Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

Listen to it Button

RUSH: I want to go to Indiana and discuss this supposedly controversial Indiana religious freedom law. It’s made to order for the modern-day Drive-By Media. On Saturday and Sunday, ABC, CBS, NBC — virtually every mainstream media organization — condemned a new law in Indiana that would protect private businesses from government infringement on their religious freedom. What this means is that the Obama administration wants to do away — and the media is assisting — with the whole notion of free markets, the Constitution, and the freedom of religion clause.

The administration wants the power to mandate everything as much as they can. Now, the news organizations — ABC, CBS, NBC, and all the others — just had a collective cow over this. And rather than provide any kind of balance, rather than explain the history and the context and the true meaning and detail of the Indiana law, they predictably began to trash the legislation and Indianans as a bunch of bigots opening the door to discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Even the CEO of Apple, Inc., Tim Cook took to the pages of the Washington Post and wrote an editorial condemning this kind of legislation — not just in Indiana, but wherever it might be — and making it out to be example of the worst instincts among us that we have here discriminating against people, and it’s so un-American and so forth. Mr. Snerdley me asked me today, “When’s the last time Tim Cook wrote an op-ed in the Shanghai Daily News ripping the ChiComs?”

I mean, the ChiComs impinge on everybody’s freedom, particularly religious freedom in China. Of course it’s a major, major Apple market. I happened to think about it when Snerdley asked me the question. I can’t think of the time when an Apple executive… All I can think of when it comes to ChiComs is Google caving to the ChiComs on what kind of search results will not be seen and produced by Google when Chinese citizens are searching.

But what is fascinating about this, and it’s becoming an even more prevalent reality. On the one hand, on any issue, we have the reality. We have facts, we have history, we have context, we have truth. On the other hand, we have the absence of all of that, the misrepresentation of the facts, misrepresentation of the truth, misrepresentation of the context. In addition to that, then the media is hyping it all with a bunch of emotional propaganda that is designed specifically to misinform people bunch of about what has happened, particularly this case, this law in Indiana.

It’s like everybody’s forgotten the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling. It’s like it never happened! Does anybody remember this, or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which the Supreme Court upheld last year in the Hobby Lobby case? Everybody’s acting like that’s not the law of the land. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 was introduced by Chuck Schumer (Democrat-New York) on March 11, 1993; it was passed by a unanimous House of Representatives and a near unanimous Senate.

There were only three dissenting votes, and it was eagerly signed into law by none other than Slick Willie, a law that is practically identical to what happened in Indiana. If you want another similarity, it’s like what happened to Arizona. Arizona passes some immigration law that pretty much paralleled, reflected — maybe even you could say copied — federal immigration law. The reason Arizona did it was that the federal government was not enforcing its law.

The borders were wide open.

There was no effort being made to curb illegal immigration in Arizona, so in Arizona passed a law that held (for the most part) the identical circumstances in it that federal law does. And Obama sued the state of Arizona! But there was nothing in the Arizona law that had not already passed the United States Congress and been signed into law by numerous American presidents. And it’s the same thing here. The Indiana law isn’t anything new, and the Supreme Court has affirmed in the Hobby Lobby case.

When the Supreme Court upheld Hobby Lobby, they upheld the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. There’s literally nothing new that’s happened here in Indiana that hasn’t already been upheld at the Supreme Court and passed US Congress and been signed into law, in this case by Bill Clinton. But you would think… Because this affords the media and the left the perfect opportunity. What we’ve got here, folks, if I may draw… It’s not the perfect analogy, but it’s pretty close.

We’ve got “hands up, don’t shoot,” except in this case it’s supposedly discrimination against gays and lesbians and bisexuals and transgenders, and that’s not what it is. It’s a law that says the freedom of religion clause in the First Amendment has been affirmed. But you see, it’s selective outrage. Remember the case involving peyote? Remember that, Mr. Snerdley? A bunch of Native Americans wanted an exemption from federal laws against marijuana and similar things like peyote ’cause it was part of their religion.

Peyote was required, they said, for certain religious ceremonies. They got an exemption. Peyote was claimed legal because it was said that we could not infringe on the religious freedoms of Native Americans. I remember when that argument came up because then everybody said, “You know what’s gonna happen now? Every crackpot and oddball out there is gonna claim everything he’s doing is because of his religion as a means of getting away with it.” Now we’ve done an absolute 180.

