All Episodes
Previous Next
May 27, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:10
May 27, 2015, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi folks and welcome back.
It's uh great to have you here.
It always is.
L. Rushbo, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, and very importantly, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
You can count on it.
We are what we are, we are who we are, and we will always be.
Dependable is what you can bank on.
800-282-2882, the email address Lrushbo at EIBNet.com.
Okay, I haven't even gotten to the stacks of stuff yet.
I mean, I well, not not totally true.
The Clinton Foundation stuff and the FIFA scandal, but I did I that got much more, and I need to get started on it here.
The new Gallup poll out headline, Americans continue to shift left on key moral issues.
Now, before you go off getting depressed about this, let me get you what the reason for this is after we give you the details.
Americans are more likely now than in the early 2000s to find a variety of behaviors morally acceptable, including gay and lesbian relations, having a baby outside of marriage and sex between an unmarried man and woman.
Moral acceptability of many of these issues is now at a record high level.
Message here.
It's a subtle message to the Republican Party.
And that is this.
You better forget about your base.
Those bitter clingers, those social conservatives, you better realize they're not it anymore.
They're not where it's at anymore.
Nobody agrees with them anymore.
Your base is rapidly being eclipsed by a more hip and modern culture, and they are Democrats, and they hate you.
And you had better find a way to get rid of the religious right.
You'd better find a way to get rid of your base because they are killing you.
That's the message of this story.
And it's gonna work with certain establishment Republicans.
They'll cite this story and they'll go talk to their Republican buddies.
And they'll say, see, see, I've been telling you for 15 years abortion's gonna kill us.
You wouldn't listen.
I've been telling you 15 years, all these social issue crap are gonna do us in, and now look at the Gallup poll.
You had better start listening to me.
And this is what's going to be happening in Republican circles, particularly in the Republican establishment in the Northeast.
And that's exactly why this story was done.
I'm convinced is exactly why this poll is taken.
This latest update on Americans' views of the moral acceptability of various issues and behaviors is from Gallup's May 6th through 10 Values and Beliefs Survey.
The upward progression clearly points towards a higher level of acceptance of a number of behaviors.
In fact, the moral acceptability ratings for 10 of the issues measured since the early 2000s are at record highs.
Notice the language here.
Upward progression, higher level record highs.
The attempt here is to convince the reader that we are making great strides forward.
By eliminating the moral code that used to exist.
Yeah, and I would ask, how much better is the country for all of this?
Just how much happier are people?
How much more content?
How how less angst is there?
I don't get the sense that we're living in a country that's uh having a rockin' good time right now.
I'm look, folks, I'm just telling you what I see out there as I travel around and I listen, I watch, I read, I observe.
Much of my life has been observing others.
And I remember, in terms of national mood, much happier times than we live in today.
And if not much happier, certainly more content.
And I remember times where there was much less anger and confrontation and angst.
I know some of this is due to social media giving uh voice to all this.
The argument could be made that all this hate and and the and the sewage that's Twitter has always been there.
It's just that the people that practice it never had the protection of anonymity.
And if they really wanted to spew this hate, they had to go out and say it in front of other people in order for it to be heard and spread.
Now they can go on Twitter or Facebook and make up an identity and say whatever they want about whoever.
I know the argument that it's always been there.
But the point is, even if it was there, it was beneath the surface.
This degradation of our morality has allowed the baser instincts of a whole slew of people to surface and to become defined as normal and something that we must accept.
Now they can they can run around strut and all happy and stuff with their polls on how all of this previously immoral behavior is now wonderfully moral and openly practiced and openly accepted.
They can run around and they can strut and they can spout their happiness, but they can't point to where people are really.
I mean, even the people winning all this are not happy.
Some of the angriest people in the world are people getting married in a gay side.
I mean, the left, my point is the left in winning this fight to degrade the American moral code, doesn't seem to be happy with their victories.
They seem angrier with every victory.
No, Mr. Lumba, you are confusing anger with renewed fit of purpose to keep going and not stopping.
Well, you may have a point there because nothing can apparently make any of you guys happy.
