All Episodes
Previous Next
May 11, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:33
May 11, 2009, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24 7 Podcast.
Hey, folks, great to be back with you.
Fun weekend off, but here we are, back at it, three straight hours of broadcast excellence.
All yours.
I'm Rush Limbaugh, America's truth detector, America's real anchor man, the doctor of democracy.
All combined as one harmless, lovable little fuzzball behind a golden EIB microphone.
Looking forward to chatting with you today.
Number is 800 282-2882.
And if you want to send an email, feel free.
Email address L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
Yet another meeting at the White House today.
This with healthcare service provided professionals, healthcare industry people coming in.
And they're prepared to make two trillion dollars in concessions over the next ten years to help Obama go into the nationalized health business.
You know what these meetings are like?
These seminars, these meetings are with industry service groups, whatever.
They're like the Don, like Don Corleone calling all these people together, the groups and telling them they have to do what they have to do to remain in his good graces or be punished.
I'm sure they get intimidated in some of these meetings, and that's why everybody who used to I mean, these people showing up for the health care meeting today are the six groups that ran ads opposed to Hillary care k Hillary care back in the uh in the early 90s.
So everybody I've I've I have never seen uh more people talk to more people, more afraid of their government in my lifetime than is happening now.
And it's all very strange because I remember President Obama saying this during his inaugural address back on January 20th.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.
In the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things.
That's President Obama on January 20th.
You be the judge as to whether or not any of that has happened.
I have a question for you, folks.
What motivates Dick Cheney?
Dick Cheney was on Face the Nation yesterday.
We have some audio sound bites here.
Before playing the sound bites, I want to pose some thoughts to you.
Dick Cheney has all the millions he needs.
He doesn't need money.
He has no future political ambitions.
He could have run in 2000, he could have run in 2008.
He doesn't want to run for elective office anymore.
What motivates him?
He's not hot for interns.
He's not a torture freak.
What motivates Dick Cheney?
He also knows that he is toxic to the drive-by media.
He knows that the Obama administration and the drive-by media despise him.
He could sail away into retirement, go hunting and fishing out in Wyoming, wherever he wants.
What motivates Dick Cheney to continue to speak out?
What is it that you think motivates Dick Cheney?
Let's go to the audio sound bites.
And uh we'll start here with uh this question from Bob Schiefer.
You said, for example, the Obama administration has made this country less safe.
That's a very serious charge.
Why have you taken that approach?
I think the issues that are at stake here are so important.
And in effect, what we've seen happen uh with respect to the Obama administration as they came to power is they have moved to take down a lot of those policies we put in place that kept the nation safe for nearly eight years from a follow-on terrorist attack like 9-11.
Now, Bob Schiefer was stunned.
Bob Schiefer could not believe what he was hearing.
Bob Schiefer is said to be, I've never met him.
Bob Schiefer said to be one of the nicest guys in the drive-by media in D.C., but he was shocked that Dick Cheney suggested we are less safe because of the Obama presidency.
How could Cheney say, let alone suggest we're less safe?
How could he prove we're less safe?
You see, the conflict here as far as Bob Schiefer of the drive by media is concerned, is that the left has been saying for the last eight years that we are less safe because of the Bush presidency, because of all the torture.
I had somebody ask me a bunch of friends in for the weekend.
What do you think is going to happen if we do get hit again?
Another terrorist attack.
What's going to happen?
You think Obama's going to get blamed?
Said, no, Obama's not going to get blamed for anything ever.
Why do you think they're setting up all this torture stuff?
Why do you think they're closing Gitmo?
They have said for eight years that Bush created more terrorists.
I'll guarantee them to you, folks, if we get hit again, what's going to be blamed is torture.
Abu Grab, Club Gitmo.
That's why Obama's releasing the memos.
That's why Obama is releasing or wants to release the pictures.
And here's Dick Cheney.
One voice from elected Republican politics.
Dick Cheney is out warning everybody that what Obama is doing is endangering our country.
What motivates Dick Cheney?
He doesn't need money.
He doesn't want to run for political office.
He doesn't want to run Club Gitmo.
He's not hot for interns.
What motivates Dick Cheney?
Next soundbite, Bob Schiefer.
Should we take that literally?
You say the administration has made this country more vulnerable to attacks here in the homeland?
