All Episodes
Previous Next
June 2, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:33
June 2, 2010, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings.
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
Happy to have you along.
I, well, you know who I am.
You know what this is.
Telephone number when we get back to the phones, 800-282-2882.
Email address, LRushbo at EIBnet.com.
Well, we're happy to welcome back to the program a good friend of mine, Andy McCarthy, who has a terrific new book out, the title of which is The Grand Jihad, how Islam and the Left Sabotage America.
Andy, welcome back.
Great to have you here, buddy.
Rush, it's an honor to be here.
How are you?
I'm very well.
Now, let's do some biographical stuff on you for people who didn't hear you the last time.
I want to get your bona fides out on this.
Describe for people very briefly your resume with the Southern District of Manhattan, your trial, and your work prosecuting the blind sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman.
Yes, well, I was a federal prosecutor for close to 20 years.
Back in 1995, I was the lead prosecutor on one of our first big terrorism cases in Manhattan federal court.
That was the case against the blind sheikh and 11 other jihadists who not only had carried out the bombing of the World Trade Center, but also were plotting something even more ambitious, a simultaneous attack on New York City landmarks, the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the FBI's Lower Manhattan headquarters, and the United Nations.
And you should know, Rush, in the event that people don't think terrorists are irrational, the reason that they wanted to take out the U.N. was because, as we all know, it's a great tool of American foreign policy in the world.
All right.
So now, Mr. McCarthy, ladies and gentlemen, has made the study of jihad, militant Islamism, almost a life's work.
And this book, The Grand Jihad, How Islam and the Left Sabotage America, that's a provocative title, Lumping the Left with Islam.
Yeah, well, you know, there are so many historical examples, Rush, of leftists and Islamists working together, and there's so many current examples.
You know, you look at the al-Qaeda and the litigation that's gone on since 9-11.
Who's their lawyer in most of those cases?
Well, the Center for Constitutional Rights, which is a leftist radical organization started by Bill Kunstler back in the 60s.
You look at the ACLU's litigations against the Patriot Act and other national security measures, and they're frequently joined by CARE, the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
If we look at the healthcare debate, one of the organizations that was front and center championing Obamacare was the Muslim Public Affairs Council, which is another Islamist organization.
So we see this.
It's not just, you know, there was some Khomeini working with the communists to overthrow the Shah.
And, you know, it's not as if that happened and that's all there's been.
We've had numerous historical and present examples.
And my book really sort of tries to explain why that should be taken as a given and then tries to examine why it happens, why it's true.
I read an interview you gave to Michael Walsh on big government.
I like this first question.
After he asked you why you wrote the book, he said, surely you're overstating the threat to the American way of life from radical Islam.
A lot of people think that, that there's a little bit too much alarmism here.
Yeah, I think they do.
And, you know, look, to this extent, I think that's a fair criticism.
If somebody said to me, you know, on a scale of one to ten, what is the threat?
I have to answer that, you know, it's not going to happen tomorrow.
This is a very gradual campaign, but it's a very comprehensive campaign.
It's a well-thought-out one.
And what I want people to get out of the book is that it's about a whole lot more than terrorism.
It's really an assault on the freedom culture on a variety of fronts, legal, social.
The terrorism is part of it, but it's only one part of the equation.
Jihad is about much more than terrorism.
Most people think jihad is just about war.
What is the real objective of jihad?
Well, jihad is always and everywhere about Sharia law, the implementation of it, the establishment of it, the defending of it, the vindicating of it.
Sharia law is the Islamic legal code.
It's about a lot more than just spiritual elements or elements that we in the West would recognize as religious.
Islam and its law are a comprehensive political, social, and economic program.
And Sharia law is thought in Islamist ideology to be indivisible.
It's a full-service legal code to govern all of those matters.
And the reason that jihad is committed, whether it's done by violence or done by other means, is to install Sharia.
And the reason that's important is in Islamist ideology, Sharia is thought to be a necessary precondition to Islamicizing a society.
As the Muslim Brotherhood theorists say, it's what opens a person's mind and heart so that he can receive the truth that they regard Islam to be.
