RUSH: Everything that George W. Bush proposed in terms of spending, Barack Obama voted for. Obama voted for everything that came before him, every spending increase as a Senator, he voted for it. There were 14.3 million fewer Americans on food stamps than there are today. The record of economic damage and destruction in this country is owing to one man, Barack Obama. Are we ever, ever going to hear that anything is Obama's fault? In fact, what are we hearing? In fact, all of this is the Republican Congress' fault. Obama's running against a do-nothing Congress. He just submits a budget, a bankrupting budget that is indefensible, it's a campaign document. That's why it can't be defended. And that was made perfectly clear on C-SPAN this morning as the budget director was made a fool of by Scott Garrett, Republican, New Jersey.
The reason Obama's budget is difficult to defend is because the regime's spending on donors and unions is destroying the country. Another solar firm goes bankrupt, and up next, wind companies bankrolled by Obama will go bankrupt. Every green energy endeavor is a total debacle, bankrupt, bailed out. None of this is traceable to George W. Bush. So Obama's calculation is class warfare politics. It is clear what they're doing. I had somebody say to me, sort of repeated what I said yesterday, "Rush, it's clear, it's now clear, the administration, Obama, clearly thinks that they can run as socialists and win election." They don't have to mask it anymore. As liberals, they don't have to pretend that they're not liberals, they don't think. They're out there not hiding who they are, other than this payroll tax cut extension. That's the only area where Obama's trying to make himself sound like a conservative.
But I have revised my thinking on this. I don't think so much Obama is campaigning as a socialist. I think what he has calculated is that there are enough Americans who will sell their votes for him. That may be a distinction without a difference, but I still think it's worth making. He thinks there are enough Americans who will sell their votes to him. Put another way, there are enough Americans whose votes he can buy, and he's making every effort to do it. He's trying to create as much dependence as he can in this country. Class warfare politics, unconstitutional mandates, contraception distractions, vote buying. That's what they figure will trump failed policies. It's clear that that's their strategery. So his budget is a campaign document. The president puts another irresponsible budget in order to run against a do-nothing Congress.
The last thing they want is for this thing to pass. The last thing they want is for any legislation of Obama's to pass. And therefore any legislation coming from the White House this year is going to be outrageous. He must have a Congress that votes down or doesn't even vote, period, on all of his proposals. Obama has done nothing to bring down his deficit. And believe me, this deficit is his. He has done nothing to do away with the red tape that prevents real growth in the private sector. He has done nothing to improve education. He's done nothing to reform entitlements. He has done nothing to allow for the increase in energy supplies to bring down the price of gasoline. He even said "no" to the Keystone pipeline.
If there's a do-nothing guy, it is Obama, who is doing nothing to help this country. And yet he campaigns as if America's problem is a do-nothing Congress. And he can only get away with this with the help of a report-nothing media. And he's got it. He's got it right in the palm of his hand, a report-nothing media. America's rapidly accelerating deficit is a result of vote-buying sprees the likes of which we have never seen. It's a result of a Democrat-controlled House and Senate in Obama's first two years in office. Democrats said "yes" to bankrupting the country, enriching their friends, and now we are reducing our nuclear stockpile to 300 warheads. At least that's the proposal. Obama wrote a piece while at Columbia University in 1983 spelling out exactly how he wanted to do this and why.
Make no mistake, and do not doubt me. Barack Hussein Obama views the United States of America as the problem in the world. The United States of America is the reason that there are inequities, that there is unfairness, racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, environmental destruction. Whatever the grievance that liberals have about the human condition across the world, it's our fault. It is the fault of the United States. It's the fault of capitalism. It's the fault of the 1%. We have robbed. We have cheated. We have stolen. We have co-opted. We have commandeered. We have conquered. That's his view of this country. And so let's reduce the stockpile to 300 warheads while the Russians have 1,550, while the ChiComs have more than 300.