Now a law passed to affirm the religious freedom of the people of Indiana has been restated, and the media is telling you that the governor of Indiana, Mike Pence — who we know here; he’s a good guy, he’s a good man — and the people of Indiana have decided that they don’t like gays and they don’t want gays anywhere in the state and they don’t want gays doing business there. So the gays say, “Fine! You don’t want us here? We’ll leave, and we’re gonna take all our business with us.”

That’s not what the law is.

But that’s how it’s being construed, that’s how it’s being portrayed. On one side we’ve got the facts, the history, the context, and it doesn’t matter. Over here we have what the media is saying about it. It’s purely emotional. It is driving people’s emotions and is creating almost a replica of the lie that “hands up, don’t shoot” was. As I say, it’s not a perfect analogy, but terms helping you to understand what’s going on here, it might work.

More when we come back, more details, plus some comments from Governor Pence. He was on This Week yesterday. He was on This Week with Stephanopoulos, and the Drive-Bys have been playing segments of it all day, and they’ve been claiming, “Boy, this guy, Pence? What an idiot! My God, he should never have gone on TV! Why, this guy looks like an absolute troglodyte. This is one of the worst interviews we have ever seen. This guy just dug his own grave and started shoveling the dirt on himself!”

That’s how bad they tried to portray it, because Pence was again dealing with, “Here’s what the law is and these are the facts,” and that doesn’t matter to people over here who are attempting to further an agenda — and, I might add further, the brand destruction of Republicans and the GOP. By the way, this is how and why a bunch of mainstream Republicans are running around all saying, “We’ve gotta get rid of social issues! We’ve just got to! We can’t win a thing with abortion and gay rights! We gotta get rid of social issues. We gotta stick to economic matters.”

They don’t want to have these battles.

They don’t care if we’ve got facts and history and context on our side. They don’t even want to engage. They just want to sweep the social issues off the table and declare defeat. “Let the left have whatever they want socially. Let ’em have whatever they want. We want to win elections and we can’t if our party is identified with the social crap. This the media knows, and this the Democrat Party knows, and this is why they continue to hammer the stuff even though none of what they’re saying — or very little of it — has any basis in truth.


RUSH: Adam in Anderson, Indiana, you’re first today on the phones, and it’s great to have you here. Hello.

CALLER: Thanks, Rush. Hey, a big pleasure to talk to you. I’m 34-years-old, so I guess I’m an old Millennial, but I’ve been listening to you since 1998, since I was eight years old.

RUSH: I appreciate that. I’m sure it’s helped you well, too.

CALLER: Well, I have a little bit of insight on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act being that I live in Indiana. I’ve lived here for about eight years, and I grew up in Illinois, but had a few people who don’t agree with me on a lot of issues say that it’s an open door for discrimination and all that type of thing. And I just look at them, and I say, “Really?” And they say, “Yeah, you know, our president, Barack Obama, he would never okay that or agree with that or believe in that.” And I said, “Really?” I said, “In 1998 in Illinois it’s been the law, state law in Illinois since 1998.” I said, “There was actually a state senator in 1998 who actually voted for that.” I said, “I can’t remember his name.” And I said, “Oh, yeah, it was Barack Hussein Obama.”

RUSH: And what did they say to that, when you tell ’em?

CALLER: They just get real quiet and then they go, “Are you sure?” I go, “Yeah, you can look it up if you want.”

RUSH: Well, they either accuse you of making it up and if they then think you didn’t make it up, well, Obama’s changed, he doesn’t think that any more. Troglodytes like you think it, but Obama doesn’t think it anymore by virtue of what’s happened now.

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: Here’s the thing. You get in an argument with people who believe what they believe that have nothing to do with facts, if you start throwing facts at ’em you’re never gonna — I mean, I don’t blame you for doing it, don’t misunderstand, but you’re not gonna persuade ’em, because they aren’t dealing with facts. Facts, context, history, are not in any way relevant to what they think. So you can give ’em every fact in the world that would disabuse them of every notion they’ve got. You can tell them they’re wrong here, you’re wrong there, you’re wrong, doesn’t matter, because they, in their minds, are good people, and their intentions matter, and so they’re not discriminating and you are, and that’s it.