No matter what, I've always said this, no matter what the left gets, no matter what they demand, no matter how much of it they get, they're never happy.
And it's something I have noted my entire life.
And this lack of happiness, this anger, this consternation, whatever you want to call it, I know inspires much of their behavior and their political agenda.
But I think it's gotten to the point where they're incapable of being happy.
And I you know what?
I think one of the reasons, I'll be I'm gonna be very, very bold here, and I may be dead wrong about this.
I may be acknowledging or granting them more awareness and sensitivity than they really have.
But I think in the case of people that voted for Obama because they really loved Obama, because they really believed that Obama was going to put an end to all strife and is going to make the country loved again, and he was going to get rid of politics as usual, and there wasn't going to be any partisanship, and there wasn't going to be any arguing.
And everybody was going to get along.
I mean, there's a lot of people who voted for Obama on that basis.
Well, it's quite understandable that they would be miffed, because none of that's happened.
And yet Obama's victorious.
He wins practically everything he tries for.
And yet everything Obama does falling apart.
American foreign policy is a joke by design, but the American people don't want that to be the case.
Obama does, the American people don't.
Obamacare isn't a lot of happiness.
I mean, the latest stories on Obamacare are the people who finally got insurance now can't afford to use it.
The deductibles are too high.
I have seen a happy country.
I have seen a country in a good mood, and this is not it.
I've lived long enough.
I have experienced enough to know.
So these people can lie to themselves all they want, and they can tell themselves they're winning every day, but I don't see the accompanying happiness.
I don't even see the accompanying satisfaction.
You know what they're most happy about?
It's not what they're gaining.
It's it's right in evidence in this story.
Their real happiness comes from them thinking we are frustrated in defeat.
I think their happiness and their satisfaction is totally encompassed.
Well, maybe not totally, but largely encompassed in the thrill they get at conservatives and Republicans losing.
And if they happen to be Christians, that's even better.
So they're taking their happiness in what they hope is the misery of other people.
Now, I don't think that's a recipe for happiness.
But the left has been selling that for as long as I've been alive.
What do you think class warfare is?
We think tax increases for the riches.
That's designed to stoke anger for the rich and then to make the middle class and the poor somehow think life is better because the richest taxes went up.
They're supposed to take happiness.
They're supposed to be satisfied that their enemies, the rich, had it stuck to them.
Their lives don't change.
They don't have any more money after the richest taxes go up.
So they're not, they're not happier because there's been substantive change in their lives.
They've been conditioned to be happy at the misery of others.
That's not happiness to me.
That's sick.
I think it's destructive, psychologically destructive.
When you're you measure your happiness by how unhappy other people are, how miserable other people are, and that's what this is all about.
Because I just don't see the happiness.
I'll tell you, folks, if if we conservatives were winning the same way the left is winning during these years with Obama, I you know how happy we would be?
I mean, we'd be happy, confident sitting on top of the world, and we'd be thinking we can change anything, persuade everybody of anything, and we'd be riding the wave.
We'd be right.
These people are none of that with their victories.
There's anger and there's consternation and there's angst and there's bitterness.
So they have to come out with stories like this that tell themselves that they're winning and they're destroying the American moral code.
But you can take a look at the country and say, well, where is it better off?
Where is it better off?
I mean, parents are less trusting of their kids' safety today than I can ever remember.
They're less confident that their kids are gonna even do well.
Where is the sign?
Are the signs of all of these Obama and Democrat Party victories?
Where's the happiness that goes along with it?
It simply isn't there.
But again, main purpose of this story, subtle message to the Republican Party, you better abandon your base.
We're winning, we're wiping them out.
Those stodgy old conservative Christians, the moral majority, the Christian coalition, those Victorians, people who want to deny everybody a good time, where we're kicking butt and we're reducing them in number, and you can't win with them anymore.
You had better throw them overboard.
That's the point of this.
That's what the I think the objective purpose of exactly this story is is to further persuade Republicans to abandon their own base, as they've done in immigration.
And in a couple of uh other issues as well.
I've got these two stories here.
One is in the Washington Post and the other is in the political, and they're almost identical.
