All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 27, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:23
October 27, 2008, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 podcast.
Hey, Snerdley, is Al Gore coming to town?
Do you know?
He ha no, don't waste any time looking up.
He's got to be coming to town.
We've got a cold front coming in here tonight and tomorrow now.
We've 58 degrees tonight and 56 degrees tomorrow night.
Folks, I have lived here since 1997.
We have never had a cold front like this come through here in October.
And I think every time Gore does a global warming thing, horribly cold and clement weather.
Last time it happened was up at Harvard.
They had snow and rain and so forth.
Greetings, folks, nice to have you with us.
A full week of broadcast excellence is on tap.
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh behind the golden EIB microphone.
Telephone numbers 800 282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
Where did this tape come from?
Where has this tape been?
This tape of Obama when he was a state senator and a constitutional scholar.
I don't, after listening to this tape, when we got sound bites coming up, I don't know how this guy can take the oath of office.
And be honest, I don't know how he can put his hand on the Bible and swear an oath to defend and protect the Constitution when he doesn't like it.
He doesn't agree with it and wants to rip it to shreds.
He wants the Supreme Court to do it.
This is striking stuff.
Did Hillary put this out?
Where was this during the primaries?
I think we now know, ladies and gentlemen, why we have not seen any of the written records of Obama at Columbia University or at Harvard Law, because this is the kind of stuff he wrote about.
That stuff's probably been shredded and uh and burned by now.
It's just it's just striking stuff.
And you know, a lot of people are sobering up here and and starting to ask themselves, you know, just what is this election all about?
The Democrats are pushing now for a 60-seat majority in the Senate.
Now, what that would mean is that they would be filibuster proof.
This has happened twice in the recent past.
And the San Francisco Chronicle has a uh a story on this.
Democrats closing in on a Senate majority.
Still a long shot, but they've raised their goal to a magic and rare sixty members, a filibuster-proof majority of enormous significance.
The last time that this happened was during the Jimmy Carter presidency.
And you know what happened during the Jimmy Carter presidency.
The left was left unchecked, and it was able to implement what it believes, and you remember, some of you may not because of your youth, but the uh the the four years of Jimmy Carter made this economy look like utopia.
I kid you not, we got six, we got six point one percent unemployment.
Uh people are working, they are still earning money.
The gasoline price now down 53 cents in two weeks, and right on cue, the drive-bys have a story about how this is not good for the economy.
This might actually hurt the economy.
There are so many stories from the Associated Press.
Jennifer Loven has a story in the Associated Press today that is a print Lewinsky for Obama.
I mean, I've got I have got so many stories here that are you couldn't describe them as anything other than literary Lewinskies.
It's it's it's a striking to watch all of this.
So we have we have I'm gonna send Pittsburgh yesterday for the Steelers and the New York Giants, and that place was sold out, as are all NFL stadiums.
It's not cheap to go there.
Uh the the uh everywhere you look, economic activity is taking place.
Yeah, we've got the subprime problem, and it's huge, and is directly traceable to the Democrats.
I like what McCain did today, by the way, uh, when when he uh started uh he had his big economic uh press conference today with all of his economic advisors behind him, and he was on fire.
It was actually good speech.
And he started tying Obama to Pelosi and Obama to Reed.
I mean, here you've got here you've got Obama's been out there tying uh McCain to Bush.
And it's about time he tied McCain did Obama to these Democrats.
In two years, Pelosi and Reed have been running a show, and you can go back and you can check statistics from 19 over from 2006, and you can take a look at the way things were during the first six years of the Bush economy.
Take a look at the last two years with the Democrats unchecked in the House of Representatives and so forth, you can see the economic disaster.
The last time the Democrats ran the show in the Senate was in the Carter years, and before that, when do you think the last time, prior to the Democrats having a 60-seat majority in uh in two in the Carter years was, Mr. Snerdley?
That's exactly right.
During the Lyndon Johnson presidency, when the Democrats had 60 seats, is when we got the Great Society, is when we got the war on poverty, which was the war on the black family.
