledged this to the justices yesterday.
And I'm sure he thought it'd be a selling point.
I'm sure Obama's lawyer is out there trying to sell the whole concept of gay marriage because he thinks it would be good for churches to lose their tax exempt status.
Now that would not go over well with black community churches.
But they would be subjected to the same thing.
Of course, it'd be up to the IRS and the Democrat Party to look the other way the way they do with Al Sharpton.
Solicitor General Donald Verilli says certainly going to be an issue, uh, justices.
Justice Alito asked if the schools that support the traditional definition of marriage would have to be treated like schools that once opposed interracial marriages.
I don't deny that.
Olido was continuing a line of questioning started by the chief, John Roberts.
Would a religious school that has married housing be required to afford such housing and offer it to same-sex couples.
Varilli tried to defer to the states on that point, but the chief pressed him about the significance of the court's ruling as it might pertain to federal law.
He said there is no federal law now generally banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, And that's where those issues are going to have to be worked out.
Why talk about housing discrimination?
Churches are going to lose their tax exempt status if they refuse to perform same-sex weddings.
If the if the court finds a constitutional right for same-sex marriage, then every church that refuses to perform such weddings is going to lose their tax exempt status.
And that's going to eliminate many of them.
They will not be able to stay, quote unquote, in business, open without their tax exempt status.
And of course, this is the ultimate goal, folks.
This is the ultimate goal of this.
Yes, it's about gay marriage, but it's about so much more.
It's about chipping away at the time honored customs and traditions and institutions that have been in place for millennia, not just since the founding of the country.
And this is what it's one of these unspoken things that they are so hoping for.
They would love to be able, via the power of a Supreme Court ruling to shut down half the churches in America.
I shudder to think of the party the left would throw that night.
And that did come up yesterday during the oral arguments.
Okay, back to the phones.
To Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Hi, Patrick, I'm glad you waited.
It's your turn, you're up next.
Hey, Rosh.
Um, this is what I'd like to see the Supreme Court do, and I'd like to get your thoughts on it.
I would like them to see, maybe just throw out the definition of marriage.
Say the government is no longer going to recognize marriage.
We're only going to recognize civil unions between consenting adults of legal age and right mind.
And marriage will now be a function of religion, and anything legally that's defined as a marriage for inheritance reasons, and you know, I'm not a lawyer, but it will now be defined as a civil union.
That way we prevent the gay agenda from forcing their their homosexuality on our religion and on our family, and at the same time, we'll prevent people with religious views from from pushing their religious views on us.
It'll be up to the individual and their religion and their other significant other to decide what's a proper marriage.
You do that with your religion, but then government just recognizes civil unions and civil unions only.
They will not recognize marriage or what happens.
Well, the chances of that are slim and none.
And as a saying goes slim, just left town.
The court, that's not even before the court, the definition of civil unions.
That what you're describing is something that should be put before the people for a vote in the democratic process.
The court can't take this case.
This is simply a discrimination case.
Uh sexual same-sex discrimination and whether or not the Constitution prohibits same-sex marriage.
They can't, I mean, they could, the court's been writing law ever since they've been the court, but the the the the likelihood that they're going to get them there and say, you know what we're going to do?
We're going to totally throw out definition of marriage exists, and we're going to call everything that doesn't happen to church a civil union.
That's you can't really expect that's going to happen here.
No, I don't think it's it may, I think you're right.
It's a very slim chance it would happen, and like you said, it's not that's not really what's before the court.
But I guess I'd like to get your thoughts personally.
I mean, do you think that would be a good solution to this problem?
And then that way gay agenda can have their gay marriage and and not force it on the rest of us, and then we can have our you know, Christianity religion marriages and go ahead.
That's not gonna satisfy uh the there's a the when you're talking about you as you describe it, the uh the homosexual movement and gay marriages.
There's all kinds of people involved in this.
You have uh you have apolitical gay people who do want to get married.
And you don't know who they are, they're not on the front lines of anything, they just want to get married, but they'll follow if the law says they can't, they can't, they won't.
And they'll just live with it, just like there are people all over society who want things, but the law says they can't do it, so they don't.
Then you have other elements, which are political activists.
The political activists are driving this.
And as such, it isn't about what you think it's about.
It's not really about gay marriage.
It's about the impact of that on society and on culture.
And the so therefore, if you tell the gay activists, I mean the politically leftist donor class, the activists in this movement, that, hey, okay, if you want to get married, we'll find here you get married, you can do everything that marriage has, but we're not going to call it that because marriage is going to be a religious institution in the church.
We're going to call what you want to do civil union, but it's going to contain every element that you want.
They'll reject it.
Because the activists, you're like activists in any issue, want upheaval.
There's no desire to come up with a compromise, peaceful coexistence solution here where everybody's happy ever after.
That's not the objective here for the for the activists in this.
And they're the ones that are moving it.
They are the ones that are behind it, providing the money for it.
They are the ones agitating in the culture for it.
And what percentage they are of the gay population, I wouldn't know.
You just have to take a wild guess.
I wouldn't even think it's a majority.
But it doesn't matter.
As long as they've co-opted the attention of the media and the media has become their champion, it doesn't matter how few they are.
All that matters is the media believes in their cause, wants their cause, and is going to do everything they can to make it happen.
And believe me, the cause is to redefine what marriage is.
Everything else is a distraction to make you look the other way.
And an example is what the regime's lawyer said during oral arguments yesterday, pointing out that if the court finds that there has been discrimination against gays, and that's been against the law, and going forward, gay marriage is now constitutional.
Well, that means that churches are going to have to provide gay marriage ceremonies.