Let's make this country vulnerable. Let's enact policies that will show the people of this country what they've made other people live through. Let's establish policies in this country that will make Americans finally understand the excrement sandwich they have put the rest of the world through since the days of our founding. I don't really care anymore, folks, sometimes I vacillate on Obama's motivation, and other days I don't care about it. But days like this when it becomes unmistakably clear, there is a huge and maybe more than one chip on his shoulder about this country and its existence and the way it was structured, that he doesn't like. And it's time that we were gotten even with. Plain and simple.
This reducing nuclear warheads to a number of 300 is staggering news. Obama could cut our nuclear weapons arsenal by as much as 80%. And that is an 80% reduction over the so-called new START levels, which have already taken our warheads down to dangerously low numbers. I think we've gone from 5,000 down to 1,500. He wants to take it down to 300 now. That would be the equivalent of unilateral disarmament, given the stockpiles of nations around the world. And of course it will be welcomed by the United Nations. It will be welcomed by the euro nations. It will be welcomed by Vladimir Putin, the ChiComs, the mullahs of Iran, the Obama Brotherhood in Egypt. And of course their allies in the news media and the Democrat Party will all think this is just one of the best days for peace there has ever been.
Three hundred nuclear weapons takes the US back to levels not seen since 1950. In 1967, we peaked at 31,255 nuclear warheads. That number helped us win the Cold War. The arms race was not about total numbers. It was about having more than all of your enemies because of the deterrent factor. None of these weapons were ever built with the hope that they would have to be used. Every one of these was built and armed and deployed with the hope and prayer they would never be needed. That's why they were built and deployed, to make sure they weren't needed.
Now, some people just arriving at this because youth may not understand, "What do you mean you build it so you don't have to use it?" Stop and think about it. From the deterrent point of view, you build all these weapons systems, you let the world know you have them, you let the world know you can use them, you let the world know they work, and everybody around the world will think twice about attacking.
That's what was so remarkable, if I might say, about 9/11. They didn't care! They weren't concerned that we would retaliate in any similar way with our arsenal. But up until then, the deterrent factor worked. The fact that we could strike back. Why do you think the Russians imploded, why the Soviet Union imploded? Again for those of you new to all this: The Soviet Union imploded once Ronald Reagan declared that he was going to build a Strategic Defense Initiative, a missile shield, Star Wars. It was over. The Russians knew they couldn't do that -- they couldn't keep up -- and they knew we could. They were already a Third World nation and empire with a First World military, and that's all they were.
In every instance, the deterrent theory in the number of warheads and where they were deployed and how they were deployed, worked. The deployment of nuclear missiles in Europe scared the hell out of the Europeans, bugged 'em, but shortly thereafter the Berlin Wall came down. But Barack Obama has wanted to strip this country of its nuclear weapons ever since he was at Columbia University in 1983, if it is not before that. That's just the most recent that he's written -- or as far back as we can find. Yet note how the American people, the public have not been allowed to hear anything about these negotiations? We just today, out of the clear blue, get up and read in the AP-Obama's gonna reduce our warheads to 300.
From what? Where has this been going on? Did Bush do this? Did Obama inherit this from Bush? What happened? Where did we get to this point? We've been kept in the dark about this. All of this had been going on behind closed doors. The most transparent administration in the history of the country! Why is that? Why is all this been going on with no knowledge on the part of the country? "Peace Through Strength" has worked every time it's been tried. Somebody tell me when "Peace Through Weakness" has ever worked. That's what Obama is cobbling together here: "Peace Through Weakness." (New Castrati impression) "Mr. Limbaugh, it's a proven fact that when the people of other nations..." This is the New Castrati talking to me.
"If we just show our enemies that we intend them no harm, Mr. Limbaugh, that we reduce the destructive nuclear weapons -- these weapons that could destroy everything on earth four times over! If we reduce those weapons we are sending the message to the rest of the world that we are fine, lovable, warm people, that we intend them no harm." No, that's not the message they're gonna receive. You think Ahmadinejad is gonna say, "Oh, you know what? Look at the Americans! What a bunch of good guys, getting rid of their nukes." No, Ahmadinejad, the mullahs, all these people, look at us a bunch of raving lunatics -- and they're going to see an opportunity. There you have it. Barack Obama: Destroying the US economy, downsizing the US military, reducing our deterrent nuclear force -- and blaming it all on George W. Bush.
