All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 27, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:25
October 27, 2008, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, welcome back.
It's Rush Limbaugh.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
We've got what, eight days here before the big election.
And it really is.
It's exciting.
It's an honor, ladies and gentlemen, for me to be able to be part of this each and every day with you to do what we can to shape the future of this country for ourselves and our children, grandchildren, and future generations.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882.
Not going to replay the Obama sound bites right now from his 2001 interview that's seven years ago.
That's not all that long ago, and he has not changed.
Joe the plumber brought it out of him.
But what do you want to spread the wealth around?
He's not changed.
Now, if you go back, if you if you listen carefully to what Obama was saying during these soundbites about the court and redistribution and the Warren Court was not radical enough, which in and of itself is a striking statement.
What he basically is uh saying, uh ladies and gentlemen, is that he can't trust the courts to do this.
He doesn't think the courts will tackle it.
Now, if he gets 60 seats in the Senate, remember the Democrats, the last two times they had 60 seats in the Senate.
We got Jimmy Carter and the economic malaise that he was responsible for, and then the time before that they had 60 seats, we really got it.
We got the Great Society, we got the war on poverty.
We got all of these entitlement programs that have demonstrably not worked.
Because had they worked, the whole argument for fairness would have ended because things would be fair.
All of what is the wealth transfer now since 1964-65 has to be over six to seven trillion dollars.
You talk about redistribution.
The Great Society is a redistributionist scheme, and it has redistributed easily six to seven trillion dollars from the haves to the have nots, and yet the same arguments have only intensified.
We're more unfair than we've ever been.
People are in more poverty today than they've ever been.
A country is never as good as it.
The best days are behind it.
We've lost our promise.
We're we're not what we should be.
We're not what we once were.
We're not what we can be.
If it had worked the last time that we tried unchecked Democrat power, then there wouldn't be any arguments liberals could make today.
The fairness argued be out the window because everybody would be happy and everybody would be equal.
But it's it's human nature.
And it's been proven around the world.
People who have things provided for them end up miserable.
Because even during such times as there is massive redistribution, there are still people who are a cut above and work their tails off to overcome the limits that government places on them via redistribution, and they end up doing better, and that just makes the liberals even angrier.
So we got to get even with them again.
And again and again and again, to the point that there aren't enough of them to provide for all of the redistribution in the first place, and that's exactly where liberals want to end up.
Why there isn't enough to redistribute, and that's just that's total chaos.
And Obama says the court's not effective in bringing this around.
He says it's got to be done via community organizers.
It's got to be done by people like Acorn.
It's got to be done via mob rule.
It has to be done via anger in the streets.
And by God, what are we hearing from Obama's people?
If he wins, there's gonna be riots.
If he doesn't win, there's gonna be riots.
We're being told several Obama campaign people, including James Carvel have alluded to trauma out there.
Now, this transfer of wealth since the Great Society, six to seven trillion dollars.
Does that figure include the multi-trillion dollar housing scam that led to the bailout?
No, it does not.
No, it does not.
We're piling even more trillions on top of the great society programs in um in an effort here to equalize housing values and people who are being thrown out via foreclosure.
It never works.
The left knows it doesn't work.
It's simply a vehicle for power.
There has yet to be a socialistic government that respects its people.
And Obama says that the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.
Yeah, it clearly states what the governments, federal and state governments can do to you, or can't do to you.
But it doesn't say what they must do on your behalf.
It most clearly does, but again, that's not the right way to finish the sentence, Obama.
If you're going to complain that the Constitution does not specify what federal and state governments can do to you, then you have to then conclude it by saying it also doesn't say what they can do for you.
At any rate, let's just take one thing Obama believes in.
Let's take abortion.
He believes in infanticide.
And by the way, about this, but this whole notion of abortion in life, the way to look at this, I think, in this campaign, to focus on abortion is the wrong thing.
I mean, you could focus on Obama's infanticide and so forth, but when you talk about the Constitution and how it uh is a charter of negative liberties, stop and think.