That's my belief, based upon the fact, Bob, that we put in place those policies after 9-11.
What I find deeply disturbing.
And I think uh to the extent that those policies were responsible for saving lives, that the administration is now trying to cancel those policies or end them, terminate them, then I think uh it's fair to argue, and I do argue that that means in the future we're not gonna have the same safeguards we've had for the last eighths.
Yet he's exactly right about this.
He is telling the world, he's telling this country one voice.
One Republican has the guts to go on television and say this stuff.
But what motivates Dick Cheney?
And Bob Scheefer is totally incredulous because of course the template for the last eight years of the drive by media has been we're less safe, day after day, Sunday after Sunday, Sunday show after Sunday show for eight years, week after week.
We're less safe.
And every time, by the way, a Democrat would appear with Bob Schiefer or Stephanopoulos, Russert, David Gregory, whoever, in the last eight years and claim that we are less safe.
Because of George W. Bush.
That charge was never challenged.
Schiefer didn't challenge it.
If if it was ever challenged, it was uh it was not really challenged, it was it was asked, the question was asked in such a way to give the guest a chance to amplify the point of how greater in danger we are because of the Bush administration.
What motivates Dick Cheney?
He knows the media hate his guts.
He knows the media hate George W. Bush.
He has all the money he needs.
He has no political ambitions.
He's not hot for interns.
He's not a torture freak.
What motivates Dick Cheney?
Next question from Schiefer.
Do you have any regrets whatsoever about any of the methods that were taken, any of the things that were used back in those days?
Because there's no question it was a different time.
The country's mood was different.
We had just been through something here that had never happened before.
In retrospect, do you think we should have done some things differently back then, or do you have any regrets about any of it?
No regrets.
I think it was absolutely the right thing to do.
I'm convinced, absolutely convinced, that we save thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives.
And the drive-bys are still stuck on Bush made us uh placed us more at risk.
Bush and Cheney made it more dangerous, made this country less safe.
And now here's Dick Cheney, a lone voice.
Who could avoid all of the grief that he gets?
He doesn't need it.
He could go hunting, he could go fishing.
He could learn to play golf.
He could write memoirs.
He doesn't need the money.
He has no political ambitions.
He's not hot for interns.
He's not a torture freak.
He knows he's toxic to the drive-by media.
What motivates Dick Cheney?
And then there was uh let's see.
Audio soundbite number five is next.
Question from Bob Schiefer.
Colin Powell.
Rush Limbaugh said the other day that the party would probably be better off if Colin Powell left and just became a Democrat.
Colin Powell said Republicans would be better off if they didn't have Rush Limbaugh out speaking for them.
Where do you come down on this?
Well, if I had to choose uh in terms of being a Republican, I'd go with Rush Limbaugh, I think.
I think my take on it was Colin had already left the party.
I didn't know he was still a Republican.
So you think that he's not a Republican?
I just noted he uh endorsed um the Democratic candidate for president this time, Barack Obama.
I assume that um that's some indication of his loyalty and his interest.
And you said you'd take Rush Limbaugh or Colin Powell.
I would.
All right.
Bob Schiefer, just incredulous during an entire interview, of course, Colin Powell endorsing Barack Obama and then out saying that the uh Republican Party is going to have to realize Americans want bigger government and higher taxes, and Cheney says, I I didn't know he was still a Republican, Bob.
What motivates Dick Cheney?
He doesn't need the money.
He has no further political ambitions.
He is not hot for interns.
He is not a torture freak.
He knows that he is toxic and despised by the drive-by media and the Democrat Party and the left in this country.
What motivation does Dick Cheney have to go out and say these things?
Is it possible that Dick Cheney is motivated by national interest?
Is it possible that Dick Cheney is motivated by love of and for his country?
Is it possible that Dick Cheney is speaking from his heart and is not speaking politically?
Dick Cheney is not concerned about legacies.
He's smart enough to know that the legacy that's written about the Bush administration is going to be BS until this generation of writers has assumed room temperature and moved on.
So he's not he knows he can't correct the historical record.
He's going on these shows to talk to the American people.
He's one Republican voice.
He's also saying we shouldn't moderate as a party.
We only win when we are conservatives and have a conservative candidate to offer and principles.
We shouldn't moderate.
Dick Cheney knows that people in the middle of the road get run over.