Eugene Volokh is a law professor at UCLA School of Law. He has a website called the Volokh Conspiracy. In fact, he even has a blog at the Washington Post. I have a post here from the Volokh Conspiracy in December 2013 from his archives called, “What Is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?” In 1993 Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which gave religious objectors a statutory presumptive entitlement to exemption from generally applicable laws subject to strict scrutiny. Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest.

Now, I can tell you that your average low-information voter has no idea what I just read, no idea what I just said, and no idea what this means and never will understand what this means. But the vote for this proposition, as I just mentioned, was unanimous in the House. It was 97-3 in the Senate. And basically what the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was is what just happened in Indiana, pretty much on par. Back in 1993, a Democrat president signed into law, a unanimous House passed it in the Senate, 97-3. It was meant to apply to all branches of government and both to federal and state law.


RUSH: There’s many aspects to it, but this is made to order for the Democrat Party and left wing gay activist fundraising, and that’s another element of this so-called righteous indignant opposition.


RUSH: Yes, of course it’s frustrating. What are you gonna do, though? All you can do is tell people the truth and then that’s it. I mean, I can’t assemble everybody that lives in this country and put ’em in a room and tell ’em the truth and have ’em leave thinking they know it all. I would love for that to be able to happen, but I can’t do it.

Greetings, and welcome back. Great to have you. Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network, and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.

Folks, it really is frustrating. This whole thing with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and what happened in Indiana, I’m not kidding, on the one side we have facts, truth, history, context. Over here we’ve got something not related to that at all that is sufficing as the news of the day on this.

So all I can do is come here and give you the facts, give you the truth of the history of this and what this means, and beyond that if the primary conveyors of information in this country are gonna abandon that and ignore it, then there’s nothing that can be done about it. You just throw it open and you have to trust that at some point the truth will out.

By the way, greetings, and welcome back. 800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program.

Let me continue with the history of this, because I want you to realize here that what Indiana has done is they’re just the latest. They’re not setting any trends here, and they’re certainly not blazing any trails. In one sense they’re just the next in line, Johnny-come-latelies.

Again, now, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 1993, which gave religious objectors a statutory presumptive entitlement to exemption from generally applicable laws. Let me translate that for you. In 1993 Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which gave people the religious right to invoke their religious principles and be exempt from applicable laws in the process if they were in fact invoking religious principles.

That’s all that Indiana has done here, has simply affirmed that on a state basis, which many other states have done before. When Bill Clinton signed this bill back in 1993, let me read to you what he said. (imitating Clinton) “The power of God is such that even in the legislative process miracles can happen.” That’s what Bill Clinton said. Kid you not.

Now, what it was about back then was letting Indian kids smoke peyote. That’s all it was about. I brought up peyote for a reason. That’s what the religious freedom restoration act was all about was peyote, Indians, Native Americans claiming that they were exempt from the law making it illegal because it was part of their religion, and the US Congress affirmed that unanimously in the House, and by 97-3 in the Senate.

Even after the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, many members of the Native American church still had issues using peyote in their ceremonies, which led to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. There were some amendments to it in 1994 which state this. “The use, possession, or transportation of peyote by an Indian for bona fide traditional ceremonial purposes in connection with the practice of a traditional Indian religion is lawful, and shall not be prohibited by the United States or any State. No Indian shall be penalized or discriminated against on the basis of such use, possession or transportation.”

And Bill Clinton said, while signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, he said, “The power of God is such that even in the legislative process miracles can happen.” This was about peyote. Just to show you how things change, it’s a Democrat president admittedly in his first year invoking God. God is perceived to be the problem now with the current Democrat Party.

This is an example of a law coming back to bite you. But everybody back then was so eager for the Indian vote and so eager to be on the side of the angels where a minority was concerned, that when the Indians said, “You can’t take away our peyote. It’s part of our religion.” They were granted exemption from the law. That’s all that’s happened in Indiana.

Now, folks, look, I could spend all three hours on this if I wanted to. The bottom line is the facts are the facts. The law is the law. And that’s on one hand. On the other hand, none of that matters to the news of the day. The news of the day is not related to facts, history, context whatsoever. The daily soap opera is such that the narrative today is that once again another Democrat minority is being besmirched and impugned and denied liberty and freedom, and it is our beloved gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. And we’re not gonna put up with it. We’ve had enough of this. Since this country was founded there’s been too much discrimination, and we’re not gonna put up with it anymore.