The document that preceded the Constitution, of course, the Declaration of Independence.
We are all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life.
Because without that, everything else is academic.
If you're not born or if you're aborted, you don't have the chance for liberty, nor the pursuit of happiness because you've been murdered.
You've been killed.
So they put life first.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
And they acknowledge that we are endowed by our Creator, that this is the yearning of our spirit.
This is how we were made.
The Constitution flowed from that.
The Constitution established a government which would protect life and provide for the general welfare, not insure.
Everything stems from the respect for the sanctity of life.
If that goes awry at any place in a society and then elevates and multiplies, then all the rest that follows is the is by definition weakened.
So Obama is worried.
He says the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, and yet the Constitution defends the whole notion that we all have a right to life, except it doesn't now.
And this is my question for Obama, because of a constitutional right, Roe versus Wade, the right to have an abortion whenever you want one, for the most part, is now constitutional.
Even though the Constitution says nothing about it.
And yet Obama's complaining the courts are not radical enough.
The courts cannot change the Constitution effectively enough for him.
So I would have a question.
What can the Constitution do to babies that survive abortions, according to Professor Obama?
Nothing.
The Constitution, under as it is currently interpreted, does nothing to protect babies who are born alive, who were attempted to be aborted.
So what is what is it is not radical enough for him?
What can the Constitution do for babies that survive abortions?
According to Professor Obama, nothing.
The Constitution can't do any.
I don't know what, I don't know why in the world he would be so unhappy.
And this was the fact back in 2001.
Uh Roe versus Way it was, just as it is today with uh Obama's own infanticide.
So he's saying you can't sue your way through the courts to get redistribution of wealth, even though we've gotten what he wants with a view of life via the courts and a lawsuit essentially.
So you have to do it the Alinsky way.
You have to take it to the streets, you have to get the community organizers out there raising hell and get people so fed up with the dangers and the uh unrest that they'll give you what they want just to get you to shut up, or get them to shut up, as it were, and and uh and act peaceably.
Now, we all know that we can have laws against abortion all we want, and we could rescend Roe vs.
Wade all we want.
The fact of the matter is women are going to have abortions.
Just like we have a law against robbing banks and people are going to rob banks, we have laws against every crime, and those crimes are still committed.
The thing about abortion is to get to people's minds and hearts on this and understand that it is in a constitution, which has as its fundamental building block, reason for existence, the promotion of liberty of the individual season, citizen.
At any point where the Constitution is weakened and fails to provide for that, then you've got trouble.
And everything I believe descends from that.
All the social unrest, all of the mad cap wacko socially cultural perverted ideas we get from the left, they are made easier once the acceptance in a broad number of people is uh is made that certain lives can be eliminated based on the convenience to the living.
And so the damage to the overall culture and the definition of why we are a country, why we are America begins, and it's uh it's a slow erosion, and we're in the midst of it now.
And now we have the Democratic Party presidential nominee who does he hasn't the slightest interest in the protection of life.
We have a constitution which makes as its focal point that very premise, following the Declaration of Independence.
That's not good enough.
He looks at the Constitution as a charter of negative liberties.
Now, granted, he's focused on race and slavery and so forth, but he's using that as his uh reason to be able to inflate the power of government and grow it to the point of infringing on anybody's liberty, according to his radical view of what is fair and what isn't fair and who should be in charge of that.
But he doesn't dare say any of this because he would plummet to 30% in the polls after two days of speeches of this.
So instead we get an Obama who's talking about what?
Stop and think of this.
We get an Obama who's talking about tax cuts for 95% of the American people.
We have the most liberal Democrat talking about tax cuts.
He's lying, but he's talking about it.
He's doing this so that he doesn't frighten people who are being told an alternative vision or version of his truth and who he is.
And while we have the Democrat candidate in some areas tacking to the right, such as, I'm not gonna take your guns.
I have a second amendment's fine with me.
