All Episodes
Previous Next
June 29, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:49
June 29, 2015, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24 7 Podcast.
And welcome, my friends, back once again to the Rush Limbaugh program here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
It's great to have you here.
And I must also state that we are still here as the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
And that means we are going to continue to study and explain for as long as necessary.
Conservatism.
Happy to have you here, folks, as always on the week, and we will celebrate the independence and birth of our nation.
Actually going to celebrate it on Friday.
Well, then we'll observe it on Friday so that there can be a three-day weekend.
Actual Independence Day, Saturday, July 4th.
Why they do a Friday three-day week instead of Monday?
Just to shake things up?
Anyway, that's what's happened.
And I have been forced.
Ladies and gentlemen, I must tell you, I've been forced to take Friday off.
You know how it happened?
First I get an email from corporate, where my syndication partners are, advising me that the Friday of this week is a is a holiday, and it's if they don't want me to show up here and start complaining on the Air Friday about having not been told about it.
So they were alerting me to it.
And then said, if you would like a guest host, we can clearly facilitate.
And I said, Okay, I'll think about it.
And then I didn't think about it.
So I got another email a couple days later.
This from the staff who are reminding me that Friday is a holiday, and that if I'm not here, some of them don't have to be.
So the pressure mounted until I finally relented and said, okay, okay, then I'll I'll we'll get a guest host in here on Friday, July 3rd as we observe Independence Day.
It's either going to be Mark Stein or Eric Ericsson.
I have them in the It's Eric Erickson's gonna be here.
Okay, cool.
Now, folks, there's all kinds of news out there that has nothing to do with Supreme Court decisions last week.
And there's plenty of it.
And it involves electoral politics, uh, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, some other stuff out there as well.
However, I do want to spend um just a little bit of time here, kind of I don't closing the loop on anything.
It's just that I've had an entire weekend now to actually dig into this and figure out what actually happened, and as best I can determine how and why it happened.
These things are of interest to me.
And I do not think that these battles, these arguments, these political fights are anywhere near over.
And I'm I I kind of a little irritated when I when I read comments from others who seem to indicate that they are.
And it's it manifests itself in a whole bunch of different ways.
Like there is ongoing brand new pressure of an age-old topic.
You Republicans, you realize, do you realize the the the great benefit you've been handed here?
You Republic some Republicans are saying this as well.
Do you realize the golden opportunity this Supreme Court ruling gave you?
Now you've got this off the table.
It's a done deal.
So just get off of this social issue stuff.
You just got to drop the social issue.
That pressure point has been ratcheted up again.
And there is something concomitant with it.
You might have heard two or three Republican presidential candidates say, hey, you know, I fought the good fight like everybody else did, but the court has spoken, and a marriage is now the law of the land, and we must move on.
We must drop it.
That is an out, I think.
I think that's an excuse.
That's an excuse for somebody who's really telling you they don't want the fight.
And that's not what we need, folks.
I'm telling you, going into 2016 and beyond, we don't want and don't need people who are not willing to fight.
Stand up for what we believe in.
Stand up for the for the founding of this country.
It's now the law of the land isn't out.
Well, 20 minutes ago and six thousand years ago, the opposite was the law of the land.
Did the Democrats accept it?
Did the gay activists accept it?
No.
They didn't accept the law of the land.
They're not accepting anything that is the law of the land.
They're not accepting very much that is traditional.
They're not accepting very much that's institutional.
There's an all-out of talk, assault and attack on everything.
And specifically now, religious liberty.
Make no mistake about this.
Get into this and do course as the as the program unfolds.
We telegraph that we just accept.
It's like I said the prominent Republican last week talking, you know, rush elections have consequences.
What does that mean?
Well, they won the election.
They get to do what they want.
When's the last time you ever heard a Democrat say, yeah, the Republicans won?
Elections have consequences.
We're not gonna fight their court nominees.
This is not good.
This is not healthy.
It's uh it's a it's a way out.
And this whole social issue thing, here's the bottom line.