And so now gay groups, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, whatever groups, they’re announcing they’re all getting out of Indiana. They’re gonna cancel business meetings they had, conventions, all that. They’re scramming. They’re leaving. You might think, “Rush, this is an awfully fine point, it’s an awfully fine line, isn’t it?” Well, it wasn’t with peyote. It wasn’t when other states came up with their own version of the law, which has happened many times since. Ready for this?

“Since 1997 (and in some measure before), about a dozen states enacted similar state-level RFRAs as to state law, and about a dozen more interpreted their state constitutions to follow,” the court’s previous ruling. Indiana is not alone here. At least 25 states, 26 states right along with them, which means half of the states as we sit here today have their own Religious Freedom Restoration Act laws or else they interpret their laws to follow the Supreme Court previous rulings, which would now include Hobby Lobby.

Hobby Lobby is exactly what this was about. Have people already forgotten Hobby Lobby? Yes, they have. Conveniently so. “Therefore, the rule now is that there is a religious exemption regime as to federal statutes (under the federal RFRA), and as to state statutes in the about half the states that have state RFRAs or state constitutional exemption regimes. Religious objectors in those jurisdictions may demand exemptions from generally applicable laws that substantially burden the objectorsÂ’ practice,” meaning the religious person’s practice of their religion, “which the government must grant unless it can show that applying the laws is the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest.”

So what exactly is so controversial about this, is the bottom line? What is so controversial about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that Indiana has passed? The answer is nothing. It’s just another way to gin up controversy about gay rights, which is the cause celebre of the day, and particularly with Millennials, and to also keep the donor base churning.

I mean, this is gonna cause Democrat gay donors to be sending money to the Democrat Party like never before because the objective is the world is gunning for American gays and only the Democrat Party can stop it. And that’s not what’s happened here. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, let’s go back to its origins, peyote. It had nothing to do with gays. It had nothing to do with lesbians, transgenders, bisexuals, none of that. It had to do with the Indians’ version of pot and their claim that it was part of their religious ceremonies. And guess what? The government found in their favor. So now they’re exempt from whatever laws everybody else has to obey on peyote.

And then gay marriage came along — I’m really jumping forward here in years — gay marriage came along and gay couples purposely targeted certain businesses to challenge this. In Denver, if you’re getting married and you’re gay, there are plenty of places you can go that’ll bake a cake for you, but you pick the place that won’t to give yourself a cause, and you gin everything up, and then you claim you’re being discriminated against, and then everybody piles on bakery that will not bake a cake for a gay wedding ’cause it violates their religion, and the bad guys happen to be the religious people who refuse to violate their religion so they won’t bake the cake, everybody jumps on them and in the case of the bake shop in Denver, they’re out of business.

They lost their business. They were so tarred and feathered, so stigmatized that they lost their business. And this was by design. There’s any number of places in Denver the gay couple could have gone, I’m sure, but what people refuse to acknowledge or admit is that everything with the left is politics. Everything is an opportunity to advance the agenda. There are plenty of gay couples that wouldn’t want any part of this. If they’re gonna get married, find a place that will bake ’em a cake, go there, have the wedding, be happy, have the reception, be happy, you know, go wherever, Saks Fifth Avenue, to fill the registry and adopt a kid and just live.

Others a say, “A-ha, we’ve got a chance here to attack the Republicans, attack conservatives and advance the liberal agenda. Let’s go find a bake shop that won’t serve us.” And they do. Twenty-five states already have things like this on the books. Indiana is just the latest to come along, and it’s because the people of Indiana have determined that religious people are the ones that are being attacked and discriminated against when you get right down to it.

But, see, that’s not deemed to be possible, because Christians, religious people are deemed to be in the majority, and the majority cannot possibly be discriminated against, it’s simply not possible. Just like a man cannot be raped, no matter what happens, it can’t be rape, not possible. And a Christian is a majority member, therefore can’t be discriminated against. Christians are the discriminators. Christians are the oppressors, ’cause they’re the majority. And if you want to know what modern-day Democrat Party politics is about, it’s attacking every majority, real or perceived, that exists and claim a grievance because of it.

This is how you tear down institutions and traditions that have defined a culture and society in a country. And that’s the objective here. So 25 states have fought back. We’re gonna stand up for the people who have their religion. We’re gonna stand up for the people who stand behind their morality and so forth, and we’re not going to sit by and make them be forced to act in violation of their religious principles. And when that happens, then here comes the left armed for battle to tear down anybody that’s involved in either the Christian business here and/or its defenders. You remember, Chick-fil-A, I mean, these stories are fairly common and fairly recent.