I'm Barack Obama.
And I have 95% of Americans are gonna get tax cuts.
We have intellectual oids on our side saying that that kind of stuff is 1984 and it's over.
That's old fashioned.
And yet the Democrat candidate, in order to sort of stop all these, stop the uh the hemorrhaging and the uh to do what he can to blunt the effectiveness of the charges of his extreme radicalism.
I mean, this goes beyond liberalism now.
This is extreme leftist radicalism, has to tack to the right.
And we've got the brightest wizards on on the earth on our side of the aisle who are claiming that that's old hat doesn't work.
The recipe for landslide victories is there.
And for some reason our own party seeks to uh ignore it and try to redefine it.
We've got lots more straight ahead.
Gotta get to your phone calls as well, folks, all coming up.
We must take a brief obscene profit timeout.
We'll do that now and be right back.
An interesting post here at redstate.com on their blog.
And it reinforces, folks, why you have to ignore the media and the reports of these polls that are uh swamping us multiple times each day.
California has begun early voting as well as mail in voting.
The results here are shocking.
Now the polls show Obama with an 18-point lead in California just a few days ago.
The results of people who are mailing in and voting early are just the opposite in the most liberal state in the whole country.
Now that they don't count the votes yet, but they do talibate uh ta uh tabulate whether they're Republican or Democrat votes, uh, and and they're they're shocking here.
Ninety-nine thousand Republicans have voted.
96,000 Democrats have voted.
In the early battle thing, in the mail-in battling, the results so far are that 9,000 Americans have sent in their ballots and that 5,000 uh Republicans uh have set in 9,000 Democrats.
So there's a total of 210,000 people who have voted in California already, and the Democrats have only a 1,000 vote advantage in terms of party ID.
And let's not forget the Democrats themselves and the drive-bys have been warning us that there are a lot of Democrats who aren't gonna vote for Obama because of race.
It's the media that's been telling us this.
Now, if we as Red State points out here, if we take the liberty of assuming that all Republicans will vote for McCain and that all Democrats will vote for Obama, then according to early and mail-in balloting in California, this race is incredibly close.
Now nobody's saying Obama's not going to win California.
Don't misunderstand here.
But we're told that the Democrats are so angry and so fed up and so excited about the Messiah that they're having to be restrained from getting out there and voting.
There's so much excitement, so much desire, so much to get even with Bush and get even with the Republicans.
And in the early voting in the most liberal state in California, in the country, California, they've got a 1,000 vote edge, not counting the results just by party ID.
Everybody thought he would win California in a landslide, and he might yet, but in terms of the early voting, it's a statistical dead heat in terms of party ID after the 210,000 early and mail-in ballots.
The whole point of telling you this is to ignore pundits, ignore the polls.
This is a close race, and there is as much energy on the Republican side as there is in the Democrats, because most of it's for Sarah Palin, but there is an energy out there that is also opposed to Obama.
You're not living in a vacuum.
This is something that a lot of people continually make the mistake of believing.
Back during the Democrat Party and the drive-by media's efforts to lose the Iraq war.
Every night, every day, depending on what media you read or watched or consumed, you would believe that over 80% of the American people wanted out of Iraq now and wanted us to lose, and yet the Democrats could never find the guts to actually vote to defund the war.
If the public opinion had been what the media was telling us, we'd be out of Iraq right now, we would have secured defeat, they would have defunded it and so forth.
But when the pedal hit the medal, they didn't.
Because the polls were lying, the polls were overinflating, the American people's disgust with Iraq.
The American people want to win when we go to war.
don't want to lose.
And the drive-bys are trying to betray us, and the country is just the opposite.
Quick phone call.
Doug in Orlando.
Nice to have you with us, sir.
Hello.
Hey, Megadino's Rush and And yes, we want victory.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, um uh, you know, Professor State Senator Barack Obama sounded pretty theoretical in that uh in that clip you played, uh, but he wasn't theoretical at the time at all.