I I look, I uh I uh at the risk of incurring the wrath of people on my own side of the aisle here.
Simple fact of the matter is the Republican Party is not going to win another presidential election if it has part of its official platform and behavioral characteristic, the open disavowing of its voters who care about quote unquote social issues.
There's simply too many of them.
If they abandon the party or sit home and not vote, don't vote, it's over.
The Republicans aren't gonna win diddly squat without them.
They may not like hearing it, they may not like it, period, but it's the lay of the land and it's the fact of the matter.
But the real key here, and this is a difference, I think, in going on offense and staying on defense and willing to stay on defense, stay on defense.
Yeah, that's that's the the easy road to take.
Going on offense, man, no, that's that's rolling up your shirt sleeves, and that's that's gearing for battle, and that's making a commitment.
And that's hard.
But it's the law of the land now.
It's just the social issues we've got to get.
The fact of the matter is the entire time I do in this program is 26 years or so, 27, whatever it is.
You know, we're coming up on an anniversary.
That's gonna be 27, I think, on August 1st.
Anyway, for the whole period of time.
What do we do?
We get up every day and we see something that we cherish, either a person, an institution, a tradition, something under assault, full frontal assault.
And so our posture each and every day, including social issues, our posture each and every day is defense.
We haven't had the chance to move the ball forward.
We're still defending an all-out assault on everything.
I mean everything we hold dear.
We haven't had a chance to actually move the ball forward.
Well, we have, we just haven't availed ourselves of the opportunity.
We have had the White House for eight years in this decade, but fact of the matter is that the social issues are in play because the Democrats put them there, not us.
There wouldn't be social issues if there weren't angst and misery and unhappiness, and make no mistake.
That's what's driving all this, folks.
You may think this is all political, but it's angst and misery, it's unhappiness, it's people seeking a mysterious.
You can read it in Kennedy's Supreme Court.
You know what that Supreme Court decision that Kennedy wrote is basically all about self-esteem and dignity.
And that's why Scalia openly wrote he would be embarrassed to sign his name to a majority opinion such as that written by Anthony Kennedy on the gay marriage.
Esteem and dignity and uh freedom of intimacy and all this stuff.
Make no mistake.
This, I mean, you can say it was political, it is, but but this is a quest for happiness that has eluded people.
It's it's a quest for normalcy that's eluded people.
It's a quest, and and this is not gonna provide that.
See, that's that's the the thing.
This this is not, in fact, there's already there were story yesterday in the New York Times.
Historic day for gays, but twinge of loss for an outsider culture.
There are already gay activists who are saying, gee, I don't like I don't like it not being a member of the oppressed.
I'll share with you the details.
You've got a couple audio sound bites.
But the social issues are political footballs, not because of us.
And by the way, I think you, you fiscal conservatives out there, I should say you fiscal Republicans who you know what I'm I'm I social issues are hell with killing.
It's all economic for me now.
I don't want to hear about social issues.
You are, if if that's your attitude, you don't want to hear about social issues.
If you don't want social issues being debated, discussed, then you may as well just turn the culture over to the left because that's what the social issues are all about.
What do you think this where do you guess cultural depravity and rot, perversion, whatever you want to call it, where's it coming from?
It's not because we stand for life.
It's not because we're anti-abortion.
That's not why this is happening.
It's not because people are for marriage, as explained and defined in Genesis.
That's not why all this is happening.
We're minding our own business, and all of a sudden it's okay to kill babies in the womb.
And people No, we say it's not.
We stand up and then all of a sudden we're the ones that were the bad guys.
Take your take any social issue you want.
It's in the public realm and has been converted to political issues by the left attempting to advance their agenda.
Not us.
And for every Republican that in frustration says, heck with it.
These social issues are killing us.
We've got to stop.
You can't stop.
Because the left owns authorship of all this, and the left is not gonna stop.
You know what's next, don't you?
It's hard to, it's hard to predict which of these are going to happen next.
One of them may already have.
A church is going to be sued for refusing to perform a gay wedding.