Let’s go to the audio sound bites. Again, I mentioned that Mike Pence is the governor of Indiana. He was on This Week with Stephanopoulos yesterday. The Drive-Bys are saying it was a horrible interview; this guy just embarrassed himself; he should quit; he should resign; this is one of the worst interviews we have ever seen; this guy was clearly over his head and out of his league. He had no business being on TV, it was such an embarrassment.

Let’s listen. Stephanopoulos said, “Yes or no. If a florist in Indiana refuses to serve a gay couple at their wedding, is that legal now in Indiana?”

PENCE: This is where this debate has gone with misinformation and —

STEPHANOPOULOS: It’s just a question, sir, yes or no.

PENCE: Well, there’s been shameless rhetoric about my state and about this law and about its intention all over the Internet. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act has been on the books for more than 20 years. It does not apply, George, to disputes between individuals unless government action is involved. The issue here is, you know, is tolerance a two-way street or not? Indiana steps forward to protect the constitutional rights and privileges of freedom of religion, for people of faith and families of faith in our state, and this avalanche of intolerance that has been poured on our state is just outrageous.

RUSH: Now, he’s exactly right about that, but he’s not allowed to say that, because as a white Republican, he’s not a minority, he cannot speak as one. He cannot talk about defending people who are the victims of an avalanche of intolerance. Because it is not possible to be intolerant of a majority. In fact, it’s almost a calling. You are almost required, if you’re gonna be a good liberal, if you’re gonna be a good Democrat, a good leftist, you must explicitly be intolerant of Christians and of majorities.

But majorities cannot, I mean, you can’t ever say a majority is discriminated against or a member of a majority. And you can’t ever say that members of a majority are victims of intolerance, because they’re the evil ones. They’re the ones doing all these things that need to be fixed. And Pence’s point is, “Wait a minute –” Well, he’s got many points here. One of his points is, we’re standing up for people who are being discriminated against by being forced by government to violate their religious principles. That’s where the law gets involved.

And if the government’s gonna get behind people and demand that others have their religion violated, we are standing up to defend that. And the left says that’s not legitimate. Those people do not deserve defense because they are members of a majority, and, as such, a majority can never be discriminated against. They’re the ones that do the discriminating. And a majority can never be the victim of intolerance because the majorities are the ones who are intolerant.


RUSH: Have the full statement of Bill Clinton when he signed the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law. This is 1993. Bill Clinton said, “So today I ask you to also think of that. We are a people of faith. We have been so secure in that faith that we have enshrined in our Constitution protection for people who profess no faith. And good for us for doing so. That is what the first amendment is all about.

“But let us never believe that the freedom of religion imposes on any of us some responsibility to run from our convictions. Let us instead respect one another’s faiths, fight to the death to preserve the right of every American to practice whatever convictions he or she has, but bring our values back to the table of American discourse to heal our troubled land.” So again, this was about peyote.

That was Bill Clinton when he signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law. Now, the people that are in the process here of making news out of what happened in Indiana, acting righteously indignant and protesting it from now to the end of the day, what really has them ticked off — what really has them bummed out about the Indiana law and about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in total right now — is that this is how private citizens can defend themselves against harassment and intimidation by gay activists.

It’s a technique that has been drummed up. It’s been created by Democrats. The Democrats created this whole thing for peyote, and now it’s coming back to bite them. See, at the center of this, folks, is religion and a hate for it, a fear of it. The left wants no part of organized religion. That’s why global warming exists and all these other issues. They take the place of organized religion. They’re doing their best to tear it down. That’s what the assaults on the Catholic Church are about.

These never ending, constant assaults on Christianity in general are about that, because Christianity is morality, they think. They view it as judgmentalism. They view it as definitive. “This is what’s right; this is what’s wrong.” They don’t want any part of that. They don’t want to have to be conscious of right or wrong. They don’t want to be reminded of right and wrong. They don’t want it in their own consciousness, right and wrong, ’cause it’s all shackles.

Morality is shackles.