It is when we got all of these entitlement programs here that have just ripped this country to shreds, and there's nothing that can be done about them per se.
And now this redistribution stuff, the redistribution of wealth, the Obama campaign's very worried about this.
They and their supporters and their campaign staff in the drive-by media are out there saying this is just a distraction.
Redistributing wealth, why with this is just a distraction.
A distraction.
Yes, it's a distraction because you don't want it to become one.
You don't want it to take away from your lying message that Obama's putting out to people about how he's let me the this business, it's very simple.
Obama says 95% of Americans are going to get a tax cut.
Right?
I can disprove this in two sentences, maybe three.
The Bush tax cuts expire when, Snerdley.
2010, that's your three for three so far in the first segment.
You're going to get a cost of living increase.
So we have the Bush tax cuts, which are going to expire in 2010.
Obama is going to let them expire.
That is a tax increase.
I don't care you make 25, 4550, too.
By the way, he's lowered the 250 threshold now to 200,000, did this over the weekend.
Very slyly, he snuck this in.
Now he says if you're over 200 grand, you're going to get a tax increase.
The bottom line is everybody's going to get a tax increase because the Bush tax cuts are going to expire.
They're not going to be uh uh uh re-implemented.
So right there, your taxes are going to go up.
The Obama campaign trying to say it's not a tax increase.
That's not a tax increase, it's just a tax cut expiring.
Well, the practical effect of it is that you're going to have less disposable income.
And then from there is where Obama's going to apply the rest of his tax increases.
But I have had enough of Obama and his lies and the people who lie for him.
We've had here uh enough of 18 months of propaganda, class warfare, intimidation, race baiting.
We are all supposed to suspend our intelligence and buy into this guy as some kind of redemptive figure.
He preaches socialism, he preaches envy, he preaches racism, he tears down America and our society.
He tears down the American people, he then claims to represent the middle class.
When the middle class is his target, make no mistake about this.
The middle class is his target.
How?
Because he wants to totally control their lives.
And he wants, based on these tapes, he wants the Supreme Court to do it, and if they want to do it, he wants he wants to do it legislatively.
Mark Stein had another great line in a piece at National Review Online, Friday or Saturday, I forget which.
He said, you know, Jack Kennedy went out there in his inaugural address and he said, Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
Today that's become ask not what your country can do for you, demand it.
And we really have a seminal election here.
We are going to find out just where the American people are on this whole ideological question of the role of government in people's lives.
If enough Americans are going to show up and vote who believe that because they're Americans, they are entitled to the federal government solving their problems, providing their income and their economic security, that we're in big trouble.
We are in huge trouble.
Now, I it I don't think the argument is quite that simple for the very frustrating reason that our campaign has not contrasted our ideological point of view with Obama's.
in fact, Pete Wayner, my old buddy, who worked with Carl Rove in the White House has now got a piece in the Washington Post today.
He said, This this notion here that conservatism is dead is silly.
If you look at Obama since the Democrat convention, he's tacked right.
Look, he's talking tax cuts.
He's lying about it, but he's talking tax cuts.
He's talking second amendment.
He's out there.
He is trying to make sure everybody understands he's not who he is.
You win elections in this country, tacking to the right.
I don't care who you are.
And we still have the intellectual oids and the elites on our side saying that way of thinking is over.
They were on television all day yesterday saying that in the discussion areas of various Sunday morning TV shows.
I'm folks, it is time here for some truth and some urgency.
This whole notion that redistributing wealth is a distraction is not a distraction.
It's the core.
It is the very core of this election.
And I, for one, am fed up with Obama and his liars telling us what to think, spending hundreds of millions of dollars in propaganda snippets, which they call campaign commercials.
We don't need to be told who we are.
We don't need to be told what's relevant, how to think, and what's a distraction when a candidate proposes to use the power of government to steal money from tens of millions of citizens to give to other citizens who have not earned it.
I mean, socialism.
I get we're not supposed to mention that if that's socialism, it's a distraction.
And we're not supposed to say the word Marxist.
This is not productive.
So we're being told we can't be truthful.
Why?
