Leftist Domestic Terrorists Arrested in Ohio Bridge Plot
RUSH: The War on Terror is not over, by the way. "The men had planned to use two improvised explosive devices to destroy the Brecksville-Northfield High Level Bridge on Route 82, which crosses from Brecksville, Ohio, to Sagmore Hills." We have domestic terrorism, Occupy Wall Street going on today.
Chris Christie Happy to Sit Next to Sofia Vergara
RUSH: I see where Governor Christie saw that he could be talked into being the veep by Mitt Romney. (interruption) Is it a 180? Did Rom...? (interruption) Is that right? Christie said he wasn't interested way back when? Well, ah, it's politics. Things change. They asked Christie how he felt about Jimmy Kimmel making fat jokes. He said something like, "Hey, I had 'Sophie' Vergara..." Is that how she pronounces her name? "Vergara"? I don't watch that show. Anyway, it's the actress. He said something like, "I had her here comforting me, consoling me. I mean, I'd just as soon sit next to her than listen to Jimmy Kimmel any day. I don't care what Jimmy Kimmel's talking about when I'm sitting next to 'Sophie' Vergara."
Elizabeth Warren: White Indian
RUSH: Have you seen the news that Native American groups are upset with Elizabeth Warren? For those of you in Rio Linda, when you hear "Native American groups" think "Indians." They're going after Elizabeth Warren for her claiming to be a Native American. Elizabeth Warren, who considers herself the grandmother, the mother, the womb of the Occupy movement, was a Harvard professorette. She's running against Scott Brown for the Senate seat in Massachusetts that was once held, occupied, by Senator Kennedy. She's claimed to be Native American. She described herself as "a Native American minority" in various professional law school directories during the eighties and the nineties.
Now, the thinking is that Elizabeth Warren lied to get an advantage via the affirmative action policies of various law schools. Now, she wouldn't be the first Democrat to try to get ahead with affirmative action, and who knows, maybe she is a "white Indian." If we can have "white Hispanics," why not "white Indians"? Well, look, I'm just following the lead of the New York Times in describing George Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic." So maybe Elizabeth Warren is a "white Indian." Now, this is a woman, by the way, who is the first to admit that nobody ever gets ahead on their own. That's her whole schtick.
You recall Elizabeth Warren said that rich people only got where they are because other people paved the roads and built the bridges that they used, and built their factories for 'em. And nobody ever really ever does anything on their own. And all this talk about rugged individualism is just a bunch of BS, because without the hoi polloi, the rich wouldn't be who they are. But what happened is, apparently Elizabeth Warren realized that she didn't have enough qualifications on her own, so she borrowed some from the Indians.
She's using the bridge of affirmative action that others made for her.
Nobody ever does anything on their own.
There's a story from the Associated Press out of Boston today: "A genealogist..." Ha! Ha! How convenient. "A genealogist in Massachusetts has uncovered evidence that Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren does have Native American heritage as she claims. Christopher Child of the New England Historic and Genealogy Society said Monday he found an 1894 document in which Warren's great-great-great grandmother is listed as Cherokee, which would make the Harvard Law School professor 1/32nd American Indian." She's a white Indian! She one-thirty-second Indian. That's the ratio: One one-thirty-second American.
Christopher Child said that more research is needed. But he's got enough here in the genealogical trace to confirm that she is one-thirty-second American Indian. Cherokee. Well, I don't know but if I were her, 'cause she's going... Well, I don't want to prejudge it. But let's say that she loses this election and does it on her own, loses it all by herself without any help. I wonder if she would qualify for a casino or some kind of a casino, or maybe sell cigarettes with no sales tax. This is hilarious. One-thirty-second! That's what this genealogist says: One-thirty-second. One-thirty-second! This is who liberals are. It just impossible, folks, to take these people seriously.
Again, nothing is about what's inside. It's what's outside. It's group status, victim status.
They had to verify her use of affirmative action or what have you.
Breaking News on MSNBC: Bin Laden Killed One Year Ago Today
RUSH: Snerdley just said they ran a "Breaking News" crawl the bottom of the screen. (interruption) Oh, it's not a crawl? (interruption) It's a static chyron, big and covered the screen? How big? How... (interruption) Okay, like the lower third of the screen, lower one-fourth of the screen, a static chyron: "Breaking News! Bin Laden killed one year ago today!" That was just on MSNBC. We're not lying. Breaking News! What is "Breaking News" to you? Stuff that just happened, right? A second ago, you didn't know it, until some network news guy found out about it and put a Breaking News bulletin up, right? Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
"Breaking News! Bin Laden killed one year ago today!" That's called "in the tank." Who do you think they think their audience is to put up something like that and mean it, to be serious about it? I would never occur to me to say anything like that to you in this audience and try to pass it off as being serious. You know what I think "Breaking News" is on MSNBC? It's news that's been damaged somehow. It's breaking. It's falling apart. It's news that's not working. That's what they must mean by "Breaking News." The news is falling apart! Here's the latest falling-party story: Bin Laden killed one year ago today! "Breaking News" at MSNBC doesn't mean something brand-new that you've not heard of yet.
"Breaking News" means, damaged in some way. More properly, "Broken News," would be what they should call it now. MSNBC's Broken News.
