All Episodes
Previous Next
June 26, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:13
June 26, 2015, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Why would well maybe you haven't seen the story.
Let me just read the headline.
Where's this from?
The UK Telegraph.
Okay, here's the headline.
Player.
It's a story about soccer, okay.
Player who stuck finger in Cavani's anus could be let go by embarrassed team.
Really?
Embarrassed?
What's there to be embarrassed about?
Live from the Southern Command in Sunny, South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
All right, here's what happened.
There's a soccer game out there in the Copa America.
There's some kind of a tournament out there, Copa America.
And the team from Chile is playing the team from Uruguay.
And a Chilean player, and there's a photo of it here.
Chilean player stuck his finger in the anus of Edmundson Cavani, another player.
And he will now, the player who did the sticking, will now miss the rest of the tournament and could be sold by his embarrassed team.
The incident which took place during Chile's match against Uruguay saw Gonzalo Dara sticking his finger into Cavani's buttom.
A bottom, sorry, bottom before falling theatrically to the ground when Uruguayan slapped him in retaliation.
Cavani was sent off for a second yellow card after the incident.
Chile won the match.
It's a real story here, folks.
It's a real story.
There's a picture of it here.
And the guy who's standing there being poked is laughing.
But I'm thinking, what's the big deal?
I don't I don't understand why.
I mean, this after all, we're talking about soccer.
We're talking about.
I don't know.
Nobody got a concussion on this.
Uh there weren't any inflated balls.
Well, that we know of.
Uh I I greetings and welcome back, my friends.
It's great to have you.
This is Rush Limbaugh, our final big broadcast hour of Open Line Friday, 800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program.
Now I mentioned right before the break at the top of the hour.
I had a brief conversation last night with a prominent Republican.
Prominent elected Republican.
Doesn't take your pick.
It doesn't matter who.
And the subject what, well, actually, the subject was me.
Somebody had told this prominent Republican that I had impugned him on the program yesterday.
And he was writing me to explain, and he was kind of snarky.
And I wrote him back, I said, whoever's telling you this stuff is lying to your face.
Here's what happened.
Guy writes back and says, you know what?
Considering the source, okay, thank you.
I appreciate your telling me.
But I said, doesn't matter.
You still believed it.
You believed that I said those things.
When I didn't say those things, I'm not gonna say what it is, folks.
It doesn't matter.
The specifics don't matter.
The point is this guy was lied to about me.
He believed it, but he did send me a snarky note, giving me the chance, wait, wait, what?
That's not what I said.
Anyway, that's not the point.
I guess a sub-point was that somebody was trying to impugn me to this prominent Republican and failed, for all I know, was a radio consultant.
The next thing that happened was we started talking about Supreme Court decision on Obamacare.
And I tried to explain, I was trying, I was trying to be magnanimous, actually.
I said, Do you know what?
Maybe this guy that was in uh misinforming you about me.
You know, I said, I said, Mr. Proment Republican, everybody's devastated by this Obamacare ruling.
I mean, even though we suspected it, everybody's just devastated.
Because no matter what, we keep we just keep losing.
Mr. elected Republican, we just keep losing.
And you know, he said to me, he said, Well, that's right, elections have consequences.
And I let it drop.
I I didn't.
Well, I did say one more thing.
You mean this stuff should happen?
We lost the election.
Well, no, but the elections have consequences.
I was just struck by how matter-of-fact that made it.
It's one of the reasons I started the program today by saying I'm really more and more so every day, becoming aware that I've been living under an illusion for a long time.
I really thought that there was an opposition movement there.
Now I know there hasn't been for a couple years, but I mean doing this for 27 years.
There hasn't been much of an opposition movement in quite a while.
I want to contrast this, though.
How many times have you can you recall the Democrats have won a presidential election, and here comes a Supreme Court justice or a federal court appointment somewhere of a genuinely radical, practically communist judge.