Because it would hurt the Messiah.
I mean, Obama said it.
He believes this.
He taught this.
Obama organized around it.
When you hear the excerpts of this tape from 2001, you will know that this is who he is.
He is an unaccomplished socialist ideologue.
He's a he's a he's a demagogue as well, a charismatic demagogue.
He will have the power to destroy our economic system if given the chance, and if he gets 60 votes in the Senate, and he's going to do so with a smile, with platitudes about fairness and screwing the rich and all the usual socialist rhetoric.
And if he gets the chance, he's going to shut down those who object to it.
Fairness doctrine will be on its way.
Democrats in Congress will propose it.
He will not veto it, even though he has said he doesn't agree with the fairness doctrine.
He's already attacking Fox News on a regular basis.
Every chance he gets, he attacks Fox News.
His flunkies already talking about eliminating talk radio.
His campaign and the drive-by's are all for that, by the way.
Make no mistake, the drive-by's don't like the competition the new media has provided.
I think one of the reasons the drive-by's are blindly supporting Obama, and I don't know how blindly they are, but they they are they would love for us to be shut down, folks.
They would love to return to the days of their monopoly.
So there's a lot at stake here.
His campaign, Obama's campaign's tried to unleash federal prosecutors, private group against a private group that opposes him.
And if you think the economy is bad today, you wait.
You wait for his massive tax increases on the middle class, which is going to happen in 2010 and he doesn't have to do anything.
When the Bush tax cuts expire, there are going to be massive tax increases on your employer.
You you think 6% unemployment's high now?
If he gets 60 seats in the Senate and Pelosi does her magic in the House, there are no Republican opposition anywhere.
We're back up to 12% unemployment, just as we were during the Jimmy Carter years.
You think the financial markets are a mess today?
You wait and see what they happens to them when they are taxed beyond their ability to pay what happens to mortgages and bank accounts.
And when the economy comes crashing down, who do you think Obama will blame?
What do you think he'll do?
The ground has already been set for massive nationalization, including your pension plans.
We talked about it last week.
When he crashes the economy, it'll be time for another crisis measure, and that'll be nationalizing everything because the first attempt didn't quite get it right.
I saw a report on Fox this morning.
I have not seen it anywhere Else I'm looking.
They had some Republican congressman on somewhere.
There's a report out there that the banks who are getting some of this bailout money are using the money for bonuses for their executives or want to.
I haven't seen this in.
Have you seen this any worse now?
I haven't seen it other than it was reported on Fox today.
Your pension plan's gonna be taken, your 401k is going to be destroyed, the government's gonna take that over.
We had that for you last week.
If you think this is just another election, if you think Obama's just a centrist Democrat, and if you think we can take a chance with such a man on the basis of change, then uh you're living in a dream world.
Anyway, brief time out here.
Just now getting started.
Just now lit the fuse.
We'll be back and continue after this.
Barack Obama, uh, ladies and gentlemen, calls himself a constitutional professor, or a constitutional scholar.
In truth, Barack Obama was an anti-constitutional professor.
He studied the Constitution, and he flatly rejected it.
He doesn't like the Constitution, he thinks it is flawed, and now I understand why he was so reluctant to wear the American flag lapel pen.
Why would he?
He says, and uh to the extent as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical.
It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted.
The Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution's a charter of negative liberties.
It says what the states can't do to you, it says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.
Good lord, ladies and gentlemen.
I don't see how he can take the oath of office, which is this.
I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
He has rejected the Constitution.
Now, what about early voting?
Did they all think that Obama has stepped on the Constitution the way his friend and self-described communist and anarchist Bill Ayers stepped on the flag?
And by the way, as I said, forget the 250,000 that you're protected against tax increases and forget Obama's new figure of 200,000.
It's not the number, it's the concept.
The idea of income redistribution is this man's core.
Listen to it in his own words.
Now, this is from a now defunct Chicago area NPR program called Odyssey.
He appeared on this when he was a state senator and constitutional scholar.
He appeared in this program three times between uh 1998 and 2001.