The church and the pastor, whoever, they're going to be sued, both as an institution and individually.
Because that's the design.
There's an all-out effort here to water down, dilute, and if they could, just eliminate Christianity as a dominant cultural, religious, and dare I say political force.
That's the target.
And then you you may have heard people speculating about polygamy, and you make, ah, come on, that's it, just panic talk.
It isn't panic talk because the way Kennedy wrote his opinion, there's no legal way now for anybody to oppose it.
Gay marriage, you look at Kennedy's ruling, and you listen to how people talk about it.
Gay marriage.
Marriage, forget gay, marriage itself was portrayed as a thing that some people get to do and others don't.
And that made it unfair.
And that made it civil rights violation.
And that made it unequal.
And then the millennials said, oh, if it's unequal, then it's bad.
We gotta be for it.
Well, marriage is just the latest thing that some people get to do and some people don't.
And guess who doesn't get to do it?
The people, these crazy Christians don't like.
Well, that makes it unacceptable.
But marriage isn't a thing.
It's not just it's not something that some slave owner 200 years ago invented specifically to discriminate against people.
First references anybody knows of marriage or in Genesis.
So you can say, God.
But that's even offensive to some people by design.
Now, the other thing that marriage is portrayed at as addition to a thing was a benefit.
And it just wasn't fair that some people got the benefits of it and other people didn't.
And marriage has never been a thing, as described there, and it's never been a benefit as characterized here, but it is, as far as Justice Kennedy and those who agreed with his majority opinion in the Supreme Court.
There's nothing special about it.
It's just a thing over there that some people get to do that a minority of people don't get to do.
Therefore, it's a civil rights discrimination.
The actual undeniable, truthful, characteristics definition of marriage long ago vanished from any debate on this.
So it's this is written that all the polygamy as a as a following thing, and you you may I'm not trying to scare anybody here, and I'm not trying to jolt anybody.
This is the natural progression.
I'll show you.
In fact, the left is already people writing for it.
You've already got people demanding it.
On the left, it was as predictable as the rain, except in California where there isn't any.
Let me take a brief time out and uh get a little bit more detailed about all of this and explain why those of us who vigorously disagree with the Supreme Court's decision on this Friday did so, and it's not to deny some people a thing.
And it's not because we want to deny benefits to some people who don't get them.
And it's it's not because we are selfish and want marriage as an institution only to us, as is the usual case when discussing the leftist agenda.
You cannot discuss the leftist agenda without also discussing the constitutional destruction that takes place as the leftist agenda marches forward.
Okay, welcome back.
Great to have you.
Now, what must happen constitutionally for the Supreme Court to decide that gay marriage is that marriage, period, is under the purview of the federal government.
There has to be some constitutional connection.
And of course there isn't.
Marriage already existed when the Constitution was written.
Marriage existed thousands of years before America did.
So the government has no role in it whatsoever.
It has taken it, it has assumed it.
But what had to happen, this is where learned people are really concerned.
What has to happen in order for Anthony Kennedy and his four cronies at the Supreme Court to claim that there is a constitutional right to marriage or gay marriage, it means that existing actual constitutional rights have to somehow vanish or be changed or altered.
Look at it this way.
The right to own guns, right to bear arms, the right to free speech.
That's amendments two and amendment one.
The right to religious liberty, amendment one.
They are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
And they are explicitly protected.
Government shall make no law abridging the right to keep and bear arms, free speech, religious liberty.
Except it just did.
And you see, that's the rub.
The erosion of real constitutional rights.
And the effort to erode those rights.
No, gun laws Haven't been affected here, but religious liberty has, and so is free speech.
Free speech and religious liberty.
Folks are out the window for something that's not mentioned in the Constitution.
There was no law.
If there were law in Kennedy's decision, this could not have happened.
There was no law here.
There was the creation of law at the expense of other things explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
This was about dignity.
This was about self-esteem.
This was about what did he call it?
I I can't remember if it's embarrassing.
The route taken to justify this.
