RUSH: How Did This Happen? The Left Corrupted Language, Undermined Morality - There was No Pushback

www.RushLimbaugh.com ^ | March 29, 2013 | Rush Limbaugh

[Yosemitest]

How Did This Happen?
The Left Corrupted the Language, Undermined Morality -
- and There was No Pushback
March 29, 2013, by Rush Limbaugh

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, back to this gay marriage and language business.
I don't mind having to re-explain this.
I have learned over 25 years that it takes oftentimes ten different ways to explain something in order for some people to understand it.
Now, yesterday I said that gay marriage is inevitable.
There are two elements to this.
One of them:
The Republican Party signaled there isn't gonna be pushback against it.
But, secondly,
we lost the language,
and that's just as important.

The institution of marriage has been targeted for destruction, essentially,
and the road to destroying it is being paved,
and the way that this has been started is to change the definition.
I'll tell you what's coming next.
After this "civil right," they'll move on to "liberating" illegal aliens, and then taking away our civil right to bear arms.
They will also continue to push a carbon tax on the basis of climate change and whatever else.
They'll continue to corrupt the public school system, however they manage to do that.

I've looked at it, and in all instances, one of the things that is fundamental in the attack on all of these institutions and traditions which have defined America's greatness, is
an attack on the language.
Here's another one that's under assault, and that is borders.
"Immigration" is being used to destroy the meaning of "borders."
Now we got open borders?
Without borders, there would never have been the United States of America in order to create the economy that is drawing people here in the first place.

"Food stamps" and "disability" are another couple of words that have lost their purpose and meaning.
"Food stamps" and "disability" now simply mean unearned money.
Food stamps and disability have a totally different meaning than their original intent. Deficit.
Deficit is now something that simply is triggering the printing of money.
That's all a deficit means:
An excuse to print money.
Unions.
Unions are used to destroy companies, entire industries on behalf of the Democrat Party.

Unions are formed to acquire unfunded "benefits," and the pretense of educating children is the vehicle for that scam.
Environmentalism is an excuse to acquire government grants to increase taxes and regulations, to grow government, and to limit freedom.
Environmentalism is another word for attacking the very fuel of the engine of freedom, and that would be fossil fuels --
and let there be no mistake.
Fossil fuels are under assault.
Fossil fuels have become a great enemy.

Oil and natural gas have become enemies, evil things that the left must wipe out!
They hide behind environmentalism, trying to clean up the environment,
and all oil has done is further the spread of freedom all over the country and the insurance of our own freedom,
and it has been fundamentally responsible for the vast increase in prosperity in this country and all over the world.
Crisis, as you know, is an excuse for government action.
Crisis here! Crisis there!

Everything's a crisis.
This is now a word used to justify the expansion of and the intrusion by government in every walk of life.
Every faction of the Democrat Party is now a battering ram.
Destroy the institution of marriage,
destroy borders,
destroy education,
destroy private sector health care,
destroy private property,
destroy the Constitution,
destroy free markets!
The Democrat Party is nothing more than a battering ram,
and they're using the language to disguise what they're doing.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, I'm gonna make b>an assumption, and I'm sure that it is applicable to some of you in the audience.
Some of you are probably sitting out there scratching your heads, asking yourself,
"How did this happen?"
I mean, you've heard about gay marriage all your life.
Well, not all your life, but for a long time.
You've heard about homosexuality, and you're aware of militant homosexuality,
and you remember back in the early AIDS days they would file into St. Patrick's and throw condoms at Cardinal O'Connor.

You remember all that, and one day you wake up and it finally hits you
that gay marriage is all of a sudden, out of nowhere, in the Top Five Most Important Issues to everybody under 30, or 35,
and you're wondering,
"How does this happen?
What is going on?"
Some of you might instinctively say,
"It's gonna be the education system.
It's gotta be the media.
It's gotta be Hollywood, television shows, you name it."
I have here a story in the Washington Times.