Supreme Court ruling puts Obama's immigration legacy in jeopardy.
That's the political or the Washington Post.
President Obama's legacy is increasingly in legal jeopardy.
Is this not amazing?
Two wholly different separate news companies have lead stories with almost identical headlines and the same premise.
Sorry, narrative.
And the narrative is that that Hayseed judge in Texas, that Hannon and these three judges at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, who upheld that stupid Hayseed judge in Texas, claiming that Obama's amnesty is unconstitutional, claiming it's illegal.
Don't they know what they're doing?
They're harming Obama's legacy.
No.
What about the Constitution?
What about the possibility that these judges here actually revere the Constitution and remember the oath that they swore to protect it?
And what if all they're doing is defending and protecting the Constitution against a renegade attack that's been mounted by the Obama administration.
But note these news organizations.
Oh, no, they're ringing there.
Oh my God.
Oh God, Obama's legacy.
Oh no, we've worked so hard these six years.
Oh, and these judges can wipe it out.
And the reason is this is going on longer than they ever dreamed.
They thought this judge would be overturned a couple of weeks.
And that amnesty, executive amnesty will already be underway, because Obama's already started granting the work permits.
But now it's looking like this may drag on all through the remainder of his term.
And that is what is going to cloud the legacy.
So, as is always the case, you take an event in the news, and it's all about Obama.
What does it mean for Obama?
What does it mean for the Democrat Party?
What does it mean for Obama and his agenda?
What does it mean for Hillary?
It's never what does it mean for the Constitution?
What does it mean for the country?
What does it mean for Obama?
The last time something like this happened, and this is minor in scope, but Time magazine and Newsweek magazine and U.S. SNOS and World Report all same week, same issue, had Bruce Springsteen on the cover.
This is back in the 70s, as America's Troubadour laureate or some such thing.
And even George Will that week wrote a column about Bruce Springsteen.
I think it was all three mega.
I know it was Newsweek and Time.
And it and it might have been U.S. news, but the same day, same week, same cover, Bruce Springsteen.
And they knew in advance what they were doing.
I was once going to be a cover on Newsweek until Time found out about it.
And then time decided to put me on their cover, but I was nowhere in the story.
But it it aced the Newsweek cover out.
Newsweek said, oh gosh, Times figured out what we're doing.
Okay, sorry, Rush.
It was Howard Feynman.
We've got to bump it.
We got to bump it.
Time has gotten a wind of what we're doing here.
And so time did put me on the cover of some story I had nothing to do with.
And they prevented Newsweek from skyrocketing circulation that week when they pulled the cover on me.
Way, way back.
This goes back in the 90s.
Anyway, you got to take a brief time out here, my friends, and come back and get your phone calls into the mix here, which we'll do before you know it.
Don't go away.
You gotta love this place, Moonshine Creek, North Carolina.
First time we've ever had a call from Moonshine Creek, North Carolina.
It's Jim, and great to have you.
Jim, hello, sir.
Hey, thanks, Rush.
Mega Ditto's from a mind enriched robot.
And uh I like that.
I like that.
I I just wanted to make a couple of points.
Rush, I've been listening to you for gosh, it's I think twenty years, and I just want people to know you don't have a racist bone in your body.
And from what you say to what you do, it shows that people on the left want an open, honest, intelligent dialogue about race.
And you are the only one that does that.
The only one out there.
And number two, if you're really going to look at what is hurting race relations, I want every minority to think that the Democrats and the guilt-ridden liberals, in my opinion, Rush, have treated them and their votes like chattel.
Worse than back when people were owned.
They look at them as ownership, as property, especially their votes, and they buy them with programs.
The last time straight opportunity came to them was from Reagan.
And before that it was Lincoln.
And I'm talking about all minorities.
And number three, Rush, I just want to say that I've been alive a pretty long time.
I've been really blessed.
And I'll tell you what, this is the worst I've seen race relations since the mid-60s.
And I've lived through it.
And this president and his policies and the um uh policies of Congress and the liberals, uh, whatever you want to label them or however you want to call them.
I get it.
Let me put it to you this way.