RUSH: Who's gonna be up first? Joe in Ocean Isle Beach in North Carolina. Thank you for waiting, Joe. Great to have you here.
CALLER: Rush, it's a pleasure to speak with you, and it is always educational to listen to you. "Right on, right on, right on!"
RUSH: Thank you, sir, very much. I appreciate that. We do make the complex understandable. We do try that.
CALLER: Yes, you do. You know, nothing is ever [Obama's] fault, but what I called about initially was that he has been creating debt that will make us subject to economic blackmail. And now he's going into nuclear disarmament that will make us subject to nuclear blackmail. We're surrounded by enemies external and internal, and I always thought that the Constitution said his primary job is to defend this nation. He's not doing that. At what point does this become treasonous?
CALLER: He is turning us into a Third World country.
RUSH: I don't think that would come under the rubric of "treason." But the answer to your question is (even if it were): "Until somebody charges him with it." I will say this again. Recess appointments when there's no recess? If the Senate is not gonna stand up for itself, he's going to keep doing it. If nobody from whom he is usurping power in the legislative branch is gonna stand up and stop it, he's gonna keep doing it. If nobody objects, in other words, in a way that has a force of law behind it, he's gonna keep doing it. I'll give you the example again. We've got laws on the books that says you cannot kill somebody. It's called murder. But people still do it.
Now, in that case we do try to find the killers. But imagine if we didn't. All we would have is a law that says, "You're not allowed to kill somebody in cold blood. You're not allowed to kill somebody, period." But if we don't enforce it, what good is it? So Obama can do all of this until somebody stops him. Now, I know what you mean. When you ask me, "How can he do this?" you are making the mistake of assuming that we have somebody here with a moral code that would provide a loyalty and fealty to the Constitution. But we don't have that in this president. We have a president for whom, to whom the Constitution is an impediment.
The Constitution is a roadblock. The Constitution is a problem. The Constitution, for Obama and his boys, is a worthless document. They refer to it as "negative liberties." And by that they mean that the Constitution only tells government what it can't do (i.e., negative liberties). They resent the fact that the Constitution doesn't spell out what they can do, and so they want to rewrite the Constitution. FDR with his new Bill of Rights; Obama supports them. Obama wants one of two things. He wants to be able to ignore the Constitution with impunity, which he's being able to do. He's doing it. Nobody's stopping him. Ideally he would like a constitution that he writes that empowers government over everything and everyone -- and until he gets that, he's going to act as though that's what it says.
So how can he bring our warhead arsenal down to 300? Easy! He's gonna order it done. How can he make a recess appointment when there is no recess? Easy! Just make the appointment. And if all the Republican leadership is gonna do is stand up and say they "deplore" it, he'll laugh all the way to the appointment.
RUSH: Here's Bob in Newark, Delaware. Bob, glad you called. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Yes, Rush. I'm gonna get right to the point. You've been saying it forever, and that is Obama has support of the largest public union in the world. There are the workers and there are the takers, and he has the support of the takers. They don't have to give him a penny. He just gives to them and they then give him his vote. It's exactly what you've been saying.
RUSH: Those are the people whose votes he's essentially buying. Exactly right.
CALLER: I don't want to be real pessimist, but he may be right, he may be running the gamble. There may already be enough of them that he can win a second term.
RUSH: I'm not so sure. I don't think the 2010 elections would have ended up the way they did if that were the case. I don't think that the vast majority of people in polling data would be opposed to Obamacare. But it could well be that pollsters don't reach these takers because they're so buried down in beds underneath the covers with each other that they can't be found.
CALLER: Rush, I don't disagree, I'm just saying that's his gamble. His gamble is there's already enough of them, that's the way he's going to go.
RUSH: No, that's exactly right. He's not trying to sound conservative. He's not trying to hide liberalism. He's not trying to hide anything. He's acknowledging what's going on. He's blaming it on the Republicans, but he's campaigning as a full-fledged big government redistributionist, that you've been screwed by the haves, and I'm here to make everything good now.