Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH: Washington Post, by Jason Horowitz: ‘And the Founders said: Let there be a constitution. And the Founders looked at the articles and clauses and saw that it was good.’ That’s how this story begins. ‘And the Founders said: Let there be a constitution. And the Founders looked at the articles and clauses and saw that it was good. For more than 200 years, Americans have revered the Constitution as the law of the land, but the GOP and tea party heralding of the document in recent months – and the planned recitation on the House floor Thursday –‘ actually, Wednesday ‘– has caused some Democrats to worry that the charter is being misconstrued as the immutable word of God. New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler –‘ these people have such contempt for the Constitution, these Democrats. ”They are reading it like a sacred text,’ said New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the outgoing chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.’ By the way, (laughing) this is great. As they quote this clown, ‘They’re reading it like a sacred text.’ That’s Nadler talking about the Republicans in a critical way. ‘They’re reading it like a sacred text.’ Now, listen to this, listen to how the Post describes this guy Nadler.

‘Chairman, House Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution, civil rights, civil liberties, who has studied and memorized the Constitution with talmudic –‘ or Talmudic — the Talmud, Jewish Talmud ‘– intensity.’ So here’s a guy who’d looked at it as his Bible, they say, accusing the Republicans of looking at the Constitution as a sacred text. ‘Nadler called the ‘ritualistic reading’ on the floor ‘total nonsense’ and ‘propaganda’ intended to claim the document for Republicans. ‘You read the Torah, you read the Bible, you build a worship service around it,’ said Nadler, who argued that the Founders were not ‘demigods’ and that the document’s need for amendments to abolish slavery and other injustices showed it was ‘highly imperfect.’ ‘You are not supposed to worship your constitution. You are supposed to govern your government by it,’ he said.’ Nobody’s worshiping it, you fool. What we’re doing is trying to reestablish it because it’s under assault from people like you! Pardon my yelling. I get passionate about this.

Individual liberty, the Constitution, freedom, are all under assault. They have been since the founding of this country. The change is that a large element of that assault now comes domestically from people like Jerrold Nadler and courts like the Ninth Circus who just found another cross in a public place unconstitutional. The Democrats so hate this document, leftists so hate this document, they read it and tell us it means the opposite of what it says. A couple fascinating stories I want to share with you today about Justice Scalia answering some questions about the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment and how that just sent Democrats practically needing straitjackets and ambulances to the home. But here are a few sound bites on this Republican fetish with the Constitution. Last night on PMS MS — whatever it is, the stupid Mess NBC. Slate.com senior editor and legal correspondent Dahlia Lithwick about the Republican plan to read the Constitution. The question: ‘Is there an historical precedent for the Constitution fetish on the right?’

LITHWICK: I think so. I think the way some people rub Buddha and they think the magic will come off, I think there’s a long-standing tradition in this country. We’re awfully religious about the Constitution. I think there is a sort of fetishization here that is of a piece with the sort of need for a religious document that’s immutable and perfect in every way.

RUSH: Miss Lithwick, you’ll never understand it but all this is simply because health care is unconstitutional, Obamacare is. So much of Obama’s agenda is unconstitutional. So much is what has come out of Congress in the form of legislation, unconstitutional. It’s only the foundation for our existence, Miss Lithwick, and it’s under assault. So what if it’s revered. It’s the most brilliant governing, founding document ever in the history of mankind. What is there about it that so threatens you, that you have to characterize people who love it, believe it, admire it as somehow having a fetish? All these people are doing, again, as I say, is showing their contempt. This is Chris Hayes. He’s the guest host on this Mess NBC show and he responded to Dahlia Lithwick and her notion of a fetish here by saying this.

HAYES: They kind of fetishize the Constitution and they had to give it this sort of biblical textual status. You know, what’s wrong with that? Is this sort of harmless or is there something kind of insidious underneath that?

LITHWICK: Part of what’s a little bit fraud about this conversation is that the same people who are fetishizing the document as written, as framed by the framers and, you know, bracket the idea that there wasn’t one framer, and there was no —

HAYES: Right.

LITHWICK: — one agenda embodied in this, but even if you bracket that idea, I think there’s a real problem with the idea that we’re trying to sort of fetishize the document at the same moment that we’re falling over ourselves to amend and change the parts we don’t like.