Let me put let's let's assume that we are a minority group.
Let's uh let's assume you and I are African American, we've been loyal Democrat voters for as long as we've been able to vote, and we thought the election of one of us, Barack Obama, was gonna be the breakout.
That was going the all the promises that we have heard, all of the good intentions that we've been featured with, everything that we dreamed our future would hold was now on the cusp of happening because the country had finally elected an African American president.
And after six years of it, there's more race riots, there's more racial strife, there's more black unemployment, there's more misery, there's more anger.
Would you not be mad too?
Given all these years of promise, you just talked about it, all these years of promise.
Vote for us and we'll give you XYZ.
All these years of loyalty and all these promises, and it just gets worse and worse and worse.
You'd kind of be upset too, wouldn't you?
Yes, I would.
And they're empty promises, and I just it would be beautiful if there could be a paradigm shift, and people would wake up.
The people that talked about you this weekend or on these shows that you referenced, they need to look in the mirror, and instead of throwing out the racial epithets at you, they should look in the mirror and see how what they have pushed and fostered, how that has controlled and kept the government.
Well, that's moved away from the minority.
That would be great, but that's never gonna happen.
Just like the average African American voter is not gonna do anything but blame Republicans for his plight.
Great to have you with us, Rushland Ball behind the golden EIB microphone audio sound bite time.
You know what?
Let's grab number 10.
Grab grab Marco Rubio.
Let me um I'm gonna save James Kleiber.
James Cleburn's almost as bad.
Well, Rubio's not bad.
What James James Kleiburn?
Is it James Clayburn?
Yep.
Former uh head haunch of the congressional black Caucasians in the House of Representatives is out.
I mean, these are veiled threats that he's making to people about you better be careful what you say about our president.
You better be, you better be very careful how you treat this president.
You've been very, very careful how you treat this president when it comes to the Iran deal and a number of other things.
Let's get to Rubio.
This is the Christian broadcasting network, CBN, chief political correspondent David Brody interviewing Marco Rubio late yesterday.
Question Does your deep faith drive public policy decisions on social issues like traditional marriage?
We are at the water's edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech.
Because today we've reached a point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater.
So what's the next step after that?
After they've done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church is hate speech.
And uh that's a real and present danger.
You think Rubio's got a point there?
You better, I'll tell you you you better not sweep this one away, folks.
You better not think this is a little bit over the top.
He is right on the money.
This is exact.
In fact, I would even go further.
I think mainstream Christianity's the target.
And has been for I can't tell you how long.
Um before I was born, it's been Christianity has been the biggest enemy of the American left or any left.
Organized religion in general, but Christianity is the number one enemy of these people.
You notice they've made friends with militant Islam.
The left will not stand for any criticism of militant Islam, right?
You start drawing cartoons of the Prophet, they're the first to jump on your case, right?
Democrats and the left there are out to condemning any criticism of Islam.
They've sidled up.
Why?
Well, Islam has an enemy.
In their mind, their enemy's Christianity.
So there's a commonality there.
And I don't care.
Folks, maybe this is another one of those things you're just not supposed to say, but I'm sorry, it's undeniable.
Okay, okay, tell me I'm wrong.
When I when When I say that the left has formed an accord with Islam, tell me I'm wrong.
Militant Islam says you can't draw pictures of the Prophet.
Democrat Party, you can't draw pictures of the Prophet.
You can't criticize Islam.
And they go out of their way not to.
We can't call them terrorists.
You know the drill.
Christianity, it's open season.
You can say anything, you can do anything, you can mock anything, and Christians are just supposed to take it.
And the reason we're supposed to take it is we're the majority.
Majority has to understand.
Minorities feel offended.
They're going to always be hit on and ripped apart and so forth.
Just got to take it, part of being the majority.
And that is a relevant factor.
I mean, majorities are hated.
Um by the people in the minority.
The problem for us is that the minorities that we're talking about here, most of them are really tiny.
And yet they're winning.
They're bullying their way around.
It's incredible.
And Marco Rubio here is right on the money.
Look at look at Ireland and gay marriage.
What was the final vote there?
Was it 60%?