I went to the Wayback Machine, I don't know if you know what that is, but I looked at the Woods Fund website back in 2001 and 2002, and you know, there you can see what they did and who was there, and there he was, Barack Obama on the board of directors with ayers,
and in 2001, they were going through a strategic reorganization of the Woods Fund toward, you know, they crafted a new strategic plan, and in and they crafted it so that the Woods Fund would go in the direction of distributing money for projects that were community activism.
And you could see who they gave it to, you know, like Acorn and so on.
They wanted to promote social change.
And so it's an experiment with community organizing, you know, to to promote or advance social uh change.
And and So it wasn't, you know, theoretical.
If it sounds theoretical, it certainly wasn't.
He had the means, the money, the mechanism in hand there with uh ayers to uh to experiment with this stuff and put it on the street.
All right.
Now I I t I agree with all of that.
But we've got eight days to go.
We've got to start thinking tactics now.
It's like this driver's license thing, folks.
Let me just hit you between the eyes.
It's a waste of time.
We can't prove it.
When you can't prove something, you drop it.
It's a waste of time.
Now the judge threw the case out.
In Philadelphia last week, uh Mr. Berg had filed it and so forth.
Nobody was ever going to be able to prove it.
All there is is speculation.
Eight days speculation is not going to do any, it's not gonna sway any independence, it's not gonna change anybody's mind.
You know, is the driver's life the the birth certificate thing, I mean it's who knows, they may find out at some point, but you can't prove it, so it's a waste of time.
This Woods Foundation stuff and Bill Ayers, there's no question that Obama found these people.
We've got eight days to go.
We need to focus on Obama, not the Wood Foundation, because who's that?
And we need to focus on Obama, not airs, because I guarantee a lot of people McCain focused on airs in one of the debates, but he didn't tell anybody who ayers is, so nobody outside of this universe of people that really cares about it understands who Bill Ayers is.
And the drive-by is a doing CYA now.
The New York Daily News has a story today.
Say, come on, get it.
Bill Ayers is this 1960s joke.
It's it's you know, it's time to give the guy a break, cut some slack.
This isn't there's nothing there.
They're cut they're trying to cover the waste, uh, circle the wagons and all this stuff.
It's time to tie Obama to Obama.
We've got to tie Barack Obama to Obama.
And after we tie Obama to Obama, then went then tie him to Harry Reed and Nancy Pelosi.
And what's gonna happen to this country if they get unchecked power.
We'll be back.
Hi, how are you?
It's Rush Limboy, and this is the excellence in Broadcasting Network talent on loan from God.
Let's go back to the audio sound bites.
This is yesterday in Colorado Springs on the radio, Senator Barack Obama.
There are a lot of uh Democrats who may be elected who've made a commitment to their constituents to uh be centrist.
I don't think they're gonna wanna uh have big sudden lurches to the left.
I don't think that we're gonna have time to engage in a bunch of crazy things that uh people uh uh the McCain campaign specifically is has suggested we might I'll tell you something, Senator Obama.
I'm not even listening to Senator McCain on this.
I'm listening to you.
I am not worried about whether Senator McCain can accurately express or convey to people what you're saying.
I just need to listen to you.
And listening to him in this bite, ladies and gentlemen, it's more confirmation.
There are a lot of Democrats who may be elected, who've made a cons a commitment to their constituents to be centrist.
I don't think yet with Barney Frank talking about a twenty five percent cut in the military budget when we've got two wars going on and an enemy at our doorstep every day and night.
Centrist?
Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, centrist.
Forget about these Democrats who may be elected who made a commitment to their constituents to be centrist.
We look at the leaders, Obama, that means Reed and Pelosi and you.
And we hear what Pelosi wants to do and we hear what Reed wants to do.
They're salivating at 60 votes in the Senate.
I don't think they're gonna want to have sudden lurches to the left.
They're not gonna want to have where do you think we've been heading under your party for all of these years?
We're just doing everything we can to stop you in your tracks.