The idea of right and wrong, shackles, limits on freedom and behavior and so forth. So there’s been a concerted effort by interest groups on the left — not just gay activities, but a whole bunch of different fringe groups on the left — to attack religion and what it stands for and the people of it. So now here comes this Indiana law on the trail of Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-A and a number of other examples, and it turns out now that private citizens are able to use a law enacted by Democrats to protected themselves from the militant leftist agenda.

So that’s gotta be torn down and that’s what’s in the process of happening here. That’s why the mischaracterization, misrepresentation, disinformation, misinformation. It’s why facts, history, reality, truth, and consequences don’t have any play here. Here’s more from Mike Pence. Stephanopoulos said, “When you say, Governor, that tolerance is a two-way street, does that mean that Christians who want to refuse service or people of any other faith who want to refuse service to gays and lesbians that it’s now legal in the state of Indiana? If it’s just a simple yes-or-no question, why wouldn’t you answer it?”

PENCE: This isn’t about disputes between individuals. It’s about government overreach. Bill Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I remember that.

PENCE: Then state senator… I’ll bet you do. Then-State Senator Barack Obama voted for it when he was in the state senate of Illinois. The very same language. Frankly, some of the media coverage of this has been shameless and reckless. And the online attacks against the people of our state, I’m just not gonna stand for it.

RUSH: None of that matters to Stephanopoulos. All he cares… Stephanopoulos is once again… You may as well go back and put in Pence’s place Mitt Romney and the question, “Do you believe in contraception? You think state sponsored-contraception is good?” Romney said, “What are you talking about?” “It’s a yes-or-no question, Governor. Do you believe in contraception, or do you believe in stopping contraception? Do you believe in preventing…?”

Romney had no idea what was all about. It was not an issue anywhere. Stephanopoulos inserted it and finally got an answer from Romney. It didn’t matter what Romney said. When he answered it, that’s when the War on Women began. That’s when it was created, and that’s what Stephanopoulos is trying to do here. Stephanopoulos was with Clinton in 1993 when Clinton made the statement that I just read to you, when everybody was celebrating this back in 1993.

Because they were protecting a minority against the ravages of the Christian and white majority in America, trying to deny or native Indian brothers and sisters their religious rights bring denying them the use of peyote. Clinton and the Democrats unanimously came to their rescue and said, “You want to use peyote in your religious? By God, you go right ahead! We’re gonna revive your religious freedom. We’re gonna affirm your religious rights to do it!

“Nobody can stop you.” Well, it’s kind of tit-for-tat now, and 25 states have signed on to it in one way or another. Stephanopoulos wasn’t through. He finally said, “Well, that may be. We’ve tried to be a responsible…” He’s talking the media. “One suggested fix to your law would say that this chapter of the law does not establish or eliminate a defense to a claim under any federal, state, or local law protecting civil rights or preventing discrimination. Is that the kind of clarification that you’re talking about here?”

PENCE: George, look, we’re not gonna change the law, okay? We’re not gonna change this law. It has been tested in courts for more than two decades. There’s a lot of people in this country who are concerned about government overreach into their religious liberty, and I’m one of them, and I stand with ’em.

RUSH: Imagine that! That’s all you have to do is you just stand up to them. He’s still governor today. Mike Pence is still breathing. I’m told he had breakfast and lunch and he’s gonna have dinner tonight. Yeah, the media may be target him and the media may hate him but he’s still alive and he’s still living to tell the tale. He stood up to ’em. But he’s exactly on point here. What this is about… Let’s go back to the case that everybody knows, and that is a gay couple walks into a bakery in Denver.

They say, “We’re getting married and we want you to bake the cake.” And the people that own the bakery say, “Sorry, take your business elsewhere. We don’t believe in gay marriage, our religion forbids it, and so we’re not gonna bake your cake.” The people didn’t go somewhere else. They went to the government. They went and they sued and they demanded that the government come in and force bakery to bake them a cake.

That is a violation of their religious rights.

That’s making them violate their religious beliefs. The First Amendment says, we have total religious freedom. Hello, peyote! That’s What Pence is talking about. That’s been the game. The game has been to find bakeries like the one in Denver, walk in there knowing full well that you’re walking into an establishment owned by religious people that disagree with you, have them refuse to serve you or bake the cake in this case, and then you walk out and you go to the government.

State government, federal government, doesn’t matter.

You make the government make that little business bake that cake. That is the government overstepping and violating the Constitution. Henceforth, we have the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It actually should not be unnecessary. It says right there in the First Amendment what we’re talking about here. The fact that we have to come up with another law to reaffirm what’s already in the Constitution is bad enough. That’s on one hand. And then over here, on the other hand, is the news of the day, which has none of the truth in it whatsoever.