It's over 60% approving.
Now I have to tell you something.
As best I've been able to ascertain, Ireland just didn't do this on its own.
There was a lot of American money moving the issue.
And there were a lot of American activists over there pushing the issue.
Nevertheless, they won.
They made it happen.
And the Pope, I don't think.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
I don't think the Pope said anything about it.
Well, let me tell you where's next, then.
Italy is going to be next by design and on purpose.
Gay marriage forces will target Italy.
And by targeting Italy, they will target Rome.
And they'll also go to Milan, a fashion central is already the way paved there, maybe a little bit to Florence.
Might even mess with Venice, but certainly Rome and the Vatican.
Marco Rubio, Christianity facing a real and present danger in the U.S. due to a growing acceptance for gay marriage.
It's not just gay marriage, by the way.
It goes back to this Gallup poll celebrating the fall of morality, celebrating the fall of conventional morality.
It's not just gay marriage.
There's all kinds of things that constitute the fall of age-old morality, which the left has targeted as long as I've been around.
So Rubio said, We're at the water's edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech.
Because today we've reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a hobophobin a hater.
You will support it.
And not only will you support it, you will embrace it and you will love it.
It's their own version of Sharia, if you want to know what Sharia is like.
Just like with Obamacare, you will participate in Obamacare, and you will like it, and you will promote it, and you will not criticize it.
You will support gay marriage.
You will promote it.
You will love it, and you will accept it.
Anything less, and you will be attacked.
Rubio said the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church is hate speech.
And that's a real and present danger.
Now he said earlier this year, also in an interview with a Christian broadcast network, that it's ridiculous and absurd to believe that there's a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
Fifty-eight percent of Americans support same-sex marriage, according to a Quinnipiac University poll earlier this year.
59% of Republicans are opposed to it.
Companion Story.
What is this?
Oh, the Pope did weigh in.
Oh, I'm sorry, I was just not the Pope.
Well, okay, the Pope hasn't weighed in.
I I said something earlier today.
I got a note from somebody about this about the next target area for the militant gay marriage crowd being Italy.
And Pope's gonna have to speak up, and I said, be very I stuttered and I stumbled.
Do I really want to tell them what I really think about?
I don't be surprised if this Pope eventually comes out and supports it as part of the global warming agenda.
That's a different Pope here.
He surprises you issue to issue.
Anyway, from the UK Guardian, the headline, Vatican says Ireland gay marriage vote, defeat for humanity.
Vatican diplomat scene as second only to the Pope insists that Saturday's referendum result shows the church must strengthen its commitment to evangelization.
A senior Vatican official has attacked the legalization of gay marriage in Ireland, a referendum that overwhelmingly backed marriage equality last weekend was a defeat for humanity, he claimed.
You know, what is wrong with that?
D does somebody do you people on the left really think that whatever number of thousands of years ago, some rich fat white guy sat around and defined marriage, specifically to exclude homosexuals just because he hated them and wanted to discriminate against them.
And there has been this ever since a quest for marriage equality, is that what you really think?
Marriage equality.
Marriage has a definition, or it did.
Words mean things.
Marriage is a union of a man and a woman.
Pure and simple.
That's what it is.
Now, if you're gonna allow people same sex to get married, you better come up with a different term because that's not what marriage is if words mean things.
And words do mean things.
And if you're gonna change the definition of marriage, then you better be open-minded and permit any change under the umbrella to happen.
If marriage is no longer the marriage of a man and a woman, a union of a man and a woman, then what is it?
Well, Nither Limbaugh, if the marriage is now a union of a man or a woman, or it can be a union of a woman and a woman, or a union of a man and a man.
Oh, okay.
How about this?
How about marriage can be the union of two men and one woman?
Well, no.
Well, why not?
You've blown the definition up already.
Why can't it be whatever anybody wants to do?
As long as they love somebody.
I mean, words mean things.
Institutions are institutions for reason.
They're not designed by a bunch of people who hope to discriminate against people.
The roots of marriage are rooted in decency and goodness and love and child rearing and all of these things that are supposedly to aid society in remaining cohesive and to propagate the race.