And your average Republican senator would say, well, you know, the Republicans uh lost the election.
The Democrats won and they get their nominees.
When the Democrats lose elections, they push back immediately.
They make it their objective to make sure that the Republicans do not benefit from winning.
They do everything to screw up a Republican win, to deny it, to fight it, and it is c the Republicans do not.
When the Republicans lose an election, they chalk it up to a loss.
They assume the American people rejected them.
They assume the American people want whatever the Democrat president's gonna do, and they stand by, stand aside, and let it happen.
And along those lines, I ran across a blog post last night by John Hindrocker at Power Line.
And it's entitled, Have Republicans Save the Obama Administration.
And this goes to the idea that the Republicans really didn't want to win the Obamacare case before the court, because that would have meant a whole bunch of people without Obamacare subsidies that the Republicans were no plan to deal with and would have had to come up with a replacement.
And another people were running around yesterday and last night saying essentially the Supreme Court saved the Republican Party.
That was what many Republicans were saying, as well as Democrats, as well as members of the media.
Now stop and think of that for a moment.
The Supreme Court saved the Republicans because here was a change.
Think about this, that we had Obamacare could have been ended effectively yesterday.
Had there been a correct decision, had there been a constitutional decision on that case, Obamacare would have been perhaps dealt its death blow.
And the Republican Party did not want that.
Because that would have meant the Republican Party had to come up with a plan.
And the plan would have had to include subsidies because Obamacare has been implemented long enough now that people are expecting them.
And that's how entitlements are never repealed, folks.
This is what I meant yesterday when I say that what conservatism has become is fine-tuning socialism.
And that's really what it is.
Conservatism, as it's practiced in electoral politics, is nothing more.
It's not repealing, it's not rejecting, it's not defeating, it's not even arguing against anymore.
It's simply accepting what happens and then going to voters say, look at we can do health care better.
We can do budgeting smarter.
We can do immigration wiser.
This has been a bugaboo of mine for I don't know how long.
That we always seem to accept the premise of every Democrat proposal, and we do not object to the premise, we don't oppose the premise, we accept it, and then say, no, we can streamline it.
And that is how liberalism finds its way woven into the fabric of American society.
And it is indeed how it's happened with Obamacare.
Now Hindrocker writes about This curiosity that the Supreme Court might have saved Republicans from themselves.
And he also makes the point on Obama's trade deal.
That if Obama had lost Obamacare Supreme Court, if Obama, if the Republicans had not given Obama this specific trade deal, Obama would be on the ropes today.
We would have an entirely different-looking political landscape.
The media would still be trying to cover for Obama.
But though for the president to lose health care Supreme Court and to have his health care deal, it would have been the first trade deal.
It would have been the first time a presidentially proposed trade deal would have been defeated since World War II.
Had those two things happened, and they were in one of them was in the palm of the hand, the trade deal could have died.
The Republicans did not need to save it.
They're going to get no credit for saving it because the American people don't like and don't understand trade deals anyway.
So they're going to get no credit for saving.
Obama's going to get all the credit for the trade deal to the extent there's any credit to be had.
Had there been a pushback in Obamacare long and hard, we could have maybe repealed it.
It's a long shot.
But what what Roberts did by this is another thing I want to get into before the program ends, the way John Roberts rewrote that law.
Let me just cut to the chase on that.
The legal explanation might be a little convoluted, even though I'm good at making the complex understandable.
The way John Roberts wrote this law, the way he rewrote Obamacare and wrote the majority opinion, for all intents and purposes means it cannot be repealed at the Supreme Court level.
It cannot be redone.
As uh this is this according to an analysis by somebody named Gabriel Mallor.
This is not me saying it.
I've read it in two different places that I'll explain it here in a minute.
But Roberts wrote this law, the way he rewritten it, this is another everybody was shocked at the way Roberts got where he got.
There wasn't a whole lot of surprise that Robert saved Obamacare again, but there was surprise at how he got there.