All right, so it sounds to me like then the inspiration and motivation these people have in targeting the United States is our culture.
It's not the fact that we support Israel, that may be a factor.
It's not that we've stolen from the world, as Obama would like to have everybody believe, that we have plundered the world's resources and made everybody poor.
These people are true believers.
They want to conquer as many continents as they can, not just us, but we're included.
Yeah, we're included and we're at the top of the list because we're the biggest obstacle.
But what they aim at and what they think they are divinely commanded to do is nothing less than a global caliphate.
Now, that sounds fantastical to us, but I imagine, you know, if somebody had called us the day before the World Trade Center got bombed in 1993 and said, you know, a bunch of knuckleheads from Jersey City are going to blow up that building tomorrow, we'd have probably said, you know, yeah, sure, right, whatever.
And now here we are down the road, and a lot of things that seem fantastical have come true, not the least of which is the destruction of the Soviet Union, the destruction of the Twin Towers, an attack on the Pentagon.
So I sort of think we ought to take this pretty seriously.
Why is it that, in your opinion, why is it that this is so obvious to some, and yet at the highest levels of our government, it doesn't appear to be obvious, or if it is, they are trying to pretend it isn't.
Why?
Obama bows to the king.
Obama bows to every leader, the king of Saudi Arabia.
We can't use the word terrorism in describing what these people do.
How is it they miss the threat?
Why are they so eager to appear sympathetic with these people?
Well, Rush, I put it in two different categories.
There are well-meaning people who miss the threat for what I think is an analytical mistake.
They think that if they acknowledge what should be undeniable, which is that there is a nexus between Islamic doctrine and terrorism committed by Muslims and the wider civilizational threat to the West, if they acknowledge that nexus, that necessarily means we have to be, as they put it, at war with Islam, that we actually have to be in almost a shooting war with 1.4 billion people.
Now, that seems like an absurdly irrational overreaction to me, but I do think that a lot of people believe that in good faith.
Then there's another category of people who I think are mainly leftist.
And for them, denying the connection between Islamist ideology and terrorism and the broader threat to the West is strategic.
If you take out what really causes terrorism and this threat, then they can say that it's a policy problem.
It's the American policy in the Middle East.
It's Israel.
It's Gitmo, it's cartoons, it's whatever it is.
But usually, not usually, always, the policies that they identify just happen to be the policies that the left most despises.
So for them, I think it's a strategic thing.
Andy McCarthy is our guest.
He is the author of The Grand Jihad, How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.
Looking at the flotilla, this controversy now that has enveloped Israel, which is a typically fabricated controversy, something planned to achieve this exact result, doesn't that kind of make your point?
The flotilla, look at the people who are funding people on that flotilla as to demonstrate the ties the left has with Islam.
Yeah, I think it does.
To me, it's the ⁇ I write about the flying Imams incident in the book.
This is like the flying imams writ-large, or the international version of the flying imams.
This seems like it was an obviously premeditated provocation.
It's done and orchestrated by an outfit that has been basically a designated terrorist organization under American law since 2008.
And it's done on behalf of a designated terrorist organization since 1995, Hamas, which exists solely for the purpose of destroying Israel.
And that's not me inferring that.
That's me simply reading the Hamas charter.
So this is obviously, I think, an orchestrated incident such that the media really had the narrative out there almost before the incident was completed.
Well, obviously, because this fit, I mean, it's a storyline.
It's a narrative.
It's a template.
The whole thing was organized to achieve precisely this result because they're fully well aware that the press will follow along like lampdogs, much like the photoshopped pictures of the rockets coming out of Israel, the damage they were doing in Lebanon back during that war.
Look at, Andy, the question I've always wondered about, we have leaders in this country and throughout the world who refer to Islam as a religion of peace.
Yet you talk about jihad and Sharia law, which makes it seem that their central purpose is a war to make the whole world Islamic.
So I'm personally confused over are there divisions of Islam, or is it all one thing oriented toward the same objective?
Yeah, Islam Rush, I think, is very diverse.
What we need to understand is the movement that I'm talking about, Islamist ideology, is much more mainstream than we'd like to think.