But if religious liberty, which is now gone, don't you just hang on a day or two if you want to see that.
In fact, you've already seen it.
Free speech gone.
To see how quickly those can erode, what else?
What else can activist liberal judges erase from the Constitution?
Because once that starts to happen, and it has and it has been, that's the troubling aspect.
One of the meeting and surpassing all audience expectations.
Rushlin body excellence in broadcasting network.
Happy to have you here.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882 and your um phone calls are coming up as part of the uh program today, too.
Now, I want to continue on this and if just a couple minutes here, we'll move on to their things, but I I need to express this specifically.
And by the way, in terms of giving up, but it's the law of the land, uh, the pro-life movement didn't look at Roe v.
Wade that way.
And the left clearly doesn't look at their political defeats that way.
It's just, well, that's not a law of the land, I guess we have to move on.
The problem here is that, and I've I heard other analysts say this last week, that it could eventually backfire.
Although I don't know what backfiring would ultimately mean other than public opinion shifting.
But I think something's gonna happen even before that does, which I will get to here in just a moment.
But the uh fact that the American people were in the process of having a democratic debate about this state by state by state by state.
And it was trending.
Positive.
It looked like in not too long a time, maybe five years or ten, who knows, maybe less, that the people of this country would vote state by state by state to legalize homosexual marriage.
Now that debate's been shut down because Anthony Kennedy and his four renegades rode in, shut off the debate, and determined that they're right.
There it is.
It's it's right there in the 14th Amendment, see?
See, it's right there.
That people in this country who are not happy because they're left out of things, they have a right to be included in those things.
And it says they're right there in the 14th Amendment.
I looked, it does.
Yeah, yeah, it's right there.
I don't see it.
Well, you have to be a lawyer and be thinking like we do to see it, but it's there.
Uh-huh.
Same thing that happened with abortion.
So there's gonna be the cultures now, society has been roiled in the debate is going to rage on.
It's not over.
It isn't gonna be over because never forget this.
No matter what victories the left, the socialists, the liberals, whatever you want to call them, the Democrats, no matter how many victories they have, it is never enough.
No matter how much money they get to spend, no matter how many how much money they get in benefit, no matter what it is that they demand, it is never enough.
And do you know why?
Because when Justice Kennedy and the rest of these people talk about dignity and self-esteem, that's exactly what's being that's exactly what's on the table here.
I don't care if it goes gay marriage to uh to Obamacare, I don't care what the issue, Confederate Flag, you've got people over here who are miserably unhappy about something, and they believe that getting something, taking something away from other people will make them happy, and it never does.
It's never enough.
And it's going to be the case with gay marriage.
It is not going to make them feel the way they want to feel.
It's not going to erase whatever baggage they have.
It never is.
And this is not specific to gay marriage.
It's specific to liberals because their targets, their quests or what have you rooted in a void, if you will.
I think they're absent God in many cases in their lives, not just gays.
I'm talking about the global warming crowd.
Everybody denies the existence of God in favor of a different God somewhere over here.
It's not enough.
Never is enough.
Never will be enough.
And so the quest is going to continue.
And it almost can be reduced to a grass is greener kind of thing.
The majority has these things.
We don't have them.
It's not fair.
We want those things too.
Political pressure is mounted, they get those things.
But they keep coming back for more.
It's just never enough.
There just isn't any satisfaction.
I can't get no savage, no matter what happens.
In fact, you could almost say if you study leftists, the welfare state, the benefit state, whatever you want to call it, the more they get, the angrier they become.
The more they get, the more unhappy they become.
This is something that I have noticed, particularly these past six years.
Black America's angrier than it's ever been.
Various special interest groups on the left, angrier, more unhappy than they've ever been.
While at the same time, we are hearing it's a greatest week for Obama in his presidency last week.
It's the greatest week ever.
It's a historic, it's the greatest week a country's ever had.
But it doesn't translate to happiness somehow, for some reason.
Because, you know, the decision was not rooted in.