A sudden lurch to the left took place decades ago in your party, and it hasn't stopped except when we've beaten you at the ballot box.
Then he says, So I don't think we're gonna have time to engage in a bunch of crazy things that the McCain campaign specifically has suggested we might not gonna have time.
He could do a lot of this by signing one piece of legislation, some little peace treaty with the UN.
He could do a lot of damage in six months, suddenly lurching to the left.
We're not gonna have time.
Otherwise you'd do it.
We're not gonna have time to lurch to the left.
That's that's that's much different than saying, I don't even lurch to the left.
I'm a centrist moderate.
I have no intention.
We're not gonna have time.
We're not gonna have time to lurch for the left.
If you, if you uh again, this this Obama tape, you know, I wanna I want to again remind you, he is complaining in this tape from 2001 that the Supreme Court hasn't been radical enough, and he doesn't think he can count on the Supreme Court to accomplish all the redistribution that he wants.
There's too much in the Constitution about limited powers, there's too much in the Constitution about separation of powers, it's just too much, it's just it's too, it's it's it's problematic.
Too much to do there.
The Constitution is too big an obstacle, is what he's saying.
This whole discussion of negative versus positive rights can be boiled down to something very simple.
What Obama wants to do and his buddies, they want the Constitution to be used to forever require judges to rule as a matter of law for economic and social justice.
That's the bottom line.
They don't think there are enough rights in the Constitution.
They think the Constitution limits the federal government too much.
They want the Constitution to have more rights, but they can't do that, so they want it's too too big a problem to change that, so they want the judges to do it for them.
Just the way they found rights to allow Roe v.
Wade, they want new rights found in the Constitution by judges, because the Constitution right now, and they're calling this positive.
They're calling all of this, you know, positive rights.
They're looking at it as expanding constitutional rights for social justice and economic justice.
And social and economic justice simply equals redistribution.
And they want judges to find these rights since it's too problematic to go argue before the courts all the time.
Because it takes time, the courts still judges are gonna get, you know, caught up in in the Constitution itself.
So he's saying to change the Constitution, we're gonna have to do it the way the left's been doing it as as long as they can, get judges appointed that will simply invent law.
And therefore call it constitutional.
That's his idea.
And along with that, when he says one of the things uh one of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, 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 risk uh redistributed change.
Let me translate that for you.
Yeah, the courts aren't the place to do this redistributive work.
The Constitution's usefulness in this regard was limited by the founders.
There are all kinds of separation of powers, clap trap.
This bogs down our mission.
The secret of transforming America to my Obama utopia is community organizations.
And all the hell they can raise, like acorn.
That's the fulcrum of the power we can leverage to remake society, community organizations.
Just raising hell.
I mean, the uh the notion that Obama believes the key to his radical agenda is organizations.
And the reason he says that, by the way, is because they last.
You set up an acorn, you find a way to get the federal government to fund it, and it's there forever.
It's all over his early writings, it's all over his early interviews, and in this one too from 2001 that we're playing.
And it's easy to gloss over those kinds of uh of statements because community organized.
We we still make fun of it.
We make fun of the fact he's community organizer, but he's dead serious about it, and that's his foundational building block to change the Constitution from outside, not within.
He was doing this.
He got hold of Acorn, he aimed it straight at the heart of the American Republic.
It was the key to voter fraud and the torpedoing of the American economy without acorn.
They would have had a much tougher time bringing off this calamity that the subprime mortgage crisis is.
Because acorn was out there agitating, which is what community organizations do.
Everybody, banks, government, politicians, you name it.
And they were getting federal money to do it, to boot.
So if you take acorn out of this subprime mess, you have less of a subprime mess.
I am convinced that Acorn is and has been far more significant and dangerous than we even realize.
That, what Acorn has done, I guess that the way for me to sum this up to you the way I look at this, and yes, I'll admit I have fear about this.
We see all these investigations for fraud involving Acorn, 15, 17 of them, whatever the number is now.