From everything I was able to find out last night, never read last night, there was shock over how he got there.
He surprised everybody with his legal reasoning.
And the reasoning is such that it is now precedent that it it cannot be changed by a future court without I mean it could be, but the process is something that hardly ever happens, and it was it it's it meaning that Roberts did everything he could to lock this in so that it is forever untouchable.
Now, I will endeavor to explain this in just a minute, but I want to stay with Hindra for a moment.
Hindracker makes the point here, just as I just did.
He says, in truth, both of these Obama victories could more accurately be described as narrow brushes with disaster.
If Congress had denied Obama the fast track trade authority, he'd have been the first president since World War II to be so snubbed.
And when Obamacare passed with no Republican support, we didn't expect that it would collapse ignominiously due to its own internal contradictions.
It may be that some Washington Republicans are content to bail Obama out.
The Chamber of Commerce badly wanted the trade deal and the insurance industry gained billions in market cap from the Supreme Court's decision.
Now, I don't mean to suggest that Republicans are swayed by such vactors, but rather that they can be complacent and that they have no killer instinct.
If Obama had been denied fast-track authority, and if Obamacare had been required to operate as written by Congress, in other words, if it had fallen apart, newspaper headlines would be telling me uninformed that the Obama administration is down defeated or on life support.
A failure.
Now that may not be.
I mean, the media Would have done their best to prop Obama up, but they would have been distressed.
It would have been them distressed and not us.
If Obama had lost, if the Supreme Court had simply upheld the way that law was written, Obamacare was dead.
And if Obamacare had been rejected, yes, can you imagine it would be them in panic mode?
It would be them pulling their hair out.
And the point is this is what Republicans should want.
Republicans should want Obama to lose.
And why?
Because President Obama is doing terrible damage to this country.
He is literally inflicting damage on this country with his economic policies, with his health care policies, with his immigration policies.
With his spending, everything Obama is doing is wreaking havoc on this country.
Put simply, Obama is doing terrible damage by helping Iran obtain nuclear weapons by refusing to enforce immigration laws, releasing thousands of illegal immigrant felons into our communities, failing to protect our cyber networks, trillions of dollars in debt.
And Hindracker writes here in the old days, Republicans would have been trying to bring down the administration anyway they can.
The Democrats always do, but the Republicans aren't.
And this is the point that I was making in my monologue in the first hour.
There isn't.
The Republicans, even when Obama's on the ropes, they save him.
They do not do their best.
The man is doing incredible damage.
The Republicans should want Obama to lose, and they don't.
When the Democrats lose elections, they refuse to accept it, and they set about making sure the Republicans do not get to implement anything.
The spoils their victory.
So it goes back to last time talking to a prominent Republican, talking about the Supreme Court decision.
He says, well, elections have consequences.
What do you mean?
So we lose, and that means the American people rejected us, and that means the American people want what Obama is doing.
And so we've got to stand by, let it happen.
Sadly, I think that's what they think.
Yet they're all out raising money, and they're all joining think tanks afterwards.
And I mean, we folks, we got all kinds of conservatives all over Washington.
They're all asking everybody for money.
They're fundraising, all this kind of stuff.
But there isn't any strategy to defeat, roll back, stop, impede, what have you.
The people we think are our political opponents.
Anyway.
A little more detail in what I was expressing in the first hour.
I'll try to get them to get some calls here.
We get back, but uh the way Roberts wrote the decision on Obamacare.
I'll get to that in the next half hour.
Be right back.
Let me give it a short version.
John Roberts' ruling essentially is that they have already decided on the next appeal for the government, which means the IRS cannot refuse the payment of subsidies now.
No president can repeal them because the court has already dealt with what that would be in another.
The way Roberts wrote this, he disregarded standard operating procedures, something called Chevron, has gone ahead and pretended to have judged the next case that would have followed this and ruled on it and has found essentially, for lack of a better way of expressing it, the subsidies stand even if they are challenged again.