Dick Cheney knows that there really is no such thing as a centrist.
Dick Cheney knows that there's really no such thing as a moderate.
Dick Cheney is one lone voice in the Republican Party.
What motivates Dick Cheney?
He's not hot for interns.
He has all the money he needs.
He's not a torture freak.
He doesn't want to run for political office.
Dick Cheney is motivated by love for his country.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.
In the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things.
President Barack Obama foretelling the mood that he will bring to America in his inaugural address in January of this year.
H. L. Minken, great quote, the men, the American people admire most extravagantly, are the greatest liars.
The men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.
H.L. Mencken.
And as a good quote from George Bernard Shaw, the powers of astute observation are often mistaken as cynicism by those that do not possess the powers of astute observation.
Folks, do you remember that line you learn when you're a little kid, Philosophy question, logic question.
If a tree falls in the forest and no one's there, does it make a sound?
Remember that question?
Well, there's a new version of this that I, ladies and gentlemen, would like to put forth.
If a liberal tells a whopper of a lie, and no one reports it, is it a lie?
Nancy Pelosi, who promised to clean up Washington, or was it to clean up in Washington?
Nancy Pelosi is caught in a real whopper, such a whopper that she had to run off to a rock in a surprise visit yesterday to reframe the news.
All right, all right, it wasn't a lies of fashion statements.
She wears Armani clothes, fashionable, botox shots, fashionable, she's against waterboarding, fashionable.
Of course, after 9-11, she was for waterboarding.
That was fashion then.
Getting to the bottom of it, finding out who did what, saving American lives, preventing future attacks.
Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats were as on board as Dick Cheney was.
With waterboarding, whatever these harsh techniques that are now being described were they were all for these.
She is lying through the teeth about being unaware of this.
If a liberal tells a whopper of a lie and nobody reports it, is it a lie?
You know, it's interesting to note that most liberals, when caught in a lie, will run off to NBC or run off to Chris Matthews to appear on the show, but she stopped all she went all the way to Iraq.
Now I have a different spin on Pelosi's bald-faced lie, her well Botox-faced lie, and it's going to drive the left crazy.
But first, let's listen to a couple audio sound bites.
Let's go back April 23rd in Washington.
Here is Pelosi denying and repeating to make it clear that she was not briefed on waterboarding.
We were not, I repeat, re not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used.
They were a bunch of members of Congress were, and when they were told, they also reacted in a way that says, Is this enough?
Is this are we really doing enough to get to the bottom of this?
The anti-Bush strategy, failure in Iraq, defeat for the United States, had not occurred to them yet.
They had moistened their fingers and put it in the air, and they figured the American people were mad about this.
The American people want to find out who did this, and they wanted retribution.
And of course, the Democrats, always known as weak on national offense, had to go show that they were on board even more so.
February 25th, Rachel Maddow show, MSNBC.
When pressed by reporters, Pelosi gave an even more detailed denial.
No, no, the fact is they did not brief uh well, first of all, we're not allowed to talk about what happens there, but I can say that they did not brief us that these uh enhanced interrogations were taking place.
They did not brief us that with that.
They were talking about an array of uh uh interrogations that they might have at their disposal.
Techniques in the abstract, as if they were not being used.
They not we were never told they were being used.
Were you told they weren't being used?
Well, they just talked about them, but they they did they uh the inference to be drawn from what they told us was these are things that we think could be legal, and we have a difference of opinion on that.
But they never told us that they were being used, because that would be a different story altogether.
So I asked the question again when a liberal tells a lie, and it's not reported, is it a lie?
She's compounding the lie here.
The Republicans in a little no little noticed hearing uh last Thursday in Washington, this was during a uh Senate appropriation subcommittee on commerce hearing, and the Attorney General Eric Holder testified, Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee.
What about members of Congress who were informed of these techniques or knew about them or approved them or encourage them?
Wouldn't they also be appropriate parts of such an investigation?
Our desire is not to do anything that would be perceived as political, as partisan.
My responsibility is to enforce the laws Of this nation and to the extent that we see violations of those laws, um, we'll take the appropriate action.
If you're going to investigate the lawyers whose opinion was asked about uh whether this is illegal or not, I would assume you could also go to the people who created the techniques, the officials who approved them and the members of Congress who knew about them and may have encouraged them.
Hypothetically that might be true.