When I saw this, I thought,
"I better not mention this story.
This is gonna do nothing but get me into trouble,"
because it really is incredible.
But I figured in light of how I have now been made the pope on gay marriage in media and on Twitter and on Facebook -- even C-SPAN!
The next sound bite reports that I am official.
I'm not just a political analyst, but I've also crossed over now.
I am an official celebrity because I influence the celebrity crowd now.
All because of yesterday's program.

Now, this Washington Times story,
if anybody went on the radio, if anybody went on the TV and said this as though it was their own thoughts,
they would be vilified and run out of the country.
But it was published in the Washington Times. I'm gonna read portions of it to you.
It's by a writer named Paul Rondeau, R-o-n-d-e-a-u. Headline: "Hooking Kids on Sex: Start 'Saturation Process' in Kindergarten."

Here are a couple of pull-quotes:
"So if you ever wonder why more and more young people accept homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage as ho-hum, look no further.
.. Young children are encouraged to masturbate and explore their bodies with mirrors to introduce them to sexuality.
[educational video moderator Michael Hichborn] says of the graphic pictures used to 'educate' pre-pubescent children,
'If a dirty old man showed these things to a ten-year-old in a park, he would be arrested.


"But when Planned Parenthood shows them to kids in a classroom, it gets government money.' "
And that's the point of the story, that Planned Parenthood has a program that's promoting "anything-goes sex" to five-year-olds.
"While the White House says sequestration has eliminated funds for children touring the White House,
President Obama has no problem spending $350 million federal tax dollars for sexual indoctrination programs starting in kindergarten for those same children.

"This is not your grandmother's sex education about how things work and what can go 'wrong.'
In fact, the exact opposite is the essence of the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP):
Obamacare funnels $75 million annually into PREP,
which must be used exclusively for Planned Parenthood-style 'comprehensive' sex-ed programs
where no type of sex is wrong
and the only sexual behavior [Planned Parenthood] considers 'unsafe' is becoming pregnant.

"More than one-fourth of the funds -- $20 million -- has been awarded to a coalition of six Planned Parenthood affiliates,
operating under the name Northwest Coalition for Adolescent Health,
to implement HHS's TOP program across Montana, Oregon, Idaho, Washington, and Alaska at over 50 sites.
In Oregon schools, Planned Parenthood is paying children cash incentives to participate.
PP is funded with our tax dollars to market sex to our children in our schools
under the guise of sex education, anti-bullying, diversity, and tolerance.

"Once sexualized, those children then become PP sex customers for contraceptives, STD testing, and abortion.
'A glance at the teacher outline for Lesson 1A ... shows exactly how abstinence plays out in the sex-encouraging scheme at Planned Parenthood.
'Abstinence,' it says, 'means choosing not to do any sexual activity that carries a risk for pregnancy or STD/HIV,' says Rita Diller, national director for STOPP.org.
'In other words, abstinence has nothing do with abstaining from sex acts.

"So long as the student avoids STDs and pregnancy, and is comfortable with what he or she is doing, it's an anything goes.'"
It is at this point in the story that even those who thought they knew Planned Parenthood will be shocked.
"American Life League (ALL), released a video titled 'Hooking Kids on Sex,' graphically detailing just what Planned Parenthood sex education is.
It went viral and was viewed almost one-quarter million times in the first week
before a [Planned Parenthood] activist got YouTube to suspend it.


"ALL(AmericanLifeLeague) came back with Hooking Kids on Sex (II).
Even those who thought they knew Planned Parenthood were shocked.
The video's moderator, Michael Hichborn, argues that
[Planned Parenthood] follows the same business model as a drug dealer,"
in the PREP program, Personal Responsibility Education Program, Planned Parenthood.
This is the video that was made to expose the program.
This is not a Planned Parenthood video.
This is a video that people alarmed about this made,
and Planned Parenthood got the video pulled off of YouTube.


