RUSH: Let's go back to 9/11. I'm going to turn back the clock to Saturday, to 9/11. Weren't we told that Obama's incredible talent was his ability to listen to both sides, to reason with both sides, bring all sides together? He was the great unifier. Remember that? I mean we've had 9/11 commemorations for nine years, and all of them were peaceful and all of them were protest-free until this year. Do you realize that? What was different this year? Why was it different? Why the protests? Why the anti-protests, especially with the Great Healer, Barack Obama? He was gonna put an end to all of this and yet for the first time on 9/11 commemorative days we've got division.
One of the problems is the location of the Hamasque. Another problem is the preacher and all these people who want to burn the Koran. My point is this is not supposed to happen. We're supposed to be universally at peace now. Obama listened to both sides and brought us all apart. Obama has brought us all apart, not together, apart. He has come to divide. Have you seen the latest poverty numbers? It's at an all-time high. It's incredible. "US Poverty on Track to Post Record Gain in 2009," by an AP that's alternately gleeful and concerned. Gleeful 'cause they might be able to get away with blaming Bush for it, but concerned that Obama might get blamed. "The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Barack Obama's watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty." So another feather in Obama's bonnet.
So we're not unified on 9/11. We got protests of the Hamasque. We got people at war with each other in this country over 9/11, and now we've got US poverty on track to post a record gain in 2009. According to census numbers, "the recession-ravaged first year of [Obama's] presidency -- are to be released in the coming week, and demographers expect grim findings." So the AP thought that they had better soften the blow here by dribbling out the information on the weekend so it will be old news when the report hits. That's the strategery here. They write: "It's unfortunate timing for Obama and his party just seven weeks before important elections when control of Congress is at stake. The anticipated poverty rate increase -- from 13.2 percent to about 15 percent -- would be another blow to Democrats struggling to persuade voters to keep them in power." And so once again the AP is seeing everything here from the prism of how it will affect Obama and the Democrats. We got record poverty and there's no concern for the people in poverty. "Oh, damn it, what's this going to do to the Democrats' reelection chances, ah, damn it, what is this going to do to Obama, oh, no, record poverty, what an unfortunate coincidence," they're saying. "Oh, no, how did this happen? We got record poverty in Obama's second year, why, the poor guy can't catch a break, oh, no," says the AP. "What are we going to do to fix this?"
You people at AP, would some of you, any of you start maybe considering that this is purposeful? Have you ever heard of Cloward-Piven? These two yokels, I think they were Columbia, and they said the only way to overthrow the United States is to create utter and total chaos. Flood the system so that it breaks down, meaning the welfare state, flood it so it breaks down. There's no money to help anybody, and everybody needs help; everybody is in poverty; everybody is dependent; everybody loses their house; everybody is this or that or at least the vast majority of people do because when that happens then the public -- this is the theory -- will clamor for a powerful executive -- i.e., in this case Obama -- to run in and rescue it all by taking total control of it. It's a strategy. It's a strategy of a couple of leftist communists, Cloward-Piven. Nobody can prove that Obama is following it, but, if he's not, it's a strange coincidence. I don't know how things would be any different if he was following it, and we do know that he loves power and wants more of it.
By the way, what happened to the war on poverty? Have we lost it now? I guess we've lost the war on poverty. Even AP, let me read this to you again. "The ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty." In the sixties, 50 years ago, we started the Great Society, the war on poverty. Fifty years later nothing's changed. There probably won't be a formal signing ceremony, the poor probably will never surrender here like the Japanese and the Germans did, but still my point is there are people, Democrats, leftists who have advocated this as a means of securing total dictatorial control over the country, and how many trillions of dollars later, by the way? How many trillions of dollars have been transferred from the producers to the non-producers in these 50 years to fix poverty? At what cost here? How many trillions of dollars gone, wasted, up in smoke? And see, this proves something. When things are going bad because government caused it, people say, "Well, we need more government to fix it. Oil well explodes, we need to sue Big Oil. The war on poverty fails after $20 trillion, and we need a new program."
RUSH: "President Barack Obama appealed to an unsettled nation Saturday to honor the memory of the Sept. 11 attacks by hewing to the values of diversity and tolerance. 'We will not sacrifice the liberties we cherish or hunker down behind walls of suspicion and mistrust,' the president declared." Oh, that's right. We are going to save our suspicion and mistrust for the Tea Party, for Christine O'Donnell, for Sarah Palin, for Sharron Angle, for other bitter clingers. We're gonna go ahead and suspect and mistrust them. But we're not going to be suspicious and mistrustful of those who wish America harm. "'As Americans, we are not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam,' the president said. 'It was not a religion that attacked us that September day -- it was al-Qaida, a sorry band of men which perverts religion.'" Now, this is becoming, I think, an increasingly subtle distinction. Exactly how do those who want the world to be under the rule of Islam, Sharia law, differ in any significant way from the Taliban or from Al-Qaeda, except maybe in methodology. But how do they differ? It's a subtle difference if there is one, but one of tactics, not objective.
Why is it so important for us to forget that 9/11 and so many other terrorist attacks have been perpetuated in the name of Islam? Why do we have to forget this? Why do we have to forget all of the crimes that have happened against Americans perpetrated by these kinds of people? Why do we have to forget that? Where is the notion that the United States has to be tolerant? Where did that get started? Are we the ones who are intolerant? Or is it those who wish us dead or ill, is it they who are intolerant? Obama, it says here, this is the AP, spoke forcefully. "The highest honor we can pay those we lost, indeed our greatest weapon in this ongoing war, is to do what our adversaries fear the most. To stay true to who we are, as Americans; to renew our sense of common purpose; to say that we define the character of our country, and we will not let the acts of some small band of murderers who slaughter the innocent and cower in caves distort who we are."
Well, our enemies don't fear that we'll fight back. Yeah, they most fear that we'll tolerate 'em. This doesn't make any sense. We must not fight back. That's what they fear most? They fear we won't be tolerant, that's what they're afraid of? I don't know, to turn the whole thing into a day of service I think it's to hijack the day. Those people were going to work that day. They were not taking a day off. They were not going into service. They were going to work and to sit there and try to hijack that day: "It's about public service. It's about volunteerism. It's about doing for your fellow man." Where the hell does he get off with this? It's not what the commemorations of 9/11 are all about.