Hypothetically that might be true.
So here's the Republican zeroing, and all right, if you're if you're if you're gonna go after the lawyers that wrote the techniques, and if you're gonna go after all these, what about members of Congress who knew about it and approved?
And of course, Eric Holder, well, hypothetically that might be true.
He didn't he didn't rule it out.
But the the bottom line here is is it Pelosi is out saying she had no idea, which is patently false.
As I say, uh, when most of these people get caught in a lie, they run off to NBC News, MSNBC, Chris Matthews, or whatever.
But I think Nancy Pelosi actually deserves our praise.
And she might even deserve a medal.
She was the guardian of waterboarding.
She knew about it, she was told it was going to happen, she knew it was happening, and she didn't say anything.
Without Pelosi's cooperation, without Pelosi's silence, waterboarding would not have been used, and all that intel we got, we would have never gotten.
When all of these techniques were being used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the others at Guantanamo Bay, Nancy Pelosi knew they were being used.
She was in on the briefings.
She stayed silent.
Nancy Pelosi, the guardian of waterboarding, her silence permitted us to gain valuable intel.
She deserves medal.
The views expressed by the host on this show documented to be almost always right, 99% of the time.
Great to have you here.
As I, Il Rushbow utilized talent on loan from God.
Well, the real Obama budget is out, not the blueprint, and it's even worse.
The Obama budget deficit to top 1.8 trillion dollars, all of this was predicted.
All of this was predictable.
Every element of this budget story, and there are three primary elements to it.
With the economy performing worse than hoped, that was predicted.
That was predictable.
We've stimulated the economy with gazillions of dollars since last fall.
It has not brought any sign of recovery whatsoever.
It never was intended to, if truth be known.
With the economy performing worse than hoped, revised White House figures point to deepening budget deficits with the government borrowing almost 50 cents for every dollar it spends.
We need to substitute a word for borrowing.
And that word is printing.
The government printing almost 50 cents for every dollar it spends this year.
That is a double wowza.
The deficit for the current budget year will rise by 89 billion to above 1.8 trillion.
One point eight trillion.
The budget itself is going to be 3.6 or 3.8 trillion.
They say we're out of money.
States say they're out of money, cities say they're out of money, local communities say they're out of money, feds say they're out of money.
They're not out of money.
They are simply spending it and taking over a larger section or percentage of the gross domestic product or the nation's economy.
A budget deficit of 1.8 trillion dollars is about four times the budget deficit record set just last year.
The unprecedented red ink flows from the deep recession, the Wall Street bailout, the cost of Obama's economic stimulus bill, as well as structural imbalances between what the government spends and what it takes in.
Do you need me To translate this for you.
The unprecedented You do?
You need to translate.
The unprecedented red ink flows from the deep recession.
Why?
What is it about a recession that causes red ink to expand in Washington?
The best way to teach sometimes is to ask.
What is it about a recession that creates red ink?
Well, the answer is very simple.
Lost jobs.
Lost jobs mean loss, income tax revenue, a total loss of social security payroll taxes, and everything else.
You add to that that a record number of Americans are receiving unemployment compensation.
Red ink, loss of jobs equals loss of tax revenue.
Okay, the Wall Street bailout.
What about that?
What about the Wall Street bailout causing the deficit to balloon?
Well, he had to print money for it for one thing.
We didn't have it.
We were already in budget deficit.
Have the Wall Street firms rebounded?
Have they rebounded or have many of them shut down and purchased one another?
And is Barack Obama now not in charge of them?
What did the Wall Street bailout accomplish other than getting more and more Americans to hate Wall Street?
Other than getting more and more Americans to hate the wealthy and to hate business.
The new enemy.
The new enemy in Barack Obama Class Warriors America is the wealthy and big business.
So of course with bail them out, it doesn't work.
Then we hear about their bonuses, and then we hate them.
The cost of President Obama's economic stimulus bill.
Hmm.
Why would that lead to red ink?
Well, because we don't have the money.
We're stimulating a bankrupt economy or a bankrupt government is stimulating an economy with money it doesn't have.
You figure it out.
It's got to print it, it's got to borrow it, but it doesn't have it.
You have an economy in recession being bailed out by a bankrupt government that doesn't have any money.
It'd be one thing if the government had was flush with cash and was offering bailing bailouts, but the government doesn't have any money.