This is, I guess, from uh September of 2001.
The the hostette, Gretchen Helfrich, says, We're joined here by Barack Obama, who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th District, senior lecturer in the law school, University of Chicago, and then Obama says this about the redistribution of wealth.
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to best formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that uh I would now have the right to vote.
I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and and order, and as long as I could pay for it, I'd be okay.
But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in the society.
But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and of more basic issues, such as political and economic justice in this society.
He went on to say to that extent.
Well, here, Lee, he went on.
Let's rather me read it to it, unless you uh let you hear this in his own words.
As radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical.
It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.
And that hasn't shifted.
And one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.
And uh in some ways we still suffer from that.
So they're out there saying that this whole mess of redistribution of wealth, that's a distraction.
It's not a distraction, it's the core.
It is who Obama is.
But I just I I I'm stuck on several things.
You can you can talk about the Warren Court and how they didn't do enough and they weren't radical enough.
But the folks, the the thing that leaps off the page is when he says that the Supreme Court is a charter of negative liberties.
It says what the states can't do to you.
It says what the federal government can't do note the terminology here.
He looks at the government as something that can do something to people, and he's mad that the Constitution limits the role of government in people's liberty.
That's what he's saying he doesn't like here.
He doesn't like the idea of liberty, and he wants to change it.
Hi, welcome back.
It's Rush Limbaugh.
This is the Excellence in Broadcasting Network 80082-2882.
I want you to play audio soundbite number two again.
I'm just of all these bites, and it's it it's it's hard, ladies and gentlemen, to pick one that is more striking than the others.
But this this whole business, the the the Constitution says what the federal government can't do to you and what the state government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal or state government must do on your behalf.
It most certainly does spell out some things it must do on our behalf.
He doesn't under Yeah, he does understand it.
He just doesn't like it.
What do you think protecting individual liberty is?
The federal government may not encroach the ten the the Bill of Rights.
They spell out the gov the limitations on the government's power, and those are all things the Constitution uh expresses that the government must do on our behalf.
I don't know what he means my must do on our behalf.
He's talking about give things to people who don't have what he thinks is enough.
Now there's a name for this.
It's called negative rights.
And it is a concept that is taught in many of the so-called higher institutions of learning.
And there's an entire movement out there pushing this view, including at the law school where Obama was a sometime professor, the University of Chicago law school.
Now, what this does to me raises another point.
Every left-wing nut job thought and attitude found in college classrooms could become a reality under Obama.
This is what he knows.
This is who he is.
Forget his talk about tax cuts, forget all of his tacking to the right on social economic issues.
He's doing that to win the election.
He can't win running around saying this stuff.
That is why they're trying to shut us up from talking about his plan to redistribute.
But this, folks, is fundamental here.
This audio soundbite where Obama discusses the concept of negative rights along with a discussion of the Earl Warren Supreme Court.
It wasn't that radical.
It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.
And that hasn't shifted, and one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused.
Uh I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political.
All right, stop stop the tape, right?
That's an up court focused is another little misnomer here.
Uh The Supreme Court had nothing to do with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that happened in the United States Congress.
Now, granted, there was a lot of court activity on all this, but to say the political process was not involved here is simply untrue.
But this charter of negative liberties, negative rights.
He's complaining when he says this.
He's complaining.
I s I am struck by the notion here that he says what the federal government can't do to you.
Doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.
This is a complaint.
This is this is nothing short of a condemnation of the Constitution, and he calls himself a professor.
Now the Constitution establishes each branch of the government, and here's how the Constitution begins.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Now, what the hell is negative about that?
A charter of negative liberties?
This is perverted.
I mean, some people call this radical.
I call it perverted.
And did Professor Obama forget about Articles 1, 2, and 3?
Articles 1, 2, and 3 establish the foundation of our government.
Separation of powers, the greatest government, the freest society in the history of the world, and Professor Obama calls it a charter of negative liberties.
To me, ladies and gentlemen, the Constitution is a gift from God.
The Constitution's not a disappointment, it's a blessing.