(Right mouse click above video and watch in another window)

It's a video that critics made to illustrate what Planned Parenthood is doing as part of Obamacare,
and the moderator of the video is a guy named Michael Hitchborn.
He
"argues that [Planned Parenthood] follows the same business model as a drug dealer:
The Young children are encouraged to masturbate and explore their bodies with mirrors to introduce them to sexuality.
Hichborn says of the graphic pictures used to 'educate' pre-pubescent children,
'If a dirty old man showed these things to a ten-year-old in a park, he would be arrested.

"But when Planned Parenthood shows them to kids in a classroom, it gets government money.' "
I saw that story and said, "I can't tell people this. It's just over the top!
I don't even know if this is true."
I looked into it and that video was on YouTube, and it did get pulled down.
Again, it's not a Planned Parenthood video.
It was a video made by people who found out what's going on in the program to alert people,
and Planned Parenthood succeeded in getting YouTube to pull the video down.

So the Washington Times has the story.
If you're wondering why so many young people seem to have no problem with gay marriage and this or that,
it's 'cause unbeknownst to you (chuckling) kids have been exposed to this for years.
So that's part of the reason.
But it's not the entire reason.
There's also peer pressure, a number of other reasons for it.
It's just the natural evolution of things.
When you are able to blur... It's not even blur.

When you are successful in making fun of and laughing at something as old-fashioned and quaint as morality,
why, then, you are that much ahead.
Then when you play games with the language,
and are able at young ages to convince people that words don't mean what they mean,
and that people that want to hold fast to definitions are bigots,
then you can make serious inroads.
There's another story in the UK Daily Mail.
If this story showed up in the US media somewhere, whoever did it would be drummed out of the media.

Some reporter here for the UK Daily Mail went and found a guy who'd been adopted by two gay parents and was abused for ten years,
but the social workers ignored the complaints because the parents were gay.
Now, that's just one example,
and you can't extrapolate from one example and say this fits the bill for everybody,
but if you look hard enough this is the kind of stuff that is out there in the media.
That's the UK Daily Mail.

There's no pushback on any of it,
and in fact the Politico had that story yesterday quoting two Republican guys saying,
"Yeah, the best thing for the party would be for the court to just make it legal all over the country
and take the issue away
and that way we can't be called bigots."
It boils down to natural evolution of one half of the culture in this country
combined with the fact there's no pushback on where it's headed.
So it's inevitable.
Combined with the fact that they're not gonna let it go.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Okay, to the phones, and it's Claire in Wilmington, Delaware. I'm glad you called.
Great to have you here. Hi.

CALLER: Hi. Uh, I want to make a debate with you.
I don't think we have lost the language.
What I think we have lost in this culture is both our religion and an honest media, and I'll tell you why.
If you appeal to the gay marriage thing on a man's level as a human,
you can make the arguments that make sense.
But if you take it to a biblical perspective that Christians, Jewish people, the Islam faith,
we all unite.
We've lost our God.

We all unite that marriage is between a man and a woman.
But no one seems to want to tie that.
Everyone's afraid to mention God, and I think the media is the other culprit.
Never do you see the media play the people that are against gay marriage, the people that are against abortion.
It's always that they play the people that are for it, and that's the only position you hear.
Now, California is the most liberal state, in my opinion, that's out there.
Maybe Massachusetts, too.

But even as liberal as they are, they united and said,
"We don't want this,"
but they're being overturned.
So that, I think, is trying to discourage people with,
"Oh, I guess everyone really wants it."
Oh, I don't want it. There's a lot of people that don't want this,
and it's not because I have anything against gay people.
I know gay people and I think some of them are wonderful.
But I do believe -- and I don't care how fuddy-duddy I sound -- that from a biblical perspective, marriage is between a man and a woman.

RUSH: Right.

CALLER: They are the two that can create a family.