And you actually have to, I think, go along a trajectory of different questions.
If the question is put to the Muslim world, do you think it's okay to kill even Muslims who don't subscribe to our construction of Islam?
That is a fringe position in the Muslim world, and that's a big part of al-Qaeda ideology.
And it's a big part of why people are able to sort of marginalize them as violent extremists.
But let's change the question a little bit.
If you asked, would you like to live under a strict Sharia code?
Do you think the United States Constitution should be replaced by Sharia?
Do you think it's okay to attack Americans operating inside Islamic countries, even if they think they're on a humanitarian mission?
Or do you think Israel should be destroyed?
The percentages when you look at those questions, and this is polling that was done in 2007, which was pretty expansive across the Islamic world, those aren't 10% positions.
Those are like, you know, 60, 70, 80% positions, depending on which country you ask the question in.
60 to 70 percent?
Like, for example, 80 percent of people in Pakistan said in a 2007 poll that they would like to see a strict imposition of Sharia law and that they thought the world should live under a global caliphate.
That's a mainstream position in Sunni Islam.
I've got to take a break here, but I want you to repeat for people something you've told me often.
During your defense of the blind sheikh, you became an expert in Islam, and you were a little shocked and surprised at what you found.
We've got to take a break.
Andy McCarthy, the Grand Jihad is the book, and we'll be right back more right after this.
Yeah, welcome back to the most listened to Radio Talk Show in the country.
Rush Limbaugh with Andy McCarthy and his new book, The Grand Jihad, How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.
I remember you telling me you're prosecuting the blind sheikh, and you've described all of the plans that he had.
You were searching for any evidence that the guy was a fringe radical.
Yeah.
And he wasn't.
Right.
We were, as a government, we were saying at the time that he was representative of a false Islam, that he was lying about Islam, that he was perverting the doctrine.
And I sort of felt that, you know, I'm an Irish guy from the Bronx, so I was not going to get myself in a theological debate with a doctor of Islamic jurisprudence graduated from Al-Azhar University.
But I did think that if what we were saying was true, there had to be two or three or four places where I could really nail him on saying, you know, you say this, X, but the doctrine says Y.
And the problem is that when you comb through his statements, every time he quoted from the Koran or some other source of scripture, it turned out that he was quoting it accurately.
Now, you know, the Quran says a lot of other things too.
And it's a fair argument.
I don't think it's a particularly persuasive one, but it's a fair argument that you could say he took things out of context or that, you know, there are other verses that he omitted that need to be considered in conjunction with what he did say.
But that aside, when he quoted the scripture, he quoted it absolutely accurately.
Now, let's tie it all back together with your point here, which in your new book is that there is an alliance, either by accident or by design, militant Islam with the left, not just in America, but around the world.
I read the other day an article in the UK Guardian.
There are more than 85 Sharia courts already in the United Kingdom, in Great Britain.
So it's real.
It is something that's happening.
Andy, I have, during the campaign of 2008, I was struck.
I listened to Mahmoud Ahmadine Zad practically parrot Democrat Party talking points about George W. Bush and the Republicans.
And I think you nailed it earlier.
People just don't think this can happen to us.
Yeah, I think that's right.
And it is happening.
It's actually a strategy that Hassan Albana, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, came up with in the 20s and has been refined by other Islamist thinkers over the years.
Some call it voluntary apartheid.
But the idea is that you basically have Muslims who move into enclaves in areas which are not Islamic countries.
And what they try to do, either by persuasion, extortion, sometimes by terrorism, is persuade the authorities that they should be able to conduct some of their affairs, at least, say domestic relations, property transactions and the like, under Sharia law.
So they take over territory physically and they get Sharia at least in part legitimized in the legal code and then they build out from there.
Banna's movement was very much a ground-up movement.
It started with the Muslim individual, moved out to the family, the community, the town, et cetera.
But the idea is always and everywhere to spread the influence of Islam by spreading Sharia.
Now, is our strategy, say, in Afghanistan and or Iraq, in your estimation, an effective way of fighting this?
