RUSH: If you just missed it, the first hour today was devoted to explaining to the Republican Party and everybody else why they are where they are. It’s a neat trick that the Democrats have pulled off. Once again, I — in a way — feel like I ought to apologize.
This is something I should have figure out 20 years ago, but I just figured it out in a conscious, able-to-explain-it way over the weekend. It’s much like the Limbaugh Theorem. I shoulda figured that out long ago, but eventually I got it. All that’s going on here — gay marriage, illegal aliens, whatever, every issue — is simply a vehicle for the Democrat Party to portray itself as liberators. They’re the great liberators, the party of freedom, the party that’s going to free people from the chains of the no-fun Republican Party.
It really isn’t any more complicated than that.
Now, of course the Democrats don’t liberate anybody. As these groups are ostensibly granted their freedom, what happens? The government gets bigger and we all give up a little freedom, and morality goes to hell. The virtues that define a civil society get trampled on and eliminated in the name of freedom, in the name of liberty. So we end up with freedom without virtue. We have leadership without character. We have hedonism substituting for freedom.
Guess who it is that doesn’t want you to have freedom and be free?
It’s the Republican Party.
So the Democrats come on along and what do they do? They put people in groups as victims. All the while I thought this was done to expand one of the state, which it is, but there’s another purpose. Once you’re a victim, it’s a victim of what? Discrimination. What’s that? Anti-freedom. Discrimination and bigotry. What’s that? Racism, bigotry, homophobia, all these things are bias against your freedom, bias against your liberty. Ostensibly. So Democrats constantly need a group that needs liberating.
They always have to have a group that’s oppressed, and that’s why homosexual marriage has risen to the top now. There’s a battle going on for primacy between the same-sex marriage crowd and illegal aliens. They’re the next group of oppressed people in this country who need to be liberated, who are being denied their Americanism. “They’re being denied their rights, as granted by government,” is what people think. It really isn’t any more complicated than that, when you get right down to it.
Young people have this almost romantic attachment to civil rights, liberties, emancipating people from oppression, from liberty. The idea that such exists in this country offends me, but it’s pushed and able to be sold because education in this country is so woefully incompetent and inept. Here, just to show you: The Clintons used to be two of the most vocal, anti-gay marriage Democrats you could find — and they got votes on it. They had that position to coalesce voting blocs. Now, Mrs. Clinton has just done a 180, and nobody’s gonna call her on it.
Barack Obama, up until last summer during the campaign, was totally opposed to gay marriage — and got votes on it. He campaigned on and secured votes by being anti-gay marriage. Or maybe I should say “pro-traditional marriage.” Let’s put it that way. It’s the Republicans who are anti-gay marriage. Democrats are pro-traditional marriage. But all that’s out the window. Something happened, and every Democrat’s now done a 180 and it is the most important issue. Homosexual marriage.
People try to figure out why. You go about your daily business, turn on the news, and all of a sudden you would think we’re back in the days of slavery, except today’s slaves are homosexuals who are not allowed to get married. You’d think, “What the hell happened while I wasn’t looking? What happened?” What you don’t know is that you are being suckered as a victim yourself. You’re being drawn into some nonexistent oppression, and tyranny that a bunch of poor Americans need to be liberated from. There’s the Democrat Party doing it, and who stands in their way?
(And they wonder why they’ve got a branding problem?)
You know, maybe the Republicans ought to say something like, “We don’t have designs on your private property. We would never just unilaterally confiscate 10% of your bank account like the liberals in Cyprus and Italy do. We would never advance a wealth tax or seize your bank account to pay for government. We wouldn’t put a bureaucrat between you and your doctor. We wouldn’t pretend that food stamps and unemployment benefits help the economy. We wouldn’t limit your right to self-defense.
“We wouldn’t spend all day trying to figure out how to separate you from your guns.” I mean, it’s not hard. Conservatism — which is real freedom, which is real liberty — is not that hard. But today’s Republicans think everybody so hates it, so opposes to it, that they’re scared of it. Defense of Marriage Act? That was Bill Clinton! You remember? The Defense of Marriage Act, 1996, was Bill Clinton! The Democrat Party devised it, proposed it, came up with it! The Democrat Party.
“Defense of marriage,” which said what?
“We are going to stand united against anything other than marriage being a man and a woman.” The Democrat Party, Bill Clinton — and here it is a little over ten years later, and every Democrat’s done a 180, and nobody’s calling them on it. Why have they switched? Why have they changed their minds? Well, asked and answered. Been there, done that. I’ve given you the answer to everything. It’s time to move on. Here’s Hillary, just to play you the sound bite. This is today. It’s on the Human Rights Campaign website. They released a video of Mrs. Clinton now. You know, she and her husband were right in there with DOMA, Defense of Marriage Act.
I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but they’re about to tear that law up. They’re about to pretend it doesn’t exist. Obama stopped enforcing it last year.
Here’s Mrs. Clinton…
HILLARY: I believe America is at its best when we champion the freedom and dignity of every human being. LGBT Americans are our colleagues, our teachers, our soldiers, our friends, our loved ones. And they are full and equal citizens and deserve the rights of citizenship. That includes marriage. I support it personally and as a matter of policy and law.