Meaning they can't be challenged again, he's already decided.
Now I will give you the backstory here and do a course.
Here's Anthony Riverside, California heading back to the phones.
Anthony, thank you for waving and hello.
Hi, it's an honor to talk to you, Rocks.
Thank you very much.
My question is what can a young college conservative such as myself do to help promote conservative principles?
Uh just help keep this nation great.
That's such a great question.
See, I think that I have some answers for you.
All right.
The first thing you can do, Anthony, is uh do not allow any attempts to make you believe that you are a freak, a kook, an oddball, a weirdo, a minority.
That you do not let them marginalize you.
Remain proud of what you believe.
Remain dedicated to what you believe.
Do not do not let them treat you in in a secondary manner or uh treat you in such a way as you know they're the big click and you're never gonna get it.
Don't let that affect you.
They'll treat you that way.
Just do not allow them to change your own self-worth, okay?
Okay.
That's number one.
That's that's key.
If you can hold on to your self-worth and all this, then you've got the rest of this.
The next thing you need to do is go on offense.
When any of these brain-dead millennials who believe all this garbage that they can't explain, you've got to have the guts to challenge them.
You've got to be able to take time to explain why you believe what you believe because they can't do that about what they believe.
Hang on, don't do not go away, Anthony.
Hang on just a second.
Okay, here's uh Anthony.
We're back to Anthony Riverside, California.
Uh I had to rush through that because there were time constraints, but let me take a brief pause now here and give you a chance to react to the first bit of advice I gave.
Are you comfortable with that?
Yeah, I think it's uh spot on.
Uh I've gotten into my uh fair share of arguments with some of my uh colleagues who've not, Anthony, they don't argue with you.
They're gonna try to put you down, they're gonna try to ridicule you, they're gonna insult you.
They can't argue with this is the thing that you're the thing to realize is you're dealing with people caught up in a wave of emotion, and the wave of emotion has got them caught up is equality and fairness and ending discriminating, and they haven't the slightest idea how to how to intellectually translate to you why they support what other than to say on gay marriage, they'll say, Well, I just think it's you know, if we can get married, why can't they?
I mean, they can't help who they love, and there's nothing wrong with more love in the world.
And you're gonna have to be able, if you're you I mean you're calling to ask me what you can do to advocate conservatives, you're gonna have to be able to talk to people in your generation, and you're gonna have to be able to explain to them, not by putting them down, don't join that phrase, just explain what you believe and why.
As a conservative, you're gonna be able to do that.
You're gonna be able to tell them constitutionally why this Supreme Court ruling is full of it, and why it the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with any of this.
You're gonna be able to explain the belief that you have that you're not anti-gay, but that marriage means something.
Words mean something.
And once you change the definition of the word marriage, then anything goes.
And then you point out something very simple.
The left is out there saying it's all about inclusiveness, it's not about inclusiveness.
I'll tell you what, ask ask any one of your millennial buddies if you get into a discussion about this, use the example of a gay couple walking into a bakery, wanting a cake, and the proprietor saying no, our religious beliefs say we can't support gay marriage.
Ask them why don't the gay people just leave and go to another place that will bake them the cake.
There's got to be all kinds of bakeries all over town, wherever they live that'll make them the cake.
Why do they stay there?
And why do they sue and why do they put that bakery out of business?
Ask them to explain that to you.
And if they are honest, they will tell you that it isn't about gay marriage, it's about getting even with or destroying bigotry or some such thing.
And then you've got them.
So it's not gay marriage that you support.
You're willing to deny people their religious freedom if it means you can you can you can pretzel Them, you can twist them up, but what you can do is expose the fact that they're really not behind all the things they're behind intellectually, that they're caught up in waves of emotion.
And the next thing I would tell you, do not expect them to ever acknowledge that you're right.