What kind of person does not understand the purpose and meaning of a document written by the greatest defenders of liberty the world has ever known?
Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Washington, Hamilton, they created a charter of negative liberties.
And there's a big movement out there.
A lot of Obama uh voters believe this stuff, folks.
A lot of the people in Jeremiah Wright's congregation believe this stuff.
They've been raised to believe all this.
This charter of negative liberties.
And who taught who?
I'm beginning after after hearing these tales, and I got more sound bites coming up.
But we've all been led to believe that the angelic, Barack Obama, fresh off a virgin birth, somehow arrived out of the manger and ended up in Chicago, where his countenance and his brilliance was spotted immediately by radicals who said, Wow, we have our savior, and we can mold our savior into the front man to achieve what we want to achieve.
I'm beginning to wonder.
Who just who taught who?
How much did Obama teach heirs?
How much did Obama teach Jeremiah Wright?
Obama didn't have to hear what Jeremiah Wright said in his sermons.
Obama believed it already.
Obama may have half-written those sermons.
You can hear it in his in his uh charismatic uh demagogish fashion.
On these tapes, here this this is how the Constitution begins.
We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice.
He said they didn't, they didn't, they didn't come up with a Constitution.
They said what they must do on our behalf.
What the hell is officially proclaiming and bestowing liberty on people from God, if not something on our behalf.
Ensure domestic tranquility?
What's negative about that?
Provide for the common defense?
What's negative about that?
Promote the general welfare?
What's not not provide for it, by the way.
Promote is a key and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, that means you and me.
Do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
There's nothing negative about this whatsoever, Unless you are obsessed with race.
Unless you are a socialist obsessed with race, uh race and unfairness, and he starts talking about how the court was not radical enough, the Warren Court wasn't radical enough, and we need to use the court to redistribute here.
Let's move on to the audio sound bites from Barack Obama.
He then he tells a caller that he's not optimistic the court can do this.
Uh Gretchen the host says, Hi, the gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn't terribly radical.
My question is, with economic changes, my question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative or reparative work economically?
And is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place?
The court, or would it be legislation at this point?
I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts.
You know, the institution just isn't structured that way.
You just look at very rare examples where in during the desegregation era, the court was willing to, for example, order, you know, changes that cost money to uh local school district.
And the court was very uncomfortable with it.
It was hard to manage, it was hard to figure out.
You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process uh that essentially is administrative and and takes a lot of time.
The court was uncomfortable with it.
It was hard to manage, it was hard to figure out.
This is quite a litmus test, ladies and gentlemen.
We now know what kind of justices this radical is comfortable with.
And we now know why Obama didn't do town hall meetings with McCain.
And we now know why he won't hold press conferences.
We now know why Joe the Plumber is the enemy of the Obama campaign.
Joe got Obama to tell a truth.
Joe the plumber got Obama to reveal himself, his core anti-American anti-constitutional values.
And we now know that official Ohio government computers were used to dig up and target information on Joe the Plumber.
What imagine this, folks, what kind of towering, soaring speech can Obama give based on these beliefs that we have now come to know?
Would he quote Marx?
Would he demand the change in the spirit of the Soviet Union?
Would he ask us to have constitution burning parties?
Barack Obama has allied himself with like-minded people who also have a disgust and a distaste for the Constitution.
Radicals, these people are probably many more radicals that we'll never know.
They are his soulmates.
I just I just scary, scary stuff.
You know, redistribution is a distraction.
Redistribution's a distraction.
Redistribution, folks, is the part of the process where the government confiscates private property and uses it to secure their own power.
This is a must in terms of understanding what redistribution is.
It's not about fairness.
It's the process where the government confiscates private property, uses it to secure their own power.
They buy votes with money that they confiscate.
They use the money and their power to control both the public and the private sectors.
Redistribution is the middle part of the formula.
Before redistribution comes confiscation.
After is exerting control backed up with the force of law.
Redistribution is the least frightening part of socialism.
What comes before and after is what shocks like a taser.
And this this whole package goes uh goes well beyond socialism.
Here's more Obama.