RUSH: Well, that’s part of the process is changing and amending it. But you guys don’t do that because your changes and amendments would never see the light of day if voted on legislatively so you’ve ginned up the courts to do it for you, and that’s what’s under assault here. They’re simply defenders and protectors. And people are going to swear an oath today on the floor of the House to the Constitution and to God, to defend and protect the Constitution. A piece of propaganda, the left says. And, of course, the template having been established, Maud Behar had to get in on the act on her show last night on the headline whatever it is —

BEHAR: Do you think this Constitution loving is getting out of hand? I mean is it a nod to the Tea Party?

MAN: I think —

BEHAR: For the first time a lot of congressman will have heard about it, read it.

RUSH: Just to show you how the template gets started and the privates, the buck privates in the army start falling in place.


RUSH: What is it with these Democrats anyway sexualizing the opposition? ‘Tea baggers,’ ‘fetishists of the Constitution.’ These are perverts themselves! These are… (interruption) Well, don’t roll your eyes in there, Dawn. It is what it is. These are perverts perverting the founding documents. Let me ask you: If the Constitution is not that big a deal, how come the same people had such a cow when they thought Christine O’Donnell didn’t know what she was talking about regarding the Constitution? If it’s so unimportant, how come Obama is so proud to have been a ‘constitutional lawyer’ or professor or lecturer, whatever he was? Abraham Lincoln. Do they hate him? Did Abraham Lincoln have a ‘fetish for the US Constitution’?

Here’s what Lincoln said, among many other things: ”We the people’ are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.’ That’s Lincoln. Is he a pervert? Did Lincoln have a fetish? Lincoln also said, ‘Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.’ I wonder how many people in the media and I wonder how many Democrats know and I wonder how many of you know (the odds of you knowing are far greater than the media or Democrats knowing) our nation’s first official Thanksgiving was to give thanks for the new Constitution.

Not the Indians and turkey and popcorn and all that. Not Gravy. It was to give thanks for the new Constitution. And now it’s a ‘fetish,’ and all it means, folks — all it means when Jerrold Nadler comes out with his contempt and Maude Behar follows the fax that she’s sent; when Dahlia Lithwick and some of these others so-called intellectuals of the left begin to impugn the character of people who revere the Constitution, all they’re telling us — is how much it threatens them. What they’re telling us is how much they fear the Constitution. They don’t revere it. In order for them to succeed they have to ‘pervert’ it. Lincoln’s word, not mine (although it fits). They’re really afraid of it. They’re afraid of the Constitution, afraid of Sarah Palin. They’re afraid of a whole lot of things. But you have to add the Constitution to the list with this latest assault on people who revere it.


RUSH: I’ll tell you who has a fetish. (Well, many people have fetishes.) The Democrats have a fetish for Maya Angelou poems. They even have her write poems for their swearing-ins like Clinton’s. (Angelou impression) ‘The Rock, The River, and the Tree’ by Maya Angelou at the swearing in of Clinton in 1993. That’s right. It was (interruption) ‘The Rock, The River, and the Tw’ee,’ and then they read Maya Angelou poems all over the place.


RUSH: I heard about this when I was gone. ‘Scalia to Talk About Constitution to House Members,’ and the Democrats are livid! This is a Michele Bachmann idea. This from the LA Times: ‘The decision by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to accept an invitation from Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), the founder of the House’s Tea Party Caucus, to speak to incoming House members about the Constitution is drawing fire from some who worry the court is injecting itself into partisan politics. The meeting ‘suggests an alliance between the conservative members of the court and the conservative members of Congress,’ said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, who said Scalia had shown ‘exceedingly poor judgment” by accepting the invitation.

‘He said the association of Scalia, an outspoken conservative, with the bombastic Bachmann…’ (pause) Bombastic? She’s just passionate. Anyway, it ‘could contribute to the high court becoming overly politicized.’ I have to laugh at that. So it’s Scalia that makes the court ‘overly politicized;’ not a bunch of liberal hacks that are on the court, but Scalia who does nothing but interpret the original intent of the Constitution when he issues opinions. That’s all he does! He does not impose his agenda, whatever it is. He interprets the Constitution as best he can according to its original intent — and that, the left hates. He’s an originalist.