Well, it depends on what part of it.
I think that we absolutely have to kill or capture terrorists who are trying to project power against this.
And on that score, I think I have to tip my hat to Obama.
He's obviously conducted at least the drone war against al-Qaeda effectively.
We will edit out this praise of Obama in the replay of this program this afternoon.
Well, I think that's part of the Muslim Brotherhood is ready to throw al-Qaeda overboard, too.
This is actually, I think, a pretty sophisticated strategy.
Obama has domestic political reasons to want to go after al-Qaeda aggressively, and he's not going to lose any props in the Islamic world.
Really?
Okay, that's interesting.
Yeah, I don't think so.
I think that what you're seeing, Rush, is the vibrant debate in the Muslim world now among Islamists is whether terrorists have outlived their usefulness at least in attacking the United States.
They might be running out of suicide bombers.
I mean, it's a weapon you can only use once.
Well, there is that, although the most effective ones always want to live to fight another day.
But I do think that in Muslim Brotherhood circles, what they would argue is they're making so much progress marching through our institutions, much like the left did, that they get a blowback when there's a terrorist attack against the United States that's counterproductive.
So, you know, I think Obama, who's a shrewd guy, sees that the Islamists in some ways are ready to throw al-Qaeda overboard, at least some of the time it seems that way.
And it's a good strategy for him because, you know, if he can get bin Laden, for example, that might change his electoral fortunes, or at least.
So you've written the book, obviously, with the thought that there's still time to stop this.
What's your remedy?
What's your recipe?
What would you suggest the best way to go about it?
Well, I think the first thing that has to happen is we have to realize that it's going on.
We have to see that it's happening to us.
This is not something I'm making up.
They're telling us they have a civilizational struggle strategy.
They're telling us that they're engaged in, as they put it, a grand jihad to sabotage the United States and the West from within.
People need to know that's going on.
I think right now they don't.
We won't even acknowledge that that's the cause of terrorism, let alone this broader threat.
I think with respect to the terrorists, we have to continue to go after them aggressively.
But with respect to this broader and more insidious challenge, we have to be ready to use every means at our disposal, whether it's legal means, social, political, just persuasion and pressure, to recognize that we're under a threat and make it okay again to argue for a freedom culture, which is what makes us America.
Andy McCarthy, in the book is The Grand Jihad, How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.
I've got about 30 seconds.
Have you gotten any threats or any sort of negative reaction?
Anybody trying to intimidate you yet?
No, I've gotten, you know, there's negative reaction to the book.
I didn't exactly write the left and the Islamist a love letter, so you sort of expect that.
And, you know, as for the rest of it, that die was cast long ago in my case, so I don't really pay it much mind anymore.
Well, that's true.
I mean, when you prosecute the blind shake, you can't go much farther than that.
Well, Andy, thanks very much, and good luck with this.
And it's great that you did the work, and I know that your family is going to be extremely proud of you for this.
Growing up reading this book, it's a great work, folks, and it's well worth your time.
Andy, thanks for yours, and we'll be right back.
Sit tight, folks.
And we're back on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
And I just was reminded of something that I was remiss in not getting Andy McCarthy to expound upon.
Maybe we can get him back for this.
We've got his phone number.
And I think this would be, why don't you, I'll wait if we can get him back.
I want to ask if it's something going on in New York if it does not illustrate exactly what he was talking about.
While Snerdley tries to reestablish contact with Andy, I have to tell you, during the break, I watched Benjamin Netanyahu.
He just concluded addressing the media about the circumstances of the past three or four days with this so-called peace-loving loveboat flotilla.
And he just kicked butt in this speech.
It was a it was just dramatically great.
He said, Israel is presumed guilty until proven guilty.
He said he asked the world leaders that he's spoken to, what would you do if your cities were being daily rained on with rockets?
What would you do?
Why are you holding us to a different standard?
He says, they all know the truth.
We got Andy back.
Andy, I should have asked you this.
I'm glad I was reminded of this.
They're building a mosque near 9-11.
Right?
A giant mosque in the shadows of 9-11.
That mosque might be built before the World Trade Center is rebuilt.