RUSH: And the way you have just set it up now, in the common...
'Cause the language does matter,
and I'll argue this with you 'til the end of the program.
You are now a bigot by citing religion.

CALLER: You know what, Rush?

RUSH: You are bigoted because
you are wanting to deny happiness and freedom to human beings
who only want what you have in a country that promises them the pursuit of happiness.

CALLER: Rush, you know what?
This is how I feel.
I had to speak at a meeting the other night where I know when I walked out,
I was probably getting snickered at behind my back.
People have gotta get a backbone in this country.
We have allowed God to be removed.
We've allowed the education to be dumbed down.
We have told our children "acceptance"
rather than other people to come into our country for assimilation.
Is it any wonder we're losing our culture?

RUSH: You know what the Jesuits said?
I'm paraphrasing, but the Jesuits used to say,
"Give us a child to the age of 12, and they are ours for life."
Well, the left knows that, too.

CALLER: Well, that's true.
But you know, there used to be a day in this country where there were stay-at-home mothers, and I don't care...
This is another point:
No one's raising a lot of the children today.
There used to be a time when some things they're teaching our children,
you'da had a group of stay-at-home mothers that knew what was going on with the children in their schools in one meeting at the school.

RUSH: You're just confirming what I'm saying.
Wherever it's coming from, there isn't any pushback.

CALLER: Well, that's it.
I don't think the Republican Party and people in general want to push back.
No one wants to be shot down or made to look one way, but if you really believe these things --
and I found the strength in it myself the other night.
If you truly believe it, you can say it, and you don't care if you're laughed at.
You have to go in and just say it.
And, trust me, there are plenty of people that believe this,
and I believe it's still probably 50-50 in the country, or close to those margins,
that you might be able to convince an extra two to three percent you need.
But if you have to speak up.

RUSH: Well, wait a minute, now. Let's talk about that for a second.
What good does this really do?
Let's say that the country is divided 53-47,
but that division is stark and that there is no commonality between the two divisions?
Where are we as a country, anyway, in terms of what you're talking about?
You're saying
we've lost the moral code, we've lost the moral backbone, we've lost the moral foundation.
So where are we as a country?
Even if the morality side could muster a 3% majority victory,
where are we as a country anyway, with that great a division?

CALLER: Well, that I don't know. I don't know how to answer that question.
I guess, if I can make my point in a roundabout way, I'll try to come around to that.

RUSH: Feel free.
No, I'm not trying to argue with you.
You're hitting red buttons for me that are expanding my fertile brain.

CALLER: I AM A CONSERVATIVE. I'm NO LONGER Republican.
There was a time when I believed -- I was foolish -- that Republicans were always right.
I was a fool, and I don't side with a majority of them. I do side with a few of them today.
I like Ted Cruz.
I like some of the people that are fighting for the freedoms.
Rand Paul, sometimes I disagree with on things.
But you have to be able to speak, because there comes a time...
Yes, you look like a fool.
But there comes a time when the opposition that you're speaking against that has the majority --
especially when what they're trying to promote is so false -- will break down.
When it breaks down, people will go back and say,
"Hey, I remember this one saying that."

RUSH: When? When? (crosstalk)
Wait a minute. Well, I've gotta take a break.
I don't have time to ask it.
I've been waiting for it to break down for 35 years, and it's going the other direction.
Nothing's breaking down. That's the whole point.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Hey, Claire in Wilmington, I didn't have a chance to tell you,
but don't change and keep it up.
It's gonna be people like you who will engage in the pushback.
You describe that you have no fear of being laughed at.
Unfortunately, many people who push back get much more than laughed at.
They're targeted for destruction.
Their businesses get boycotts.
I mean, you name it.
So it ends up being much more than that,
and it becomes increasingly more difficult to do the more prominent you become.
But don't change.
Hang in.