‘But Bachmann’s office said that Democrats and Republicans were welcome to attend the Jan. 24 speech. Also, it is not unprecedented for a sitting Supreme Court justice to confer with the legislative branch. Several justices have met in off-the-record sessions with the bipartisan Congressional Caucus on the Judicial Branch.’ Separation of powers, by the way, is the topic. She went to see Scalia. He accepted the invitation. His topic is separation of powers. Yeah, that’s really a threat. Wow! Can you imagine that, a Supreme Court justice accepting an invitation from a member of Congress — legislative branch — to talk about separation of powers?

Well, we can’t have that. No, no, no! Let’s get a Marxist professor in there to talk about it and balance it out. Is that what we should do? Again, this is from the Washington Post by Emi Kolawole: ‘Justice Antonin Scalia has weighed in on the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, leaving women’s rights activists seething.’ I love it when women’s rights activists ‘seethe.’ The thing is it’s their constant state of existence. ‘Women’s rights activists’ (i.e., feminazis) are constantly seething. They are perpetually ticked off, constantly angry, as are most liberals. ‘In an interview with California Lawyer [magazine], Scalia said the Constitution…’ This is why they hate the guy. What did I just say? He searches for the original intent.

‘Scalia said that the Constitution itself does not protect women and gay men and lesbians from discrimination.’ (Gasp!) The horror! The horror! He’s a bigot, he’s a racist, he’s a sexist, he’s a homophobe! ‘Scalia said that the Constitution itself does not protect women and gay men and lesbians from discrimination. Such protections are up to the legislative branch, he said.’ He’s got a mature idea on the restraints of his branch. Here’s what he said. This is the question to Scalia: ‘In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don’t think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we’ve gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?’

Scalia: ‘Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. … But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that’s fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society.’ That’s key: ‘You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant,’ the Fourteenth Amendment. ‘Nobody ever voted for that.’ Sex discrimination, sex-orientation discrimination, nobody even thought of that when this amendment was being proposed, debated and voted on. ‘Nobody voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws.

‘You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don’t like the death penalty anymore, that’s fine. You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.’ That’s why they hate him, because that’s precisely what judges are for: Imposing their view, imposing their personal policy preferences, imposing their ideology on society. That’s how the left does it because they cannot win those votes, because they represent 20% of the thinking in this country. No matter what anybody else tells you.

You know what I hope happens today? When it’s time for Pelosi to give Boehner the gavel, I hope she doesn’t. I mean, I would love to see them have to pry the damn thing out of her hand. I would love to see her stand up and, make a protest speech. Say, ‘For the good of America, I just can’t do it! Cart me off to jail, string me up, but I refuse! I refuse to turn the gavel over to these perverts who have a fetish for the Constitution. I refuse! They want to send old people out on the streets, and they want to kick seasoned citizens out of their homes and they want to deprive Medicare coverage for all elderly and they want to deprive all health care for everybody, and they want everybody to die except the banks!’

I would love to see Pelosi go nuts.

It won’t happen. She’ll do that behind closed doors, and probably already has. (interruption) Wait a minute here! Wait a second! Wait just a minute up here! There’s a bunch of kids in that place today. Now, Pelosi and the Democrats are saying that reading the Constitution today (or tomorrow, whatever it is) is a stunt. It’s theatrics; it’s propaganda. But having a bunch of grandkids there isn’t? When Pelosi was sworn in back in 2007 and making herself look like the grandmother of the House with all the grandkids, oh, that was great! Look, five of them are sitting in a row there in the front. Kids. Members’ kids. That’s not theatrics, is it? No, no, no. That’s not. That’s not a stunt, is it? Oh, no, of course not! ‘Mr. Limbaugh, that’s just the sanctified ceremony of children in the family being present.’ Right. Right. Yeah, some little six-year-old is sitting on Pelosi’s lap there next to Steny Hoyer, who’s sitting next to Pelosi. Hoyer, look at that expression. It’s ‘What am I doing here?’


RUSH: You know, the word ‘sex’ does not even appear in the entire Constitution, you can’t find it there, not in the real one.