Now, everybody associated with the mosque says, no, no, no, this is not about anything but goodwill and outreach.
What's your take on this mosque?
What if the purpose of this mosque is indeed to get a foothold of Sharia in New York City right there near ground zero?
Is it possible?
Yeah, Rush, I think this has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer.
It's supposed to be named the Cordoba Islamic Center, as I understand it.
Cordoba was the name of the caliphate that conquered Spain and ruled it often brutally for about half a millennium, actually longer than that.
The guy behind the project is someone who has said that he would like to see Sharia law more insinuated into American law.
The Islamist strategy is largely a propaganda strategy at this stage.
The thought of having a mosque erected over the ruins of two of the great pillars of the Western economy and Western civilization would be an enormous propaganda victory.
And the most perverse thing of all is the thought that it's being done in the name of tolerance.
We have to have the mosque because otherwise we're intolerant.
We have 2,300-plus mosques in the United States.
There are probably a couple of hundred in the New York area.
If you went to Mecca and Medina, you not only wouldn't see a Christian church or a Jewish synagogue, you wouldn't see a non-Muslim.
They're closed cities.
Non-Muslims are not allowed to enter.
And yet we're told that we have to have this mosque in this place where Muslim terrorists relying on a construction of the Koran mass-murdered thousands of Americans.
It's an affront not only to common sense, but it would be a major victory for the enemy in an ongoing war.
And we ought to remind people we're still at war.
All right.
Now, something that always fascinates me in monitoring and studying the left is motivation.
I had a lot of people say, that doesn't matter, Rush, they've got to be stopped, no matter why they're doing it.
I'm still fascinated by it.
New York, some city council or some regional part of the downtown council, whatever, the vote was almost unanimous to allow this to happen.
Now, I think it was 40 to 1 or 49 to 1, whatever it was.
How does this happen?
Is there a guilt complex that has overtaken these people?
Is it fear?
Or do they actually buy into this notion that, hey, you know, this might actually bring peace between our peoples?
I think what you have there, Rush, and we don't know who were behind these community board members.
I think the vote was 29 to 1.
29 to 1.
But it was not reflective of what the actual feeling of the rank and file in the community is.
And I think this is being driven by leftists, by Islamists, and frankly, by youthful idiots who, you know, whether we had 2,300 or 23,000 mosques in the United States, if we said that you couldn't build a single one on that site, they would say we were intolerant.
And as far as I'm concerned, with those people, why bother?
They're just not, they're beyond convincing.
So what's the point?
And this is a huge mosque, right?
This is not just some neighborhood.
Oh, yes.
Oh, yes, absolutely.
I think the site was a Burlington coat factory, and now they're planning to turn it into a mega mosque.
15 stories high, this thing is going to be, as I think I read.
Yes, and you're quite right to say that it would be built before the trade center is rebuilt.
The trade center is still a big old hole in the ground.
They expect to get this thing up and running on the 10th anniversary of 9-11.
This is mind-boggling.
It's like so much of everything else the left is doing in this country.
They're telegraphing it.
They're telling us what they're going to do.
They're showing us what they are doing.
And people still have their heads in the sand over it.
This, though, takes the cake.
I think so.
I can't imagine something more reprehensible.
And I think this is even offensive in many ways to well-meaning Muslims who don't want this problem.
They see in common sense that that's not a good spot for a mosque.
Andy, thank you again.
I'm glad you were still by the phone when we reached out for a second time.
This is, by the way, unprecedented.
We have never gone back and asked a guest to come back immediately concluding the interview for a second question.
I'm at your service.
All right.
Andy McCarthy, the Grand Gi Hadza book, and thanks once again.
Now, people have been waiting on the hold or on the phone on hold for quite a while.
And we've taken one call, and it was a theory on the Al Gore Tippergore divorce.
It had to be an affair going on, which I, as host, said, well, you have to have a willing, you have to have a willing conspirator here.
It just doesn't, I don't know, it's not something you can see out there.
We have Millicent from Boca Raton.
She's been waiting the longest.
Great to have you on the phone, Millicent.