Do not ever expect them to change their mind in front of you, and in fact, do not ever expect them to change their mind.
You never know when they will.
But the point is you'll be doing something that nobody else is doing, and that is engaging them and pointing other alternatives, different ways to think about this in ways that show you're not a bigot and you're not anti-anything.
You're just you you're concerned about the constitution, you're concerned about tradition and institutions that that have been developed long before this country was even formed.
Marriage has a specific societal purpose.
And it was not designed to discriminate against people that can't get married.
Yes.
There's no there's no evil guy that invented marriage for the express purpose of discriminating against people.
That's not why it came into existence.
You have to realize the people you're talking to in your age group have had their minds poisoned by professors and teachers all the way through their lives.
It's a monumental task, Anthony, but you you could it could be something that you end up enjoying uh if for no other reason than you will perfect your own skills at persuasion.
Yeah, like I have friends who are like there's no alternative.
We have to allow gay marriage.
I just say, well, why not just say, hey, straight marriage isn't any even in the Constitution either.
How about we just make everything in the government like a civil union and then leave it up to the individual and churches and other places to decide what they accept it's marriage.
You want me to answer that?
I mean, I'll tell you what they would say to that.
That's not acceptable because you're still you're still standing for people being discriminated against by not being allowed to get married, which means they can't get benefits, which means they can't get hospital or whatever, whatever they come up with in this.
Um you you um uh the the when you when you propose alternatives that uh accomplish the same thing that they claim to want with marriage, they won't go for it because the objective here is it it it is not to join something.
I mean, I watched plenty of conservative commentators and liberal commentators on TV today say the great thing about this is now that it's inclusive, that that people want to get married now can't.
It's not about inclusive, this is about destroying.
This is about this is about tearing something, this is about ridding a tradition or an institution.
This is about redefining what is normal.
It is not about inclusion.
And George Takai proves it when he says that our next target is religious freedom.
They're they're just getting started with this, Anthony.
And so uh but you ask me what you can do as a young conservative to help advocate for conservative causes.
You've got to get really good at explaining them.
You've got you've got to get really good at telling people why you think what you think.
And then Anthony, not to discourage you, but there's probably nobody better at that than I am, and I've been doing it for 27 years, and I'm hated by 30% of the country.
So don't expect to be loved at the end of this.
Your objective is not to be loved.
Your objective is to inform.
Your objective is to make people think.
Your objective is to engage in critical thinking for people to challenge what they have been taught by orthodoxy.
It's an I'm conservative, so I get some extra hate too sometimes.
Uh you know, then you know.
You know, you know, exactly right.
Well, it's a uh it's a yeoman's job.
I wish you all the best doing it.
I wish there were more people like you who wanted to.
Thank you so much.
I'd recruit some allies too.
I'd get some of your buddies, friends, and to join you and make this a you know, I don't know, not a game, but but make it a uh little project that you because you're gonna run into these little nimrods everywhere you go, particularly on on campus.
Just make sure that the women you engage, make sure you don't care about them and you're not trying to get a date because you're never will.
Once you get into this, you're never gonna get a date.
You're never you're never gonna they're never gonna go to dinner with you.
So make sure that the women you get engaged with in this manner are not women you care about romantically.
Yeah.
I mean, you might have a one or two time fling, but you're not going to have anything lasting from this because they'll end up hating your guts.
But that you can wing.
You can find that out on your own.
Don't take my word for that.
That's something as a young man, you'll you'll learn on your own.
No need to be instructed there.
I appreciate the call.
I appreciate the chance uh uh to give you some, you know, advice.
I don't engage in that much.
But by the way, when you get into this, other ideas, other means of persuasion that will pop into your head.
You'll you'll see what you run into, and you'll see kind of opposition you get, and that will instruct you and inform you where you have to go.
Just one thing.
One more thing.
And I'm rethinking this.
I've always said do not get in somebody's face to point a finger at them, because you'll just get them to recoil.