Now, in the once-upon-a-time news magazine called TIME: ‘The GOP House’s Opening Act: Making a Statement – or Making a Mockery?’ What are they talking about here? ‘Two months after a sweeping victory in the midterm elections, Republicans will officially reclaim the House of Representatives on Wednesday. But before the new majority party begins the business of governing — which it doesn’t even really get down to until the end of the month — it will take the opportunity to savor its triumph and make a statement with a good dose of Washington political theater. At about noon, the House clerk will call the chamber to order. After reciting a prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, the members will elect Representative John Boehner as Speaker. The Ohioan will be presented by his predecessor, outgoing Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi, before swearing in the largest GOP freshman class in more than half a century.’

See, it’s political theater to pray, say the Pledge of Allegiance, but when Pelosi flexed her muscles on the speaker’s podium surrounded by an untold number of grandchildren and extended family, whoa, that was not theater. And then they refer to the reading of the Constitution as a mockery here in TIME Magazine. We truly do have two countries here, don’t we? And I want to know where the middle ground is with these people? Even if you cross the aisle and try to meet these people halfway, where is there compromise with somebody who thinks the Constitution, if you revere it you have a fetish for it, reading it for the House of Representatives is a mockery? See, the Democrats, folks, can only win, can only get their agenda by lying and changing the rules, and that’s why they hate the Constitution. The Constitution’s a contract. It’s our social contract. It’s the mother of all rules, you might say. It’s the source of the rule of law. Of course, they hate it, they want to pervert it. It’s the only thing standing in their way. The Constitution is an obstacle. That’s why Obama, the Democrats have conceived the new Bill of Rights and the whole concept of a charter of negative liberties, meaning for big statists and big government people, the Constitution doesn’t spell out what government can do. All the Constitution does is tell the government what it can’t do, and they hate that.


RUSH: To the phones, as promised. To Jacksonville, Florida. Rob, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello, sir.

CALLER: Happy New Year and happy birthday, Rush.

RUSH: Thank you.

CALLER: Hey, I wanted to… You were talking about the Congress, congressional Democrats and their arrogance and disdain for the Constitution. I think that’s fundamentally a religious problem. They acknowledge no authority except themselves. They won’t acknowledge God as the Creator and they won’t acknowledge the Constitution and the people of the United States as their boss. They are fundamentally arrogant. They lie through their arrogance. They will do anything to subvert this country and subvert the Constitution.

RUSH: Well, I think you’ve got a basic understanding of who they are. I mean, they’re not ‘godless,’ it’s just they have a different god than you and me.

CALLER: The other question I had for you is even our so-called Republican conservative representatives, they always want to seek accommodation with them, even though we’ve told them: ‘We don’t want accommodation. We want you to say ‘hell, no’ to everything that’s been going on for the last years, and we don’t want you to get along. We want to overturn fundamentally everything they’ve done be that health care, be that the curly lightbulb stuff. We just don’t like what they’ve done,’ and they’ve gotta answer to us, the bosses of the Congress and the president.

RUSH: Oh, no, no, no, no. (chuckles) They have answered. They got shellacked. But that only makes them hold you in more contempt. That only makes you a bigger target for the next time they get their power back. They find out you’re a Tea Partier? (laughing) If you’re not from an unhappy family, they’re gonna make sure yours ends up unhappy. Heh-heh-heh-heh-heh. Ah, you’re right, you’re right. Condescension is part and parcel of liberalism.

Sophia in my adopted hometown of Sacramento, California. Hi.



CALLER: Hello?


CALLER: Hi. Hey, Rush. Happy birthday next Wednesday. I hope you enjoy it.

RUSH: Thank you very much. Oh, Sophia, you’re 14 years old? I just saw this on the computer screen.

CALLER: Yeah, that’s right.

RUSH: Fourteen! And you know when my birthday is.

CALLER: (giggles) Well, I am a Rush babe, so…

RUSH: Well, thank you very much. You sound like a very mature 14-year-old.

CALLER: Why, thank you.

RUSH: You’re welcome.

CALLER: So earlier you were talking about a few clips of — I don’t know her name, sorry — the lady who is talking about the Constitution, how people were like saying it’s biblical. She was like mocking them, basically, in the way that she was saying, ‘Oh, they were using it as biblical text.’ Well, honestly, the Constitution is what this country is — and if it weren’t for this country, she wouldn’t have been able to even have said that without being persecuted (probably severely) in many other countries. This country made her everything she is, and she dares to mock it. It really, really, really grosses me out. For example, like you. For example. You are just like great because you live the American dream, which is just fantastic… Sorry, I’m kinda getting nervous here.