Thank you for waiting.
Thank you, Mr. Limbaugh.
I enjoy your program.
I was a little confused when I heard that Barack Obama was going to Chicago for vacation over Memorial Day and leaving all the ceremonies and such at Arlington in Washington, D.C. You know, it wasn't like he was going to Martha's Vineyard or Hawaii.
I didn't understand Chicago until I heard on the news, I was listening to CNBC, they were saying that the Blagojevich trials are starting.
And I didn't know if maybe he went to Chicago for some pre-trial strategy sessions, because I understood that he was possibly going to be asked to speak.
And in light of the SISTAC incidents that have come up, it seems like it may be plausible he might have been involved if he was willing to ask a former president to get involved in a senatorial election.
Could he possibly have had a few other meetings while he was in Chicago?
Well, it is.
What Millicent told Snurdley when She called him.
He puts the slug line to give me an idea what the caller wants to talk about.
He says, Who the hell goes to Chicago for vacation?
Millicent said that.
She's in Boca Raton.
You have to understand, keep things in perspective.
Now, but that is Obama's home.
But it's interesting.
Michael Barone makes the point.
He has no ties to Chicago.
None whatsoever, other than Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright.
Of all the places Obama could have chosen to live, why Chicago?
It makes no sense because Barone even makes the point that even if you're born and bred in Chicago, if you're not part of the machine, you don't get in it.
It's a very, very closed club, and outsiders very seldom get it.
He got in it and he got in it very deep.
Senate, then the United States Senate, and now President of the United States is taking the Chicago way there.
This Blagojevich thing is, it is interesting, but Blagojevich is a lot of bluster.
He's been talking big, but there really doesn't seem to be much behind his much solid behind his defense.
The SESTAC thing, this could be a huge, huge problem.
This is bribery.
There's no other way around it.
Whatever he was promised was a job he was not qualified for or eligible for under the law.
When you get Bill Clinton involved, take the heat here, which is understandable.
You've got to get a guy who's willing to commit perjury in order to take the flak on this.
So clearly, there's concern in the White House over this SESTAC thing.
You can tell that by the way, Gibbs continues to answer questions about it.
As to whether Obama went to Chicago to try to get his story straight with lawyers over what might happen with Blagojevich, I just think it's a damn shame that we as citizens have to conjure up these theories to explain the actions of our president.
Don't you, Millicent?
Well, he's so calculated in everything he does that it was just too like, why is he going to Chicago?
And then this came up on the news today, and I was like, you know, it just seemed too much of a connect.
And I just had to wonder.
Here's what you have to know about it.
This is, I think, the simplest way to understand Obama going to Chicago.
It's just a subtle message to Blagoevich.
Just showing up is a think of it.
Think of it as the horse's head in the bed in the Godfather.
Exactly.
Blagojevich is supposed to realize if he doesn't play ball here, he could wake up and see his own head in the bed.
And Obama's trip to Chicago was to send that message.
Hi, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, folks.
The researchers within the Heritage Foundation have put out a new report.
It's called Federal Spending by the Numbers 2010.
Brian, you can take down the sign in there.
It's too long to share the entire report here with you now, but let me give you just a glimpse of this.
Government spending per household.
I mean, you know this, but this is a way to bring it home.
Government spending per household is up plus 16% over the last two years.
The Obama administration's budget will spend more than $30,000 per household to operate the government this year.
Compare that to your own household.
Are your own expenses up 16% over the past two years?
And if they were, would there not be some hell being raised in your house?
Every part of our government's growing.
Anti-poverty programs, education, Medicare, you name it.
And even with the economy in the shape we're in, lawmakers approved 9,000 special earmarks costing $16.5 billion called Re-elect Me Now.
Now, this whole report is online right now at askheritage.org.
It's a picture, actually 40 pictures of an administration in a Congress that does not know the first way to define not just smaller government, but slow it down government.
They don't even understand this.
What other organization in America takes the time to pull this kind of information together, fact-check it thoroughly, and then publish it for everybody to see?
Not just contain it within their own walls.
Only the Heritage Foundation.