END TRANSCRIPT

Related Links


• RushLimbaugh.com: We Lost Once We Modified the Definition of the Word "Marriage" - 03.28.13
  
  
• Washington Times: Hooking Kids On Sex: Start “Saturation Process” In Kindergarten - Paul E. Rondeau
  
  
• UKDM: My Adoptive Dad Abused Me For Years But Social Workers Ignored My Complaints Because He's Gay

[fabian]

He kicks butt good too...far more effectively than anyone else that I have heard because he deeply understands the mind control that is being used against us and the evil that is behind it.

[wintertime]

Rush gives just enough **minutes** to sensitive subjects so that his defenders can say, “Yes! He did cover that topic!”

Rush's track record on reporting homofascist bully has been horrendous. It's right up there with how well he ignored ( and continues to ignore) Obama’s eligibility and other important issues.

Rush is the Master of Safe!

[Lurker]

This coming from a man who has been married 4 times and had Elton John sing at his wedding.

Thanks for nothing, Limbaugh.

[Yosemitest]

You have no ideal how hard it is today to find a woman that will remain faithful and be what the Bible considers a good wife.
No I don't have a problem with Rush's marriage problems, because I've had many friend and acquaintances over the years that were shocked to find out their wives were nothing but gold-diggers or liars.
And as far as Elton John, Rush has a boss, also, that he has to work for, and most bosses don't always agree with your values.
Julie Talbott may be the reason "why" Rush doesn't say he's against homosexual marriage.

[Lurker]

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah....

Limbaugh is a fraud. His listeners are suckers.

[Yosemitest]

So you want to make 20,000,000 enemies?

[little jeremiah]

I started listening to Rush in the late 80s when he was local in Sacramento. I listened to him a lot over the years, and stopped about 11 years ago. Why?

Because he stopped telling the ugly truth about the immoral agendas of the left, became utterly silent about the homosexual agenda, and if he wants to point fingers at why the Godless immoral Dem agenda is so powerful, he should look in the damned mirror. He pretended to support social conservative issues but his touch was so light as to be unnoticeable most of the time.

He’s about 15 years too late to the party to be all shocked, horrified and disturbed by this.

[little jeremiah]

So children adopted and fostered by homosexuals being ruined means nothing to you?

So children in public schools being taught that “gay is good” and they should try it, and here’s how - means nothing to you?

So businesses forced to cater to homosexual weddings nad the like or be forced to pay fines and/or close up means nothing to you?

So people being forced to “sensitivity training” and be punished for expressing their view that homosexuals marrying each other is wrong means nothing to you?

[little jeremiah]

So he cares more about money than morality, or the country going to hell.

I’ve known that for years. That’s why I won’t listen to him any more.

[fortheDeclaration]

Yes, if we yield to the Holy Spirit, we are walking in the Spirit and not the flesh.

But we are walking by faith and are not trying to keep the Law, we are focused on staying in obedience to the Holy Spirit.

The Law is fulfilled by love, and when we are controlled the Holy Spirit, He gives us the fruits of the Spirit, one of which is love.

[fortheDeclaration]

No one is minimizing anything.

Our Bibles contain the Old and New TESTAMENTS, not Old and New Covenants.

The New Covenant is a specific promise made to Israel.

It is established by the New Testament Blood atonement.

What was made 'old' in Heb 8 was the Mosaic Law, which could not save.

The New Covenant replaces the requirement that the Jew was under while under the Mosiac Law, so he will not be under that Law in the Millennium.

[fortheDeclaration]

For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Hbr 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

Hbr 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

That is not for today, that is for the Millennium. No one is told today not to teach about the Lord. All of the chapter has to read as one promise, not just particular verses.

It isn't for today, it is for the Jew who is saved and enters into the Millennium Kingdom.

[Springfield Reformer]

Actually, a will is a specialized form of promise, a recorded promise, if you will, where upon the occurance of an event, property will convey from one person to another. While the details for any given reference should not be ignored, making too sharp a distinction between covenant and testament will tend to obscure more than it illuminates.