Okay, we’ll take a break and we’ll get back to your phone calls and in the next hour.

Details of how this Iranian nuclear deal is predictably falling apart. So don’t go away.


RUSH: Here’s Mike in Houston as we head back to the phones. Mike, I’m glad you waited. Welcome to the program, sir.

CALLER: Thank you, Rush. I have a couple of questions for George Stephanopoulos.

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: I’d like to ask George why is it up to Governor Pence to remind the listeners and viewers that the Hobby Lobby ruling in June of last year, and why is it up to Governor Pence to remind George Stephanopoulos, who sat in the White House, who was in the White House in ’93, why is it up to Mike Pence to remind George about Bill Clinton’s comments and statements that you read from 1993? What does that have to be Mike Pence’s defense? That’s the journalist’s job, and I guess this is the way that George Stephanopoulos makes a difference.

RUSH: (laughing) Yeah.

CALLER: His way of making a difference, Rush.

RUSH: Not only that, he’s not a journalist. That’s the point. He didn’t go to journalism school. Not that that matters anymore. But he’s not a journalist. He is a Democrat Party activist that has a job at ABC News and wears a couple of different hats there. He is a Democrat Party activist. He was in the Bill Clinton war room with James Carville. He’s a Democrat Party activist. Of this there can be no dispute. But we are to believe that one day George Stephanopoulos decided to take that hat off and walk inside the revolving door at ABC News, and the moment he got inside, he was overwhelmed with objectivity.

It was like he walked in there and a cloud, a mist enveloped every pore of Stephanopoulos’s small body, and objectivity and fairness permeated every bodily orifice, including in the brain, and Stephanopoulos was no longer a Democrat Party activist, which he had been for decades. Stephanopoulos was no longer interested in advancing a Democrat Party agenda because once he entered the revolving door at ABC News, he became automatically Walter Cronkite Jr., he became Edward R. Murrow, he became a journalist, and he forgot everything he ever cared about.

He walked up to the coat check and instead of checking his coat he checked his life experiences. He put ’em all there at the coat check and walked into the newsroom as a totally disinterested, uninterested in the outcome of events, objective newsman. This is what we’re to believe. That’s the magic that happens, a Democrat Party activist, the instant he gets inside ABC News sheds all of that and immediately becomes a fair and balanced and objective newsman. And I submit to you that that’s not what happens at all.

He is a Democrat Party activist that works daily and actively advancing the Democrat Party and leftist agenda under the guise of being a fair and reasonable and unbiased and objective newsman. Those are great questions. Why is it up to Mike Pence to point out the historical context and truth and the facts of what the Indiana law is? Why does Mike Pence have to go and defend allegations that are lies? Why does the governor of Indiana have to show up anywhere and defend a bunch of questions which actually are just political talking points? The journalist’s job is to know all of this stuff and to ask different questions. But that’s not what ABC News is. It’s not what NBC News is. And we all know this now.

Here’s Dave in Indianapolis. It’s great to have you with us, sir. Thank you. Hello.

CALLER: Religious freedom dittos, Rush.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: This is nothing more, and I’m here in Indy and have been watching this for the last week, and over the weekend particularly. If you saw the social media here in Indianapolis, it’s absolutely horrible.

RUSH: I know. I know.

CALLER: I want to make a few points and I’ll make them quickly, but this is nothing short of cultural card check. That’s what’s going on here, and there are hands behind the scenes. It’s not an accident that they’ve selected Indiana, I don’t think, and to make this the target of this effort, this push they’ve got going. There are unseen hands behind the scenes who are turning this bigot spigot, if you will, the spigot of bigotry or whatever you want to call it, but there are hands behind the scenes turning this, and there are a couple blogs here that have done a very good job of an expose on the timeline of what I would say is really religious bigotry

But the two blogs, Ogden on Politics and Advance Indiana have done an excellent job of exposing what these folks are up to. The ’93 bill that was passed by the Feds, the opponents to the current legislation here in Indiana should know that they’re in league with people like Robert Byrd, Jesse Helms and another senator, Matthews, from Tennessee, two Democrats, one Republican, two of those people are considered to be racial separatists. And I think the idea that this small minority, which really, you know, using —

RUSH: I have to stop you. I’m sorry. I was hoping you could conclude on time, but I’ve gotta go to a break I can’t miss.