And when the government doesn't have any money, they panic.
And then they're going to raise everybody's taxes and they're going to go out, they're going to do whatever they have to print it, they'll whatever, they'll do, they're hiring new people left and right while every other job sector's losing jobs.
And the structural imbalance between what the government spends and what it takes in.
Structural imbalance is a bunch of gobbledygook that can best be defined as surefire greed.
If there is greed in the United States of America today, it is found in the oval office of the White House in Washington, D.C. Greed is to be found in the offices of Nancy Pelosi, Stanny Hoyer, Harry Reed, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and every other Democrat in Washington.
That's where the greed is.
That's where the structural imbalance between what the government spends and what do you mean structural?
There's nothing structural.
It's criminal.
Not structural.
This is not the way the government was designed.
The government was not designed to spend more than it takes in.
This is purposeful.
As the economy performs worse than expect worse than expected, anybody would have a brain knew this was going to be the case with all of this government spending.
This government is usurping much of the private sector.
The private sector can't possibly recover when the government's taking over more and more of it.
The two don't go together.
As the economy performs worse than expected, the deficit for the 2010 budget year beginning in October will worsen by 87 billion to 1.3 trillion.
The deterioration reflects lower tax revenues and higher costs for bank failures, unemployment benefits, and food stamps.
But in the Oval Office of the White House, none of this is a problem.
This is the objective.
The objective is unemployment.
The objective is more food stamp benefits.
The objective is more unemployment benefits.
The objective is an expanding welfare state.
And the objective is to take the nation's wealth and return it to the nation's quote rightful owners.
Think reparations.
Think forced reparations here, if you want to understand what actually is going on.
So I don't see any concern from Washington about any of this budget deficit stuff.
In fact, not only do I not see any concern, there is this little ditty to add to the news.
High U.S. budget deficits are being driven by an economic crisis that President Obama inherited, said the White House budget director Peter Orzag.
Orzog, writing in a blog posting, also said that the administration's latest budget deficit estimates reflect the uh latest data on tax receipts, federal bailouts, and other government costs.
So George Bush was so bad and so rotten.
The only way for Barack Obama to repair and resurrect the country from eight years of the disaster of Bush was to create budget deficits four times larger than Bush's.
Bush made him do it.
This will be the excuse that is used every time bad news is reported or bad news.
We have no choice.
Bush made us do it.
Eight years of vilifying Bush, trashing Bush will pay off because the dunderheads that are devoted as a cult-like group to Barack Obama will simply believe what is offered.
Gloomier deficit picture reflected weaker tax.
What could they have done to perhaps increase tax receipts?
What could they have done?
I proposed it myself.
I proposed it in my legitimate bipartisan budget proposal in the Wall Street Journal.
Cut the corporate income tax rate, stop all this notion of raising taxes on businesses doing business overseas, and uh eliminate capital gains for a year or so, just holiday it, to reincentivize investment.
You want more revenue flowing into Washington.
You're gonna have to get people working again, and to do that, you're going to have to cut people's taxes somewhere along the line to give them revenue to hire workers, higher employees.
You're going to have to cut taxes somewhere so that there is private sector economic growth.
But private sector economic growth, that would put a monkey wrench in the plans of Barack Obama, who uses all of these crises as excuses and or reasons to involve the federal government as the Robin Hood, as the white knight, as the savior going to fix all of this.
Of course, even their own news releases admit nothing's getting fixed.
But that's because of Bush.
Brief time out here, folks, we'll take it, be back and continue after this.
Well, President Obama is uh is just finished talking about the unsustainable cost of health care.
And now his administration is going to fix it, it'll lower the cost of health care.
He's got an idea for cutting costs.
He's going to nationalize health care.
Now, this is from the guy who is proposing a single-year budget deficit of 1.8 trillion dollars.
And he's going to save.
Do you understand?
It's just conflict.
It's absurd.
Just today he announces a budget deficit of 1.8 trillion, which is a record times four, and he goes out on the same day and says he's going to do magic and reduce health care costs by nationalizing it.
How will President Obama and the uh government cut health care costs if they can't cut any other costs that they're responsible for?
Well, the only answer will be to ration health care, to limit access, to create long lines and delays.
But Obama doesn't care because his goal is to force everyone into the same kind of health care, regardless how hard they work, How much they earn, how responsible they are with their money, or how poor the health care is.