Um, and that probably is uh is still true.
The best, the best persuasion is stealth.
People who end up being persuaded who do not know that has happened to them.
The best way to bring that about is you establish a set of circumstances to which the conclusion is obvious.
They come up with the idea, the conclusion themselves, they think they're smart.
You've persuaded them, but they will never know what happened.
This is an art to this.
As you can get into it and engage yourself, you will find all these techniques.
You'll find out what works best for you.
Some of you people in the audience may not be aware of my ongoing battle with environmentalist wackos and sea turtles.
Happen to live on a beach.
Happen to live in a place which values sea turtles over human beings' use of their private property.
And the way this manifests itself is that backyard uh landscape lighting is only permitted three months out of the year.
Four months, November, December, January, February.
And it's shrinking.
It used to be eight months, used to be seven, six, now it's down to four months.
Can have any backyard light, even if I'm half mile from the beach, if some environmentalist wacko can take a cheap camera and point it at my house and see a light reflecting, you know what those light meters do?
They open that shutter wide open, then you have to turn the light off.
This is in order to protect the sea turtles who lay their eggs in the beach, and then the sea turtles are born, and they're they swim up from the bottom of the uh of the sand where their eggs are laid, and then they march to the ocean, where they live as sea turtles and grow big and big and big and come back.
And if it is said there is light on the beach uh toward the shore, they will go there instead of the ocean and die.
So the lights, and there's no proof of this, there's no establishment for it, but the wackos say so.
And it's not just where I live, it's all the way up down the east coast.
Guess what?
All these shark attacks in North Carolina.
You know what experts are now saying is the reason for all the sharks off the coast of North Carolina?
It's all the sea turtles.
It's a it's become a giant food source.
So the environmentalist wackos have succeeded in implementing a policy which has resulted in more sharks lurking off the shore, off the coast, in a number of these states on the Atlantic Ocean.
As they're waiting for these sea turtles so they can gobble them up and eat them.
Thank you, environmentalist wackos.
Now, here's the Roberts ruling in a nutshell.
It's by Gabriel Mallor, and it involves the decades-old case of Chevron versus NRDC, which provided a framework for determining what happens when Congress passes poorly written laws.
When Congress passes a law that is ambiguous and an agency resolves that ambiguity by interpretive rule or judgment, the Chevron decision instructs the courts to defer to the agency's interpretation so long as it is reasonable.
Now that's convoluted legal speak, and I'm not gonna cloud your mind with that.
Here's how it manifests itself.
In a nutshell, the chief justice ruled that because Congress began the funding of national health care, because Congress wrote the law on subsidies, only Congress can end it.
Which means no court will ever be able to resend subsidies or stop any kind of Obamacare funding.
It also means no future president can turn off funding by executive action.
Only Congress can stop it.
Now the reason is what Kennedy did, what he what Roberts did that surprise people.
His ruling, for lack of a better explanation, his ruling essentially also rules in a mythical second case that would challenge this ruling.
Roberts went ahead and judged or wrote a decision that encompasses what might be a future challenge to the law.
And the end result is that only Congress can rescind subsidies now.
No future president can repeal it.
The spending, and the spending is Obamacare.
I mean, it's an entitlement.
So to repeal the fit the spending, you'd take an act of Congress approved by the House and 60 votes in the Senate.
It's a long convoluted legal explanation, but that that's the summation of, and if you if you are curious about this, you'll find that a lot of legal beagles were shocked at the way Roberts got there.
And they're openly writing that they're shocked at how he got there in terms of defending and keeping Obamacare.
So there's not going to be any President Rubio or Huckabee repealing it because it's supposedly, according to Gabriel Mallor, anyway, it's not possible now.
Only Congress.
Another act of Congress can repeal Obamacare.
Okay.
Believe me, folks, we're going to have days much different than this in the future.
You just hang in there.
There's always cyclical payback.
▲
Export Selection