They're going to have to perform them if they want to keep their tax exempt status.
It becomes federal law, and therefore they have to keep their tax.
That's what this is.
That's one of the side issues that nobody talks about.
is really all about.
Because what the hope is among the activist community is that the churches will refuse to perform, that they will not violate their religious tenets, and the government will eliminate their tax-exempt status, which means they'll have to close.
As far as the activists are concerned, this is uh this is a war on Christianity.
Just as it was obvious that's what this was in Indiana, and has been all over the country.
It's it's a war on organized religion because organized religion stands in the way.
So it has to be chipped away, it has to be discredited, and if possible, even destroyed.
And that's from the activist standpoint, that's that's the objective here.
So you you can't come up with an alternative to uh to their stated purpose in their cause that will make them happy because that's not what is really uh at at issue here.
You got to take a brief time out, back with much more after this.
Don't go away.
Okay, so let's let's play a little game here, folks.
The people on Twitter.
I don't actually go there.
I have spies that report to me on this.
There's certain things I just will not lower myself to do.
And I'm being told here that, you know, after Justice Kennedy said, uh, this definition's been with us for millennia.
Very difficult for the court to say, oh, yeah, well, we know better.
People on Twitter are posting things like, Dear Justice Kennedy practices behaviors around for millennia doesn't make them right, to wit, slavery, murder, abuse.
See how this works?
Slavery, murder, abuse, equated with marriage.
Marriage is no different than anything else that's been going on for thousands of years.
Murder, discrimination, Slavery, abuse.
Those weren't right.
Marriage just because it's been around thousands of years.
What kind of moral equivalents must you descend to in order to include marriage in a list of examples of behavior for the millennia that includes slavery, murder, and abuse?
The feminazis are the closest I could think that might do that.
And they have made their case that marriage is constricting for women that way.
You know it as well as I do.
Now let's go back to Justice uh Justice Roberts, who posed this question, and of course the uh the same-sex marriage gay activists are just all excited about this.
This is what he said.
If Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can't.
Why isn't that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?
Okay, fine.
Well, how about this?
If Bob loves Tom's sister, and if Tom loves his sister, isn't it just discrimination that Tom can't marry a sister?
I mean, why could Bob marry a sister?
Or why can Bob marry Tom's sister, but Tom can't marry a sister?
I mean, it's been that way for thousands of years.
That two people in the same family can't marry each other.
But that doesn't make it right.
So if Bob loves Tom's sister, and Tom loves his own sister, and Bob can marry Tom's sister, but Tom can't marry his own sister, then isn't that discrimination?
If Mary loves her daughter, and John loves his daughter.
Isn't it just sex discrimination that the woman always gets the child in a divorce?
Isn't it?
Why is it all where is it written that the child always goes with the mother, except in the most hardened of cases.
Is that not sex discrimination?
Mary loves her daughter.
John loves the same daughter.
But Mary gets the kid in a divorce.
You know, I think it's just it's incredible to uh take these arguments that people make and turn them around just a little bit to illustrate the sophistry that's contained in them.
But all of this misses the point about what's before the court.
What's before the court is the constitutionality of this.
And folks, the Constitution doesn't say anything about it.
And Justice Kennedy's first comment is probably closer to poignant than anything else.
What we are gonna sit here, the nine of us on this court, and say that a definition that's been around for millennia, a millennia, is uh wrong and that we know better.
Justice Kennedy, I mean he may not know it, but he has just with that little seven-second statement.
I that he has he has uh more poignantly, saliently, put the scope of this court in proper perspective than something anything I've heard recently.
This is exactly right.
Anyway, uh do I have time?
Let me grab another call.
I don't want to go on to Loretta Lynch running.
I frankly don't care about her today.
I should, I know, and I may get to her in the next hour, but I want to go to Dylan in uh Appalachian, New York.
I'm glad you waited.
I really appreciate it.
Welcome to EIB Network.
Hello.
Oh, it's 12 years old.
I'm sorry, I just noticed he's 12.
Dylan, how are you, sir?
Good.
How are you?
Very well, thank you.
I'm glad you called.
Now, my question is, if are you going to make another book?
And if so, what will it be about?
Uh you mean uh rush revere time travel adventures with exceptional Americans book?
Yes.
Have you read the ones that are out there now?
Yes.
Do you like them?
Yes, I love them.
I figured you did since you're asking if there's going to be a fourth.
Well, here's the answer to your question.
Yes, there will be a fourth rush revere, time travel adventures with exceptional Americans book.
We are at this moment feverishly writing it, Dylan.
We uh we're at various stages.
It takes a takes a lot to assemble these books because as if you know, you've read them, there's quite a lot of ingredients.
Um there's the history to make sure it's accurate and correct.
There's the writing it for the age, people your age group, there are the illustrations and whatever graphics we put into it.
Um and it'll be out sometime this year.
I I'm not going to tell you yet what it's about, but there will be a pre-announcement uh shortly before the book goes on sale for pre-order, where we will give you a little tease about what this book is about.
I'll just I'll I'll just sorry, button stuck, I'll just tell you one little thing.
And that is that you might, in this book, I can't commit to anything yet, Dylan, because of course we haven't begun the all-important editing process.
And proper editing is what you take out, not what you add.
Any great artist or artiste will tell you that.
But you might learn uh everything you need to know about the Star Spangled Banner.
Be back after this.
Don't go away.
Okay, Hillary Clinton uh came out of a hovel today and made some remarks about our fractured country, our broken culture, and our derang no, our our our uh broken society, uh, as is uh typified by Baltimore, and what needs to be done to fix it.
▲
Export Selection