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, lrushbow at EIBnet.com.
Yet another meeting at the White House today, this with healthcare service providers, professionals, healthcare industry people coming in.
And they're prepared to make $2 trillion in concessions over the next 10 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 healthcare meeting today are the six groups that ran ads opposed to Hillary Care back in the early 90s.
So everybody, I have never seen 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 soundbites here.
Before playing the soundbites, 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 soundbites, and we'll start here with this question from Bob Schieffer.
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 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 Schieffer was stunned.
Bob Schieffer could not believe what he was hearing.
Bob Schieffer is said to be, I've never met him, Bob Schieffer is 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 are less safe?
How could he prove we're less safe?
You see, the conflict here, as far as Bob Schieffer 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, I had 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?
He 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 Ghrab, 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 Schieffer.
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 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 it's fair to argue, and I do argue, that that means in the future we're not going to have the same safeguards we've had for the last eight years.
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 Schieffer is totally incredulous because, of course, the template for the last eight years, 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 Schieffer 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.
Schieffer didn't challenge it.
If it was ever challenged, it was not really challenged.
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 Schieffer.
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 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, let's see, audio soundbite number five is next.
Question from Bob Schieffer.
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 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 endorsed the Democratic candidate for president this time, Barack Obama.
I assume that that's some indication of his loyalty and his interest.
And you said you take Rush Limbaugh off for Colin Powell.
I would.
All right.
Bob Schieffer, just incredulous during an entire interview.
Of course, Colin Powell endorsing Barack Obama and then out saying that the Republican Party is going to have to realize Americans want bigger government and higher taxes.
And Cheney says, 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. Mencken, 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, I want to lie to 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 Botox-faced lie, and it's going to drive the left crazy.
But first, let's listen to a couple audio soundbites.
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, 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?
Are we really doing enough to get to the bottom of this?
The anti-Bush strategery, 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 wanted 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.
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 enhanced interrogations were taking place.
They did not brief us that was.
They were talking about an array of interrogations that they might have at their disposal.
Techniques in the abstract, as if they were not being used.
We were never told they were being used.
Were you told they weren't being used?
Well, they just talked about them, but 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 noticed hearing, last Thursday in Washington, this was during a Senate Appropriations 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 encouraged 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, we'll take the appropriate action.
If you're going to investigate the lawyers whose opinion was asked about 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 Republicans zeroing.
And all right, if you're going to go after the lawyers that wrote the techniques, and if you're going to 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 rule it out.
But the bottom line here is that Pelosi is out saying she had no idea, which is patently false.
As I say, 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 Muhammad 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, El Rushbow, utilize 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.
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'd 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.
1.8 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 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, we 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, we 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 was flush with cash and was offering 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.
Whatever they'll do.
They're hiring new people left and right while every other job sector is 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, Stemmy Hoyer, Harry Reid, 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 it, 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 expected, anybody with half 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 diddy 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.
Orzag, writing in a blog posting, also said that the administration's latest budget deficit estimates reflect the 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 receipts.
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 eliminate capital gains for a year or so.
Just holiday it to reincentivize investment.
You want more revenue flowing into Washington.
You're going to 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, hire 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.
They're going to fix all of this.
Of course, even their own news releases admit nothing's getting fixed.
But that's because of Bush.
A brief timeout here, folks, we'll take it, be back, and continue after this.
Well, President Obama is just finished talking about the unsustainable cost of health care.
And now his administration is going to fix it.
He's going to 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.
And he's going to save...
Do you understand?
It's just conflicting.
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 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 health care is.
Because what Obama's doing is redistributing wealth, including health care.
And if that means less health care for those who could afford it, then so be it.
We all have to sacrifice, as Obama likes to say, even though he never sacrifices.
He said that 46 million people are without health care.
It's a lie.
It can be torn apart.
Levin, in fact, breaks it down in his book, Liberty and Tyranny.
But 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 of debt, in debt by that amount, $1.8 trillion just from his budget, and another $9 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 $9 trillion in debt take over anything, including health care?
How can they do it?
$9 trillion 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 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.
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, Mitferlimba, 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're 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, New York.
You're up first today, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Hello.
Thank you, Rush.
Mega Dittos 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 the kids took the keys and they went out to a joyrod, yeah.
Exactly.
Louis Caldera got dumped unceremoniously on the Friday afternoon, dumb, so the drive-my 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 O'Axler.
I mean, whose idea was it to do a photo op over the Statue of Liberty?
Just what are your comments, Rush?
All right.
I'll tell you, I've seen the picture.
That picture came out.
They released the picture.
Well, I forget the days of the weekend.
It'd come out on Saturday or something, whatever it was.
And I read the stories that Caldera was shown the door.
And they released the memo late Friday afternoon, typical Friday afternoon document dumping, nobody cares, going into the big White House soiree, social weekend, you know, Hollywood and even show biz for ugly people, what politics is.
And I thought I read somewhere where Caldera said that he didn't even know that was happening.
Regardless, he's the fall guy.
We knew he was going to be the fall guy.
But anybody, again, with a brain knows that there is not a single person in the White House that can call up Andrews Air Force Base and say, Air Force One's doing a joyride over Manhattan for photos.
One person cannot do this.
Moving Air Force One requires a lot of policies, checklists, the security alone on something like 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 of freedom, looked like a tiny little French fry.
You could barely see it.
Subtext, hidden messages.
Obama is what counts.
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