They've been at this for 30 years.
This is what America is going to look like in order to accomplish Obama's social and economic justice, his redistribution.
This is what, along with his tax cuts, I'm sorry, tax increases.
Along with his tax increases, this group out there working on his behalf of this is what America's going to become.
One giant, constantly agitated populace.
And you know, people don't like to be agitated.
And when they start being agitated and people start harassing you and start hassling you, you do one or two things or three things, but the idea in any course of action you take is to stop it.
And most Americans are appeasers.
Oh, you'll stop harassing me if you get this, fine.
And they'll vote for somebody to give them that.
Just for peace, just to get some peace from the people.
Even if you're a businessman, you don't want to be hassled by Acorn, fine.
Give them something.
Get them off my back.
It's easier to appease them.
But they are never satisfied.
You can never give the left enough.
Look at all they got in the great society.
Look at all they've gotten of virtually every social program they want.
It's never enough.
They just keep coming, and that is why it's crucial we have people willing to stand up and stop them.
And there are fewer and fewer on our side willing to stand up and stop them.
And to those I say who are unwilling to stop the forward march of the left, fine.
Go join them if you want a job with them down the road.
Scott McClellan.
Scott McClellan, you um come out and endorse Obama.
Former Bush spokesman, press spokesman.
Scott, really gutsy, buddy.
Lots of you think they're gonna hire you.
You think you're gonna hire you, Scott?
You think you're gonna get a job with Obama and some of the rest of our brave warriors on the conservative right who are moving over to uh endorse Obama?
You're gonna get a gig there?
Think so.
Going to be happy with a gig there.
Sadly, probably so if you get it.
And how about Senator Biden?
Thank God for Senator Biden.
We just had a call from Orlando, and last Thursday in Orlando, WFTV's eyewitness news, the anchor Barbara West talking to Biden.
She said, I know you're in North Carolina now trying to get out the vote, but aren't you embarrassed by the blatant attempt to register phony voters by Acorn, an organization that uh Obama's been tied to in the past?
I am not embarrassed by it.
We are not tied to it.
We've not paid them one single penny to register a single solitary voter.
I'm not embarrassed because of our campaign.
We haven't paid Acorn a single penny to register a single voter.
But in the past, Senator But in the past, Senator Obama was uh community organizer for Acorn, he was an attorney for Acorn, and certainly in the Senate, he has been a benefactor for Acorn.
How has he been a benefactor for Acorn?
He was this organizer.
John McCain stood before Acorn not long ago, compliment him on the great work they did.
Does that make John McCain complicitous in any mistake Acorn made?
Come on, let's get real.
These Democrats don't deal with tough questions very well.
They did pay the camp, they paid a derivative of Acorn.
It's all the same stuff.
They paid a branch office of Acorn, $820,000 in the primaries, Omaba did, to go out and beat Hillary.
Uh Joe Biden just he either doesn't know, probably doesn't know, will give him the benefit of the doubt, or he's he does know and is lying through his teeth.
And then it gets really good.
Just listen to this.
You may recognize this famous quote from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs.
That's from Karl Marx.
How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?
Are you joking?
Is this a joke?
No.
Is that a real question?
That's a question.
He is not spreading the wealth around.
He's talking about giving the middle class an opportunity to get back the tax breaks they used to have.
Just this year, people making 1.4 million dollars average.
The top one percent good, decent American people are going to get a new eighty-seven billion dollar tax cut.
A new one on top of last year.
We think the people should be getting that tax break are not continue to redistribute the wealth up.
We think middle class taxpayers should get a tax break.
That's what we think.
It's a ridiculous comparison with all due respect.
So Obama himself has said he wants to spread the wealth around and to spread the wealth around, you gotta get somebody's to give away.
The dirty little secret is the middle class, more and more of them are not paying income taxes.
The notion that they need tax relief is uh is absurd in in so many ways.
So this this brave little anchorette here at uh at uh what was this uh again, WFTV eyeball news in Orlando.