RUSH: No, you’re doing great. You don’t sound nervous at all. You just sound like you’re in awe of me, and you don’t need to be.

CALLER: (giggles) Well, I just…

RUSH: (laughing)

CALLER: Like, the Constitution is everything this country is. If it weren’t for that, what would we be? You know? Like, how would this country have built anything?

RUSH: That’s exactly right. If it weren’t for the Constitution, we would be a dictatorship, a tyranny of some kind like where most of the people of this world have to live.

CALLER: Honestly if it weren’t for America, Benjamin Franklin — I mean, not Benjamin Franklin, sorry. He’s the one who discovered electricity. We still would be in, like, cavemen, you know? I mean, we would be nothing.

RUSH: Well, according to certain women, men still are, and you’ll learn that as you grow older.

CALLER: (giggles)

RUSH: But I know that’s not what you’re talking about today.

CALLER: Yeah. So it just really grosses me out when people dare to mock the Constitution when it’s everything they are. If it weren’t for the Constitution, they would be nothing, and they mock what they are. It’s an oxymoron, honestly.

RUSH: Why do you think they do that, Sophia?

CALLER: I guess they think it’s more powerful, like I guess they think that they’re cool. I don’t honestly know.

RUSH: They’re afraid of it. It’s because they’re afraid of it. The people you’re talking about — the Democrats, liberals, whatever — will tell us who and what they fear by what it is they seek to destroy or what it is they endlessly criticize. So they fear the Constitution, and they fear it for the very reasons that you have stipulated. The Constitution… This is the cut-to-the-chase way to say it: The Constitution is the greatest obstacle in their way. What does the Constitution guarantee and preserve? Liberty and freedom for the individual. That’s the biggest obstacle to the left, not just in this country, but anywhere around the world. Liberalism is liberalism, socialism is socialism, communism is communism. Wherever the people who believe in that stuff are, individual liberty and freedom are the biggest threat to big-government statists, liberals and Democrats. Your education on this is superb — don’t let anybody change your mind as you grow older — and your instincts are profound. Your parents have to be, like we are, extremely proud of you, I’m sure. I’m glad that you called. It’s great to have you on the program.

And we will be back.


RUSH: The Constitution is a limit on government. That, ladies and gentlemen, drives the left insane, the limit on government. They just can’t abide it, drives them absolutely wacky.

Phillip in Dallas, your turn. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hi.

CALLER: Rush, I want you to take these people’s contempt for the Constitution, and I want you to wield it like a club. I want you to beat ’em over the head with it. I wanted to remind you of — I don’t know if you remember this, but in 2010 a left-wing publisher began putting warning labels on copies of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, the Federalist Papers. This was Wilder Publications, and they put out a warning stating that, ‘This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today.’ The disclaimer goes on to warn parents that they ‘might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.’ These people hate our country and our founding documents so much that they’re putting warning labels on the Declaration of Independence.

RUSH: My brain’s churning here. My memory is pretty good, but I don’t remember this.

CALLER: This was reported by Fox News in June of 2010.

RUSH: I must not have been watching Fox News in June of 2010. I had much more important things going in June of 2010. (laughing) But I’m listening to you describe this, and I’m trying to suppress laughter, although it’s outrageous. I mean, what a great parody that would be except that they’re already doing it.

CALLER: Rush, I want you to take this issue, and I want you to beat them over the head every day with it. I want you to embarrass them with their own contempt for our Constitution.

RUSH: Do you think they’re embarrassable over contempt for the Constitution?

CALLER: Yes. If you hound them every day, they are. You can make these people look even dumber than they already look.

RUSH: Well, if anybody could do that it’s certainly me.

CALLER: Could I make one comment about the Mount Soledad war memorial that the Ninth Circuit just found unconstitutional?

RUSH: Yeah, go right ahead. This is the cross and the memorial that’s been found unconstitutional. Yeah.

CALLER: Yes, a memorial to our fallen war dead. I couldn’t help but note the irony that in the same week Al-Qaeda, on their international websites, had been circulating ideas on how Muslims could destroy the cross, and I thought, what irony. Al-Qaeda, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals are kinda working toward the same goals. This is who they are, Rush.