You can see it, make yourself a member.
You get this kind of information readily at your fingertips.
Helps you to become the go-to person in your group that has all the answers whenever somebody has a question.
This report will enrage you and then empower you with information.
The only thing that I know that's growing faster in Washington, D.C. is this audience and the memberships at Heritage Foundation.
And there's a good reason for that.
Askheritage.org, Athens, New York.
David, glad you called.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hey, mega-dittos, Russ.
I know Bose gets to the point real quick, but I want to digress.
Last time we spoke was four years ago come November, and I was on food stamps feeding four people on the budget for two.
And you offered me an A and P pack, and I couldn't accept it because my freezer was full.
You also told me to follow my passions for a job, which is alpine skiing, and within two weeks for the past four winters, I've been co-managing a ski shop.
Just thought you'd like to know.
Congratulations, sir.
All right.
Anyway, I got a degree in environmental science, and this oil spill could have been stopped probably 30-plus days ago by simply drilling another well into the bedrock below the seafloor, not that far.
A low-yield nuclear weapon would have closed that off within an instant.
In fact, it is a little-known fact that in the former Soviet Union in the late 60s, they did just exactly that with a gas well that went amok.
And in fact, there's even a YouTube video showing this.
It's just amazing, and I got a feeling the only reason they haven't done this is because of the $300 to $400 million that they would probably lose for the existing well.
But in the meantime, they have the possibility of even polluting the eastern seaboard.
It just is amazing that the Obama administration.
I hadn't heard that.
The Soviets nuked a gas well?
Yeah, back in the late 60s with an underground explosion.
And there are many scientists, if you Google this, that would say this would work.
And I would concur as having a degree in environmental science.
Well, there's another reason, and look at, I don't say this lightly, and I'm not saying this to try to be humorous.
But I think there's a reason why the Obama administration is not doing anything more.
Look at what they are doing.
What are they doing?
They are talking.
They're having meetings and they're threatening British petroleum.
Look at BP's stock.
There is now a legitimate question whether this company will survive.
Now, I don't know what your thoughts on that are.
I mean, some of you might think BP needs to go out of business.
But this administration's bringing it about by announcing criminal investigations at this stage of the game?
Did you see what happened to stock market when Holder made this announcement yesterday?
It plunged over 100 points in a matter of minutes.
And BP went down to the cellar.
I mean, this is frankly absurd.
Now, why?
Well, if you know, Maybe, I don't know this, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are some internal polls in the White House and the DNC that show the spill is helping Obama.
What conventional wisdom is he's looking inept and incompetent here.
But maybe, maybe, I'd hope this isn't true, but maybe they've got some polling data that shows it's still helping him.
And that's why he hasn't made an effort to plug the hole.
Look, it's a wild guess, but I don't doubt for a second that the reason they're delaying Bobby Jindal is because he's a Republican.
And they don't want a Republican doing anything that looks like it succeeds or is working.
Folks, this is the most partisan bunch of people.
If you think, let me just put it to you this way.
If you think they think America first, where have you been the last year and a half?
They think Obama first.
They think regime first.
They think advancing their agenda first.
The National Security Strategy paper that I talked about, Mike Gerson, writes about in the Washington Post.
The National Security Strategy is nothing more than an indictment of the U.S. domestic policy under previous regimes, previous administrations, and how the Obama regime's got to fix it because that's making us vulnerable to threats to national security.
Now, this claim about the Russians using nukes is from a recent article in Pravda, a new version of Pravda.
And they said that they used nukes five times to stop gas and oil leaks.
Interesting.
I'm going to find this out.
We'd have to dig into the rock on it.
We'd destroy the well.
I mean, that'd be the end of the well if you did that.
But it would have stopped the leak, too, there's no question.
You know, folks, I'm not altogether convinced on this nuke business.
The Ruskies, they can't even drill an oil well without our help.
And if they set off five nukes, even low-yield nukes, seismologists would pick that stuff up.
And we are constantly monitoring, well, we did before Obama anyway.
We're constantly monitoring for any kind of seismic activity, nuclear testing anywhere.
▲
Export Selection