RUSH: Okay, Ron in Enon Valley, Pennsylvania. Welcome, sir. I’m glad you waited. Great to have you with us here.

CALLER: Thank you. You know, it’s sort of… The Indiana deal sort of pales in comparison to what’s going on in the Middle East and Hillary and everything else. But I think there are some very important issues here nonetheless, and mainly I think that this whole thing has been focused in the wrong direction. This law is not meant to penalize gays or any other minority. This is just an attempt by these minorities to restrict our rights, the majority’s rights. And, unfortunately, we’ve bent over backwards. Every time they do it, we somehow… We make laws that say that because it’s a bias crime, it’s more of a penalty.

RUSH: I know. You know, you are so right about this.

CALLER: And it’s terrible, because they’ve made up words. They call us racists, they call us sexists, they call us homophobes. They call us all these names, and we don’t hate anybody! You know? It’s they who basically are trying to make people behave in ways that are untenable to them. Our Constitution is supposed to protect us from people like that. It really bothers me that we keep focusing on them and their rights to oppress us!

RUSH: That’s exactly right, and that’s why I went great dissertation earlier in the program. You as a member-of-a majority are an automatic oppressor. You cannot be oppressed as a member of a majority. You cannot be discriminated against, because you’re in the majority. The minority doesn’t have the power to do any of that to you. That’s the ongoing theory.

CALLER: We do anything about it. We don’t stand up for it. You know, we don’t exert our rights.

RUSH: No, because they guilt you!

CALLER: Correct.

RUSH: They guilt you into acquaintance on every issue. You end up bending over backgrounds to placate then, to show them that you don’t hate them.

CALLER: Correct.

RUSH: And it never gets you anywhere rebuke write?

CALLER: And you can never prove something like that. How can you prove that you don’t hate them? Because they’re the ones that are out there say, “Oh, poor me, poor me.” No, no, no. How about our society in general? There’s unintended consequences to all of these kind of actions. I look back, for example, say to the crash of the airplane that just happened. That’s basically because of HIPAA laws. Now, these HIPAA laws started in the United States but now they’re global.

Why did they start?

They started because gays didn’t want aides to be portrayed as a communicable disease, they said, “Oh, we’ve gotta protect these people’s identities and their rights to their histories and to their medical records,” where before that we didn’t have it. Well, what’s happened since then? What’s happened since then is of course you’ve got a lot of people who really don’t belong in cockpits or frankly driving buses or trains (chuckles) or a lot of other things, and they’re out there because theologies wanted to protect their rights, and they didn’t want the disease to get identified with them.

RUSH: Well, look, I know what you’re saying, but it’s not just gays. You’re right that it’s tied to way back to the eighties, gays and AIDS. But it’s not just that anymore. If this guy, the pilot you’re talking about… Another cause of it is such things as the Americans with Disabilities Act. If somebody has some sort of disability, even knowing about it is considered to be discrimination. So we can’t say negative things; we can’t do negative things to people based on a disability. (sniveling) “It’s not their fault! Don’t you see, it’s not their fault! So we need to sympathies with these people! At least he tried to help people by getting them from point A to point B by flying them!”

CALLER: It’s not just behavior and it’s not just things that you’re not supposed to do. They’re taken over words. They said, “You can’t use this word or that word.” Why not? We’re supposed to be protected, our rights to be individuals and to speak freely.

RUSH: No. You’re right, but, see, the problem is, the problem is that you as a majority are an oppressor. You don’t have any rights! You are the one that needs to be gotten even with, and people like you. This is almost like a reverse affirmative action. They justify it by saying, this is what they have been subjected to for all of their lives, and now it’s your turn, to find out what it’s like, and that is justified. But you’re absolutely right in all this.

You bend over backgrounds, you acquiesce, you go out of your way to disapprove their allegation that you hate or that you’re a bigot, and it never gets you anything because it’s not real! It’s just an allegation. It’s meant to categorize you. They don’t really think that. They don’t care if it’s true or not. They want other people — and they want you, more importantly — believing that you are and that that they think you are, and acting defensive and subservient as a result. It’s designed to get you to sit down, shut up, and stop objecting. It doesn’t sound like with you it’s working very much.


Pin It on Pinterest

Share This