I mean, these justices on the on the winning side last week did not look at the Constitution.
Can we find somewhere in here a right to homosexual marriage?
That they didn't even look.
That's the point.
They didn't even look.
They didn't even ask, does the Constitution allow states to define marriage?
They just said, do you favor gay marriage or not?
And that became the whole legal proposition.
You're in favor of it or not.
It's a thing some people have and some people don't.
That's unfair.
It's a civil rights violation.
It's a benefit some people have, some people don't.
They've got to fix this.
This is a gross error.
It's it's inhuman.
It is unfair.
It's bigotry, all of that.
Because marriage was cast as some sort of institution created by a bunch of bigots, elites for themselves, and denied to others, and by God, we're gonna fix that.
And so, as I was saying to fix that, you have to take other parts of the Constitution that do exist and de-emphasize them or ignore them.
Freedom of speech and religious liberty, and I'm telling you, that's it's it's a toss-up, which is going to come first.
No, it's not.
Religious.
The attack on religion is next on organized religion.
There's already, I got a couple stories in the stack about leftists making a an immediate concerted move to remove the tax-exempt status from all churches if they will not perform homosexual marriages.
It's not enough for you out there to say, okay, well, uh, the court said gay marriage is legal, fine.
That's not enough.
You must actively embrace it.
You must Actively support it, you may not oppose it, you may not even dis in fact, folks, in Kennedy's opinion get this.
In Kennedy's majority opinion, when talking about religious liberty, he's just so big of him.
He grants that people of religious disagreement will continue to have the right of dissent.
But they didn't say anything about the right to practice religious liberty.
Not in this decision.
They made all kinds of references, a couple three, that if you are a uh deeply religious person, if you're a priest or a pastor or church, you can, you're free to dissent, meaning you're free to tell people you disagree, but you are not free to act on it.
In other words, you can't deny the constitutional right we just ordained.
You can argue against it, you can say you don't like it, and you'll be okay, but you cannot practice that.
You cannot put it's practically stated in the Supreme Court opinion.
So my guess it's already happened.
You know, a gay couple has walked into a church somewhere and tried to reserve it for a wedding and been told sorry.
So now that gay couple's meeting with their lawyers, and we'll find out about it soon enough.
And it's it's not just one, it's gonna be in a bunch of places.
You why and then the the next push is gonna be hey, you know, I'll have two women.
I want I want to marry two women.
No, no, you can't.
Well, that if you go to Anthony Kennedy's opinion, there's nothing that's I mean, what the way marriage was defined, the way homosexual marriage, gay marriage was permitted and defined, it said nothing about two.
The opinion doesn't mention the word to talks about self-esteem and dignity and happiness and all that.
So if if your happiness, let's see, you're a woman you want to marry two guys.
There's I mean, the court cannot say no to it if it ever gets supreme.
It can't say no to it because of the way they said yes to homosexual marriage.
So there's going to be a push for that.
That's not a prediction.
That's feta complete.
So religious liberty and freedom of speech have to be diluted, have to be watered down, have to be even say eliminated in order for there to be homosexual marriage.
That's that's the real reason so many people who really think about this oppose it.
It's not because they want to deny anybody a thing.
It's not because they want to deny anybody benefits, and it's not because anybody wants to say, well, look you can't.
You're only 1.6% of the population.
It's not that at all.
Believe it or not, there are people who care about things larger than themselves.
I'm one of them.
And the Constitution is one of those things.
The country is one of those things I care about more than I care about myself.
I don't, I don't look at the political system as self-interest as a way to get rich.
A lot of people do.
I don't.
A lot of people look at the political system as a thing to game and angle.
I I have a deep reverence for a constitution and how it happened.
I think it's a miracle, but it isn't taught that way anymore.
Except in the Rush Revere books and a few obscure universities.
Other than that, the Constitution is nothing spin.
In fact, the Constitution is being taught as this giant document of bigotry and discrimination.
And pretty soon those are going to be the only people teaching it because the students in college today learning to become teachers, that's all they're learning about the Constitution.