RUSH: Well — (laughing) I know. I chronicled how I have heard Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talk about America and I could swear what’s the difference in that and Obama, or Steny Hoyer or any other Democrat? The talking points between the totalitarian regime enemies of this country and the Democrat Party are identical in many ways, not just about policy, but about people. You listen to your average Democrat talk about Bush and it’s no different than what Ahmadinejad says about Bush. I got everybody sending me that Fox story that you cited out there, Phillip, about warning labels. (laughing) By the way, the warning label, interpersonal relations, read that again if you have it handy.

CALLER: The disclaimer goes on to tell parents that they ‘might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.’

RUSH: Classic work. Now, when you read that disclaimer, Philip, do you conjure an image of the person who might have written it? Not physically of course, but who?


RUSH: Well, who? I mean obviously somebody in a publishing company, individual there, who is this person? Give me a profile.

CALLER: Someone who is badly in need of deodorant, a bath, probably remedial lessons in economics, probably desperately in need of education as far as American history and someone who inexplicably supports a Stalinist version of government.

RUSH: Okay. Interesting. I have a totally different take, but that’s why I asked you. You’re right, I mean I wouldn’t have thrown in the bath business, but the lack of education and the bias and the bigotry and so forth, yeah.

CALLER: Yeah, it was written by a Democrat, Rush.

RUSH: Well, of course, of course. There are many kinds of Democrats.

CALLER: Would you find this many warnings on an issue of Hustler magazine.

RUSH: No, but one really isn’t needed there.

CALLER: Yeah, but we treat our founding documents like pornography and we treat pornography like art.

RUSH: No, we don’t. The left does, the American left treats it, and, by the way, if you like it, how do you feel now being called one that has a fetish?

CALLER: Well, I have the same exact observation as you did. They have to apply some kind of sexual stigma to any idea of fealty or loyalty to our Constitution. They have to try to make me look bad or feel bad about it, and these are the same people who are wanting to talk to your kindergarten child about gay sex. It’s not a fetish wanting us to adhere to the rules and the founding documents of our nation. That’s what guarantees our equality. That’s what enshrines our rights.

RUSH: Limits —

CALLER: And if we’re gonna go the communist route, I’m not gonna be around very long.

RUSH: Ain’t gonna happen, ain’t gonna happen. The American people are awake and they are aware. This is not 20 years ago when this program — if all this was happening 20 years ago, I’ll just take you back, let’s go back to 1989, ’90, ’91, if this exact stuff was happening, if for the first time the Democrats were talking about fetish of the Constitution, I guarantee you that the reaction to it would be much different. There would be fear. People wouldn’t know what to make of it. ‘Oh, my gosh, what’s happening?’ But now there’s so much sophistication about who the left is and why they say these things. There’s genuine, ‘You are not getting hold of my country, pal. You can put warning labels all over every document you want, but you’re not getting hold of our country.’ Twenty years ago it was much different. Twenty years ago we were in the throes of the soon-to-come upset in the ’94 elections.

I’ve been able to chronicle in 20 years how these things have changed, and believe me, the American people, it’s taken a while but they’re up to speed on what they’re up against now and who’s actually opposed to them. I remember 20 years ago when stuff like this was happening, I can’t tell you how alarmed I was by it, scared. I’d go talk to people older than I, who had lived longer than I, and without fail — Mr. Buckley was one of them, ‘Don’t worry about it, the American people will get up to speed on this eventually. They’re never gonna get away with all they want.’ And when the election of Obama came along, face it, everybody thought, ‘Oh, my gosh, now they’ve finally done it.’ But, look, after two years of pure undiluted openness about who these people really are, look at the degree of opposition to it. I mean this election, again, I cannot emphasize what a genuine, overwhelming spanking this was for the Democrat Party all across the country.

Now, there needs to be repeats of this for many elections in the future. Not just this one time. But it’s a far cry different today, the reaction to this kind of stuff than it was 20 years ago. Twenty years ago, ‘I can’t believe this, how dare they? Who do they think they are? What are we gonna do about it?’ Now the outrage is still there, but there’s not fear. There is a determination to stop it, and there is, in some cases, laughing at these people. And more and more of that is also starting to take place. I must take a break. Phillip, thanks for the call. I appreciate it.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This