Because what Obama's doing is redistributing wealth, including health care.
And if that means less health care for those who can afford it, then so be it.
We all have to sacrifice, as Obama likes to say, even though he never sacrifices.
He said that forty-six million people are without health care.
It's a lie.
It can be torn apart.
Levin, in fact, breaks it down on his book, Liberty and Tyranny.
And the Census Bureau has the numbers to put this lie to the myth.
But again, if a liberal lies on television and the media doesn't report it as a lie, is it a lie?
If the nation is in 1.8 trillion dollars of debt, in debt by that amount, 1.8 trillion just from his budget, and another nine trillion down the road as all of his budgets get added up.
How can the government as an entity afford to take over the health care system?
This was my question a moment ago.
How can a government that has no money bail out failing businesses?
How can a government that is nine trillion dollars in debt take over anything, including health care?
How can they do it?
Nine trillion dollars in debt.
They can't afford to take over a kid's lemonade stand on Main Street USA.
They are out of money.
When Obama says, as he's saying now, he just said in his in his remarks, that he wants to get costs under control.
What does he mean?
Well, he means he's going to squeeze the doctors, he's going to squeeze drug companies.
What what costs under control?
What are we going to have?
Fewer doctors, fewer nurses, less hospitals, less medicines, fewer procedures, fewer technologies.
We have a right to know how he's going to control costs.
You're going to control costs by making sure doctors don't make as much fight.
Where are you going to get the doctors then?
Are you going to control costs by saying drugs are not going to be as expensive?
Good.
Where are you going to get the companies to make the drugs?
Oh, Nitro Limbaugh, we'll import them from Canada like we should be doing now.
Oh, I got you.
Barack Obama has yet to show in any way how he will control the cost of anything, including his ego.
This is why we have a runaway budget, and this is why we were heading toward a cliff and eventually over and off of it with our debt.
And after his speech, he leaves the podium.
No questions.
There are no questions suitable to be asked of the one.
To the phones.
Brian in Rockland County of New York.
You're up first today, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Hello.
Thank you, Rush.
Megadiddettos to you.
Thank you.
I am an African American male, lifelong Democrat, who voted for Obama, regrettably.
But to get to my point, I just want to talk to you about that Air Force One flyover back on April 27th.
Yeah, I mean, when you when the kids took the keys and they went out for a joyride, yeah.
Exactly.
Louis Caldera got dumped unceremoniously on the Friday afternoon dumped, so the drive by media wouldn't pick it up, which they wouldn't have done anyway.
But I'm a little concerned that this thing seems to have the fingerprints of Rambo Ram Emanuel and possible Dave or actually, I mean, whose idea was it to do a photo op over the Statue of Liberty?
Just word your comments, Rush.
All right, I'll tell you something.
I've seen the picture.
That picture came out.
They released the picture.
Well, I forget the days of the weekend that they'd ranted.
Did it come out on Saturday or something?
Whatever it was.
And I read the stories that uh that the caldera was uh shown the door.
And they released the memo late Friday afternoon, typical Friday afternoon document dump and nobody cares.
Going into the big White House soiree, social weekend, you know, Hollywood and the show biz for ugly people, that's what politics is.
And the uh I thought I read somewhere where Caldera said that he didn't even know that was happening.
I mean regardless, he's the fall guy.
We knew he was gonna be the fall guy, but any again with the brain knows that there is not a single person in the White House that can call up Andrew's Air Force Base and say Air Force One's doing a joy ride over Manhattan for photos.
One person cannot do this.
Moving Air Force One requires a lot of policies, checklists, the security alone, and something like that.
The fact that Obama didn't know about it is absurd.
But what's even more interesting to me is the picture.
You can barely see the Statue of Liberty in the picture.
If you didn't know it was the Statue of Liberty, in that picture, you went, what is that?
Where is this airplane?
The airplane, the in-the-air home of Barack Obama, that was the focus, not the Statue of Liberty.
The headquarters of our Messiah was the focus.
Liberty, the Statue of Liberty, the symbol freedom, looked like a tiny little French fry.
You could barely see it.
Subtext, hidden messages.
Obama is what counts.
The Statue of Liberty, yeah, good picture, but you can barely see it because it doesn't matter that much.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.
▲
Export Selection