They're not being taught this reverence for it.
They're not being taught the miracle that happened for it to occur when it was a miracle in Philadelphia.
The writing of the Constitution, nah, it's some racist screed now.
It's so forth.
That's why so many people want to hold on to it.
But you look at two subjects, abortion and marriage.
You know, neither are even mentioned in the Constitution.
They're not once mentioned.
Marriage.
Abortion, they're not once talked about.
However, these lawyers in black robes, why, they certainly feel like they've got the power to regulate these things.
Where do they get that power from?
Where do they derive it?
Where do they see in the Constitution that they get to see things that are not there?
And that, you know, what falls with a wayside here is state sovereignty.
States have always had purview over marriage.
That's one of the bases on which the states ratified the Constitution.
So that the ease with which things in the Constitution can be written out of it here or ignored.
In favor of something not even mentioned, it's kind of scary, folks, regardless what the issue is.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm I made a verbal dyslexic error.
The Anthony Kennedy opinion on gay marriage does say too.
I said it doesn't say too.
And I conflated uh my own attempted meaning here.
The point is this.
There is no intellectually honest way to distinguish the reasoning on gay marriage from say reasoning used to support polygamy.
The uh the decision does say to in determining homosexual marriage.
But the point is in getting there when real you know relying on on uh dignity and and self-esteem.
Uh there there was there's there's no specific uh limit here in the pursuit of self-esteem and dignity that the court has now sanctioned.
In fact, think of think of polygamy.
Think of the arguments for polygamy.
Hey, three sets of parents.
Why you'd have another set of parents to take care of the babies, in case one set of parents couldn't.
I mean, I'm sure you can come up with equally advantageous examples or reasons for polygamy.
The point is it's going to happen precisely because the Supreme Court's decision on homosexuality cannot say it can't.
Now I want to throw something out.
I'm not gonna have time to analyze this, but I did reference it already on Sunday in the New York Times, even on Saturday, there were stories about, oh no, you know, now that we've won, gosh, it doesn't feel that good.
Well, you know what?
I just don't like not being a member of the oppressed.
I don't I don't like, I don't like not being an activist.
Get some audio sound by Jody Cantor.
I is a New York Times writer, and during a discussion about the decision, Gail King on CBS said, You write, just as the gay marriage movement peaks, so does the debate over whether gay rights are a success.
You say this is a bittersweet win for gay Americans.
Now, folks, this is important.
I don't want you to just cast this aside, say I'm not interested.
Because that's what this is all about.
The quest for happiness, normalcy, self-esteem, dignity.
That's what this is really all about among the rank and file, not the leadership.
They got something else totally in mind.
But just the neighborhood gay couple lives down the street from you.
It's all about happiness, quest for normalcy, just just you know, uh I want to do that.
They do it, I want to do it, let me do it too.
Okay, you can, Constitution says so.
Here's Jody Cantor explaining why this is a bittersweet moment.
Even at the gay pride parade yesterday, the chant in the crowd was what we want marriage equality, when do we want it?
We got it yesterday.
And so that changes things, right?
So much of gay identity and culture is born of persecution, born of stigma, born of this terrible treatment.
How do things change now that gay marriage is really just marriage?
Even language that we're used to, like coming out of the closet, may not apply anymore.
I spoke to a lot of young people Who said that they were never in a closet?
One young woman said, I said, Well, how long did you go from when you realized you were gay until when you told people?
She said 12 hours.
So much of gay identity and culture is born of persecution, born of stigma, born of this terrible treatment.
Now what do we do?
Oh no.
And there's more, folks.
Sit tight.
I wish I got to take a break here.
I can't avoid it, but we'll continue after this.
Don't go away.
I'll tell you what else was kind of funny.
There's Obama out there taking credit for this.
Remember, it was 2012.
He ran opposed to gay marriage.
His whole life prior to that, opposed to it.
And Joe Biden went out there and let the cat out of the bag, dragging the rest of the regime along with him on it.
▲
Export Selection