[fortheDeclaration]

No, because the Bible makes it very clear that a testament isn't into effect until there is a death of the testator.

That isn't the case for a Covenant.

Heb.8 is speaking to Israel (note the words Israel and Judah in Heb.8:8) and isn't referring to our present salvation.

What is 'old' and done away is the old Mosaic covenant.

The Bible is the Old and New Testament, not Old and New Covenant.

[PapaNew]

Our Bibles contain the Old and New TESTAMENTS, not Old and New Covenants.

Better read Hebrews 8 & 9 again...and again...

[PapaNew]

Hbr 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. That is not for today, that is for the Millennium.

That of course is a heresy for it nullifies power of the cross and the gospel which declares us the righteousness of God and our likeness to Jesus Christ NOW. Those Biblical declarations about us are impossible if God still sees us as unrighteous and still remembers our sins. Your doctrine makes Christ of no effect whose blood washes ALL our sin away and CLEANSES US FROM ALL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.

[PapaNew]

fortheDeclaration is trying to completely separate the new testament from the new covenant. I suppose you can say they are different because a testament is a will that contains promises and devises which are covenants. But the two go together and really are hard to separate conceptually as you say.

Separating the two is a novel concept to me and not according to the real world or scripture (Heb 7-10 among others) and leads to heresy which always happens when basic Biblical truths are denied.

[Springfield Reformer]

Um, no, sorry, not so much. You’re trying to triangulate to an absolute distinction because dispensationalism requires you to do so. I understand. I used to be a dispensationalist. That ended one day in the cafeteria at Moody Bible Institute, many years ago. I finally met a dispensationalist fellow student who was more extreme than I. He had deduced that no Scripture applied to the church at all, apart from Ephesians. His problem, and yours, is that the writers of the New Testament/Covenant break the separation rule over and over again. This puts demands for mental gymnastics on the dispensational reader that are impossible for any reasonable reader to sustain.

For example, you think that the reference in Hebrews 8 to Israel helps your cause, when in fact it does the opposite. Nothing could be stronger evidence that the New Covenant and the Christian church are one and the same than Hebrews 8-10, in which the Jeremiah New Covenant prophecy is unambiguously applied to the contemporary Christian church of the author (I believe Paul).

Lest you have trouble accepting this, let me point out another example:

Amos 9:11 “On that day I will raise up The tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, And repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, And rebuild it as in the days of old;”

Is not the tabernacle of David clearly Israel?

Yet what of the fulfillment?

Acts 15:14-18 “Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. [15] “And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written: [16] ‘After this I will return And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, And I will set it up; [17] So that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD, Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name, Says the LORD who does all these things.’ [18] “Known to God from eternity are all His works.”

In the fulfillment, it could not be more clear that the entire contemporaneous church, Jew and gentile alike, are in view, that James and the men of the Jerusalem Council applied those words directly to themselves and to the Gentiles who were entering the church.

Thus fails the one device essential to your exposition, that any reference to Israel or anything distinctly Jewish automatically proves an impassible distinction in the intended audience. Each passage must be evaluated in its total context, both micro and macro, without superimposing a preconceived scheme of artificial categories, especially when the net effect of such theories is to separate Christians from so much Scripture intended for their use.

Peace,

SR

[Yosemitest]

I think his boss during that time was a flaming homosexual, if my memory serves correctly, and they decided that they didn't want him to come out on either side.
But I could be wrong. My memory ain't as good as it use to be.

Remember, the only perfect Man that was ever on earth, the people of power killed, because He showed them the error of their ways.

[Yosemitest]

"... and are not trying to keep the Law"

This is where your theory falls apart.
Don't get caught up in all the minutiae.
Read your Bible, OBEY God, and live your life.
Help those you can, and share what you've learned with others freely.
"Free received, freely given."