For a whole host of reasons that are important, including bloodlines and everything else.
But once you blow that up, it isn't marriage.
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
Look it up anywhere.
And this whole notion of marriage equality, as though the designers of marriage did so purposely to discriminate.
There wasn't any hate.
It wasn't as though people devised a uh uh institution that specifically and for that reason denied access by others.
It's not what the purpose of it was.
You know, you people on the left, not everything that happens has had you in the crosshairs.
Frankly, you haven't been on that many people's minds through the years.
We haven't created all these traditions and institutions to exclude you.
It's always been for other reasons that are far loftier.
they come along and claim that it's a discriminatory institution, rooted in hated, uh hate hatred and bigotry and inequality and so forth.
And that's how you get the young people to support it.
I mean, young people, of course, embrace the notion of equality and fairness and sameness.
And if you go tell these people that just don't have enough years lived in order to have sufficient experience, if you go portray marriage as something that discriminates, well, they don't want to be a part of anything that discriminates because that's not fair, that's not nice, and that's how they've done it.
But in the process, they've blown up the definition of a word, and now it can mean anything anybody wants it to mean if they're willing to make a cause out of it.
And it's beginning to happen.
Predictably so.
Maybe it's happened and I just missed it, but has there been an official redefinition of the term that now specifies that marriage is either the union of a man and a woman or the union of a man and a man, or the union of a woman and a woman?
Has that has that been codified somewhere?
No, what's happened is marriage is not just the union of a man and a woman, and the reason it isn't is because it's unfair and it's discriminatory and it's unequal.
And all of that is irrelevant to marriage and why it exists and how it came to be and what its purpose is.
But you wouldn't know that if you're a young millennial, and you've grown up surrounded by never-ending assaults on how that's unfair and that's discriminatory, and that's inequality, and that's in and you join the quest to make everything the same.
Everybody the same, everything equal, and you know, bye-bye individuality, and everything that comes with it.
So anyway, Vatican says Ireland gay marriage vote defeat for humanity, but Pope didn't say it.
was the biggest diplomat, Vatican diplomat, senior Vatican official.
And it was Cardinal Pietro Parolin.
Maybe it's Peroline.
I was deeply saddened by the result.
The church must take account of this reality, but in a sense that it must strengthen its commitment to evangelization.
I think that you cannot just talk of a defeat for Christian principles, but of a defeat for humanity.
And up next, after the break, leftists push Italy to follow Ireland on same-sex marriage.
And this is it's a direct assault on Catholic Church.
Mark my words, it's next.
Here is the Oxford, the old Oxford English dictionary.
I should say new definition of marriage.
Listen to this.
This pathetic.
Classic but pathetic.
Definition of marriage in the new Oxford English Dictionary.
Quote, the condition of being a husband or wife.
Marriage is now a condition.
It's a disease, it's a it's an assignment.
It's the condition of being husband or wife, the relation between persons married to each other.
Matrimony.
The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.
That's what counts.
That's the money quote in his stupid definition.
The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.
I wonder if you go back and get a dictionary ten years ago, you look at the definition of marriage, and what you'd find, and it wouldn't have any of this gibberish in it.
The condition of being a husband or wife.
The relation between persons married to each other.
That's what marriage is, the relation between people married to each other.
I didn't think you could put the word in the definition.
Okay, we're trying to define marriage.
So how do you define marriage by using the word married?
That doesn't help anybody to understand it.
And then matrimony.
Matrimony is another acceptable definition of marriage.
That would not help the people in Rio Linda to know what it is.
Nope, you have to get down to the term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.
How does that even marriage?
Long-term relationships between partners of the same sex?
Why can't you just take the old definition of marriage that used to be what it was, defining a relationship, matrimony between a man and a woman, and just say it's a same thing for two men or two women.
Why why obfuscate?
Why all this dancing around here?
I gotta take a break.
Just saw the clock.
Sorry, folks.
Okay, folks, don't go anywhere because we got I mean, we're stacked.
We're still loaded here for our final busy broadcast hour in a Rush Limbaugh program and EIB network.
▲
Export Selection