Uh he has to add if he can come up for a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts, he would do it.
Yeah, the court's just not very good at it, and politically, it's just it's very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard.
So I mean, I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, you know, I think you can uh any any three of us sitting here could come up with a a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.
Right, redistribution.
This is how he views the Supreme Court.
This is what he will have the power to populate it with people who believe in uh in these very things.
Now, how is he going to I asked this early?
How is earlier how how's he going to place his hand on the Bible and swear that he, Barack Hussein Obama will uphold a constitution that he feels reflects the nation's fundamental flaw?
Fundamental.
When he talks about a fundamental flaw, he's not talking about a flaw that can be fixed.
Fundamental means that this document is from the get-go wrong.
I think we can say that the Constitution reflected a enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day.
And uh, and that the framers uh had that same blind spot.
I I don't think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that uh it also uh reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.
That's not even true.
Even if you refuse to call it a fundamental flaw, just remove the word fundamental, he is saying seven years ago, this country has made no progress whatsoever on the official status of black citizens going back to the days of the founding.
That simply is not true.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans died.
The Constitution was a document set up to fix itself, to allow itself to be repaired in the area of individual liberty, and it has been far more than anybody would have ever dreamed back in the days of the founding.
Anyway, I have to take a break.
We'll do that, we'll come back and continue after this.
Stay glued to your seats.
Now, don't get confused on negative rights versus positive.
Negative rights, when I say there's an entire movement out there pushing this view, the Obama people do not call it negative rights.
What they call it, they say they're teaching positive rights.
Uh negative rights is what Obama and his comrades call the founder's approach to fundamental law.
They say the founders were negative, but this whole notion that the the uh constitution says what the government can't do to you, rather than saying what it must do on your behalf.
The opposite side of Obama's argument is not being expressed properly by Obama himself.
When he says what the government can't do to you should then be followed by instead of what it can do to you.
When you look at the government as something that can do something to you, he's regretting, he has regret that the Constitution doesn't let the government do things to us.
So he must say on the other end of the spectrum of the spectrum that uh this is what the government can't do to you instead of what the government can do to you, rather than this mumbo jumbo about what must do in your behalf.
But the Constitution establishes a whole bunch of things in our behalf.
And uh and Senator Obama is uh trying to obfuscate this.
And again, what we we what we have here is uh uh an angry young black guy who arrives in Chicago as a 1960s radical, and his his uh his contempt for the Constitution of the United States is obviously very clear, but he cannot state this.
And he has to shut up all of his associates who might say it like Jeremiah Wright.
And now he's out there, by the way, he's out there saying, Well, I don't, we're we're not gonna have time.
We're not we're we're not we're not gonna be able to make an immediate lurch to the left.
Oh, really?
Just like he said, well, we're not gonna we're not gonna be able to take everybody's guns, even we wanted to, we're not gonna be able to oh, really?
Why are you even acknowledge it then?
Why even why why go on the defense Obama and say, well, we we may not even have time to lurch to the left?
He's alluding to the possibility, he's trying to assure people that it won't happen, not because it's not who he isn't, it's because he's not gonna have time.
We may not have time to lurch to the left.
We got too many things going on.
Otherwise, if you had time, you would do it.
It's exactly who he is, ladies and gentlemen.
And let's not forget, let's go to audio soundbite number six, a montage of various sermons from Obama's preacher Jeremiah Wright, who taught who here.
Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people.
Hillary ain't never been called a nigger.
Bill did us just like he did Monica Lewinsky.
He was riding dirty in white America, US of KKKA, black men turning on black men.
I am sick of Negroes who just do not get it.
Not God bless America.
God d America that's in the Bible for killing innocent people.
God America, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards.
America's chickens are coming home to roost.
Yes, he may be profoundly correct in his own way.
America's chickens coming home to roost.
We now know from Barack Obama's own words that his view of this country and constitution varies hardly at all with that of his preacher, Jeremiah Wright.
We'll be right back.
Hey, quick here question, uh folks.
What can the Constitution do to babies who survive abortions, according to Professor Obama?
▲
Export Selection