Now Biden loses it in the in the next bite here.
Uh Barbara West says, Well, you recently said, mark my words, it'll not be six months before the world tests Obama.
But what worries a lot of people is uh you're asking them to stand with you because it's it's not going to be apparent initially that he's right.
Are you warning the American people uh that nothing will be done and the Americans um America's days as a leading power are over?
No, I'm not at all.
I don't know who's writing your questions, but let me make it clear to you.
And the point I was making is Barack Obama is much better prepared to handle whatever crisis it's going to be than John McCain because John was wrong in Iraq saying we'd be greeted as liberators, we'd be out of there, wrong in Afghanistan saying we've already succeeded, wrong in North Korea and saying the president shouldn't negotiate.
Barack Obama's been right, John McCain's been wrong.
That was my point.
Barack Obama is more ready than John.
He can't even tell the truth about what he said.
It was on tape.
McCain was wrong about Iraq.
Biden is the one who's wrong, and finally this change.
What do you say to the people who are concerned that Barack Obama will want to turn America into a socialist country much like Sweden?
I don't know anybody who thinks that except the far right wing of the Republican Party.
Okay, Senator Biden, thank you very much.
All right.
And so uh they didn't it just they they was not happy.
Republicans get these kinds of questions multiple times a day.
Obama can't handle it from one TV station in Orlando.
Back to the phones here.
I just remember we've only taken one phone call today.
So we'll uh we'll go to San Francisco.
This is Jeff.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
Thank you for taking my call.
Yes, sir.
You do great work.
Um I recently told I'll get right to the point, uh, as Bo told me.
Um I recently reread Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals after about thirty-five years.
And it's the key to Obama.
Um the whole book is about um rubbing raw the the healing wounds of the society in order to gain power.
Um and one of the things he says, and this is a quote, an organizer working for change does not have a fixed truth.
Truth to him is relative and changing.
And if you're worried about that this gives somebody like Hitler moral credibility, you'd be right if he won the war.
But since he didn't, he's the devil.
And he goes on to say the organizer must gain the trust of the people by looking and sounding just like them.
All effective actions require the passport of morality.
If the people are churchgoers, the organizer had better go to church too.
And he says that the ends always justify the means.
And he also makes the point in there that nothing can help the poor, but that the people who are in the middle are the ones for whom you can you can uh gain trust and credibility and therefore gain power.
And that's what Obama is.
Now, how would you explain Sol Olinski to people who never heard of him?
Well, he was an organizer in Chicago, which I believe is why why Obama went to Chicago.
Let me shorten the question.
Let me because the time why would anybody like Saul Olinsky, why would anybody like Barack?
Why would they want to take this great country and pervert it and change it?
What why are they so angry about this great country?
Well, well, I think what he preys upon, at least at that time, is the idealism of youth.
People who really are not um experienced and and don't know very much about American history and about the Constitution, and who do see, you know, some, you know, injustice and and the poverty about them and are motivated to, you know, to try and and correct them.
But they don't understand that that w America is the vehicle for correcting.
Right.
That is exactly right.
They are they these people and their and their uh social justice desires are preyed upon and they become useful idiots.
They become pawns for Olinsky and his disciples to actually reform the government, and you know, whatever you want to call it, socialist, Marxist, whatever it is, they want to destroy capitalism.
And they use the guilt and the fear of the majority of people, which is the middle class, constantly throwing at them, look at how unfair this is.
The person sleeping under the bridge or the sleeve the sewer grade.
This is unfair.
We've got to do something about it.
Yeah, that is totally unfair.
I don't like looking at it.
Well, we'll raise taxes on people, we'll redistribute income, that'll get rid of oh, yeah, I want to feel better about my country and so forth.
And they have no clue how they're being utilized because the idealism of their desires, wanting a utopia, is what allows the Obamas and the Alenskis to further their notion of destruction.
Brief time out here at the top of the hour.
▲
Export Selection