RUSH: (translating) “But I used to not. I was really as adamantly opposed to it as anybody ever was not that long ago. But I’m a Clinton and I’m a Democrat and I can change my mind and it doesn’t matter. On a core belief, on a core principle like how you define marriage, it doesn’t matter. I can go with the wind, and I know I’ll get away with it. You won’t hold me to it.” But you notice here, they are “full and equal citizens,” as though they’re not now.
They’re not full and equal citizens if they can’t get married, and they deserve the rights of citizenship. That’s right. They are not full citizens, folks! They’re being tyrannized. You see how it works? She says, “and that includes marriage.” Now, let me run something by you. Rand Paul put a statement out on gay marriage, ’cause there’s a New York Times story here today: “Among GOP Voters, Little Support for Same-Sex Marriage.” I’m just gonna repeat something here I said at the close the previous hour.
I’m gonna help the Republicans here because, again, I don’t pretend to know how to get votes. I think I know how, but it’s not my business. It’s theirs. Nevertheless, if the Republican Party openly supports amnesty, they’re finished simply as a matter of mathematics. If there are 12 million illegals, nine million of those are gonna be automatic Democrats the moment they get the right to vote — and I don’t care what the Republicans do with turnout, policy, rebranding, there’s no way they can keep up with nine million brand-new Democrats in one day.
The second thing is, if they come out as a party for gay marriage, right here you have it. I mean, the polling data on this, from the Pew Research Center finds there’s hardly any support for same-sex marriage among Republican voters. You know, Rob Portman, Ohio, came out for it, because his son is gay, and there were a lot of responses in the Republican Party. I was, frankly, surprised. “Hey, our policies are not up to personal preference here.” He took a lot of heat from people for this on the Republican side.
“Our principles are not based on personal preference, otherwise we’d be liberals,” and then there were those who were sympathetic. Well, it’s his son. Anyway, Rand Paul said (summarized), “I tell you what. Let’s take the word ‘marriage’ out of the tax code and let’s just eliminate any special or different treatment for married couples in the tax code and that’ll end it.” Well, I’m not so sure, ’cause the Democrats don’t want it to end. Gay marriage first got started as, “Well, I can’t get to the hospital to see my loved one, and I can’t get the marriage deduction ’cause you can’t get married.”
So it did become a matter of benefits.
To me, the answer to a question like this is, “Well, let’s not expand ‘the benefits.’ Let’s get rid of the benefits.” They shouldn’t exist as they do anyway, then.” That whole word “benefit” just sends me to the moon anyway. When I hear Obama in a speech advising people in his audience how to go about getting their “benefits,” I think, “What the…? Benefits? Benefits for what?” Anyway, that’s how it got it started.
So Rand Paul said, let’s just take marriage out of it. Okay, let’s hypothetically do that. No more tax preferences or different, special whatever treatment for anybody being married. There’s no more marriage deduction, and you can go see anybody in the hospital you want. You don’t have to be married. Do you think that will end the push for same sex marriage? No. As John Kerry would say, “No f-ing way.” Or Biden. Both of them, actually.
Quickly, here’s Sue in Wichita. Sue, I’m glad you called. Great to have you on the EIB, hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thank you. This is a real honor. Kind of nerve-wracking, but an honor. I just, in thinking about young people and why they’re so willing to accept gay marriage, I think a large part of it is because they’ve been taught their whole life that it is a virtue to tolerate everything. And so for them it’s not freedom without virtue; they think it is virtuous. They’re tolerating everything.
RUSH: Oh, no, I agree with you. I’m saying — actually I’m quoting Os Guinness, but I think he’s right. He’s saying freedom without virtue. I don’t think the people practicing this stuff think that at all. I think you’re exactly right. To them it’s an issue of tolerance. It makes ’em good people.
CALLER: Absolutely. They have never been told that tolerance has limits. They’ve never been told that tolerance needs to be limited when it gets destructive. They think that tolerance is unlimited and everything should be tolerated, and that’s a virtue.
RUSH: But see, they don’t. Because they don’t tolerate everything. They don’t tolerate conservatives.
CALLER: True. True.
RUSH: That’s the great myth that all these tolerant people are all the great open-minded people. They’re not. But you’re right. I think it’s an excellent point. They have been raised, conflict resolution, whatever, tolerance, and there’s virtue intolerance. There’s virtue in understanding. There’s virtue in acceptance.
CALLER: Well, it’s because there are no absolutes.
CALLER: Yeah. You can take morality to any extreme, and it doesn’t matter because they don’t know that that is destructive. They don’t understand it. And they’ve never been taught that.
RUSH: Well, some of them have been raised with it, but I guess it didn’t stick. That’s the only way a human being becomes moral, by the way, is having it taught.
CALLER: Right. And it’s been taught but then they get out into the world and everybody rails against them when they aren’t able to accept everything, and most of them aren’t able to explain why. They aren’t able to say, “The reason I am not for gay marriage is because it destroys traditional marriage.” And they don’t have reasons behind their thinking, and so they just, you know, fall apart —
RUSH: No, you’re exactly right. Even if they say that, “because it destroys traditional marriage,” the next question, “Well, how? What’s so big about traditional marriage?” “Well, I don’t know, I just heard that.” They don’t know. They couldn’t answer the question, “What’s so good about traditional marriage?” You’re right. Not being taught this stuff. Anyway, Sue, you’re right on the money. I gotta take a brief time-out here, as they all are, they go by faster than you would believe, as you know.
RUSH: Okay, I patiently waited. Nobody here had the answer. We don’t have a caller up there. Let me check. Two, three, four… Nope, nobody. Nobody up there. Okay. I mentioned earlier Rand Paul had an idea that the way for the Republican Party to announce it’s dealing with gay marriage. By the way, it was a germ of an idea. It’s not an official proposal. He said, just take marriage out of the tax code, and take all the special treatment for marriage out of the tax code and then there’s no benefit financially.
So therefore homosexuals don’t have to get married in order to qualify for certain tax deductions, treatment, what have you. I’ve been waiting for somebody to send me an e-mail, slap me upside the head, or do something with the obvious retort to that. Sadly, no one has. So, as always, it’s up to me. So the question is, “Well, why is there special treatment for married couples in the tax code? I mean, who wrote it in there?” Members of Congress, over the years, have put special treatment for married people in the tax code.
Why is it?
Why is it there?
Is it because we’re trying to encourage people to get married? Well, then why are we doing that? Is it because we’re biased for marriage over single people? Why don’t…? (interruption) That’s right. Snerdley gets it. All right. The reason why, ladies and gentlemen, there’s all the different treatment tax-wise for married couples is the assumption that there are children. I don’t have kids, so I don’t take advantage of these benefits (ahem), but you who do know full well what you get per kid and what deductions there are.
In other words, the financial benefits are not there to discriminate against the unmarried. The financial benefits are there to cut married people with kids some slack because we, as a society, have deemed population growth to be a good thing. Without it, there isn’t a country, and there isn’t gonna be population growth in gay marriage. Sorry, unless they invent a womb to go in a guy. (interruption) Well, yeah, but you gotta… (interruption) Eventually… (interruption) Sure, you can get a surrogate, but do I need to take this out to its obvious conclusion?
I’m not gonna go there. (laughing) I’m not. (interruption) I’m already being argued with on this, but the whole point of special tax treatment for married people is not because of bias for married people. It’s not because governments want to shower or punish less married people. It’s because of the acknowledgement of kids. Procreation! New child growth. Population growth. New “workers,” quote/unquote. New taxpayers. Except now it’s new recipients of unemployment compensation and new recipients of food stamps. We’re not even promoting work anymore.
RUSH: Dena in Donnelly, Idaho. Welcome to the EIB Network. Great to have you here. Hi.
CALLER: Dittos, Rush. I’ve been a listener since the late eighties. My question was why the young people push for no marriage. There’s many young people today not getting married. So why is there a concern that gays should be married? The government even supports nonmarried women with their children.
RUSH: Because it’s really not about marriage. It’s about the fact that they want to do something, and somebody won’t let ’em, and so somebody’s being intolerant, and they love just like anybody else loves. Who is it for us to say they shouldn’t be able to get married? What right do we have? If they want to get married, why should they not be able to? It’s unfair, it’s intolerant, it’s discriminatory and it must stop. That’s it.
CALLER: I’m against gay marriage. My granddaughter is in favor of gay marriage, and the only thing I say to her is that all my life I’ve paid attention to animals and birds. And animals, you know, the prime directive is procreation. And animals don’t practice the practice of death. They have a partner, they mate, and they produce an offspring. And it doesn’t makes sense for people to be gay because they cannot reproduce themselves. It makes no scientific, logical sense.
RUSH: Well, but it’s not even about that. I mean, you’re talking about the breeder population. How old is your daughter or granddaughter, did you say?
CALLER: Granddaughter. She’s 16, and she lives in Virginia, so she lives in a community of liberals.
RUSH: Well, I’m telling you, in her age-group all the way up to age 30, it is issue numero uno.
RUSH: You can hit her with every bit of logic in the world. You will not make any inroads.
CALLER: I’m trying.
RUSH: Particularly on the animal side, because, you know, she, “Well, animals, that’s instinct, mom,” and then she’s probably been taught that there are gay animals and to tolerate it —
CALLER: Well, she tried to promote that animals are gay, they aren’t, really, but she did listen to me because she has kind of got that science head.
RUSH: Well, now, it’s not science that we’re talking about here. It’s politics.
CALLER: You’re right.
RUSH: I guarantee you, I mean, your granddaughter just doesn’t think it’s fair that people who love each other and want to get married are not allowed to in this country. That’s not what freedom means to them. That’s not what tolerance means.
CALLER: Right. And she has used the word “fairness.”
RUSH: Exactly. It’s all about fairness. She doesn’t have the same framework of understanding that you do. I don’t know how early in your life you thought the way you do now, but this is one of these trendy, cyclical things here that is being pushed unbeknownst to your granddaughter by a very activist, liberal leadership.