Stu Rothenberg: Obama in Trouble in North Carolina
RUSH: They're having doubts about choosing North Carolina as the site of the Democrat convention. I have here a story in Roll Call by Stuart Rothenberg, contributing writer for Roll Call. Headline is: "On Second Thought, Maybe N.C. Was a Mistake." In the piece Rothenberg outlines the challenges faced by Obama's reelection campaign if they hope to put North Carolina in its column again. Now, you as regular listeners here are on the cutting edge. You have known for about a month now of the problems facing Obama and the Democrats in North Carolina. Not just the Edwards and the other sex scandal, but you got the governor there, Dumplin', who's not running for reelection.
They're in heap big trouble, the Democrats are, and they chose North Carolina 'cause they need it. And four years ago who would have ever thought? By the way, it's not meant as a slight to North Carolina. Four years ago, who woulda thought that North Carolina would be a crucial state as opposed to Florida or Ohio or Michigan or some of the other battleground states? Rothenberg claims that it's not easy the challenge faced by Obama's reelection campaign, if they hope to put North Carolina in his column.
Rothenberg in this piece says he doesn't think Obama's gonna win North Carolina. "If national Democratic strategists chose Charlotte, N.C., for the party’s national convention because they liked the facilities, the hotel accommodations or the weather in early September, then I guess I can’t yet quibble with the choice. But if David Axelrod and the president’s other political advisers picked the Tar Heel State to make some broader political point, then they goofed. Simply put: North Carolina looks like a mess for Democrats." That's Stuart Rothenberg who doesn't want things to look "like a mess for the Democrats."
"North Carolina looks like a mess," he writes. So if they chose it for political reasons, then they botched it. (interruption) Are you trying to get me to say something that's going to get me in trouble? Okay, I no longer have MSNBC on one of my two TV monitors here. What I have up there is the Fox Business Channel or a soap opera and Fox News on the bottom. But I've taken MSNBC off. I refuse. We don't play any sound bites from 'em anymore, and I don't watch 'em. It's irrelevant. They don't have a large enough audience. They don't deserve to be talked about, so I haven't been talking about 'em. Snerdley, they watch it in there. They have it on in there.
So Stuart Rothenberg: Big mistake, a mess for Democrats. (North Carolina, it's a right-to-work state.) Here's another quote: "Unless the president wins re-election nationally by 7 or 8 points (or about what he did in 2008), his chances of carrying the state are not very good. And if he wins nationally by a large margin, he won’t need North Carolina. Obama won North Carolina by three-tenths of a point four years ago -- almost 7 points worse than his national margin of 7.2 points. ... North Carolina doesn’t look particularly hospitable to Obama’s re-election or to Democrats in general."
[JLF Triangle Blog] "This election is about economic policies, plain and simple. The president’s challenge is to convince voters to give him another four years to lead the country back to fiscal health. Will the nearly 10% of North Carolinians who are currently without a job think that’s a reasonable request?" And again the title of this [Roll Call] piece: "On Second Thought, Maybe N.C. Was a Mistake." Mr. Rothenberg, here's the problem. You write, "The president’s challenge is to convince voters to give him another four years to lead the country back to fiscal health." That's not what he's trying to do. This is why it's so important for people to understand this stuff ideologically.
Obama's not trying "to lead the country back to fiscal health." He is trying to "fundamentally transform" this nation. Mr. Rothenberg, please. I know I'm just a dork talk show host to you, but I'm telling you: Obama views this country as unjust in its founding -- and for 200-plus-whatever years, this country's been a mistake. This country is flawed morally, economically in the way it was founded, the way it was put together. These last three years are just the beginning of the "transformation," Mr. Rothenberg. Obama's not trying to go take us back to any prosperity. This is what all of you need to understand! Obama's not trying to return this nation to prosperity.
He's transforming it into, at best, a Western European socialist country. At best that's what he's trying to turn it into: 14% unemployment and everybody with "free" health care 'til they can't afford it (which is now), bankrupt governments, no military. There's no attempt here to return to prosperity. We know how to do that! We've had three years of Obama's attempts at what he says he's trying to do is reignite the economy, but anybody with any honesty assessing Obama's policies in three years has to admit that they're not about prosperity. His policies are not about fiscal health.
Fiscal health? That's... To suggest that Obama wants four more years and is trying to persuade people for four more years "to lead the country back to fiscal health"? He's destroying the country's fiscal health! He's racked up more debt than every previous president combined, all the previous presidents combined -- and that's a true statistic. Obama doesn't want to return to prosperity. His campaign slogan is "Forward!" Forward from here, not backward. Seriously, Mr. Rothenberg. "President Obama's challenge is to convince..."? See, Rothenberg's looking at Obama as the standard, traditional Democrat who is simply trying to use Democrat policies to rebuild an economy. That's not what this guy's doing. There's no "return" to anything. Obama thinks nothing in this country's past has been right.
He doesn't believe anything in this country... well, certain things have been good. Union uprisings, union membership growing, powerful union bosses, this kind of thing. There have been little things. But he's not about returning to anything here. I would think that an esteemed political scientist like Mr. Rothenberg would understand that Obama's not like any president we've ever had. He's not even LBJ. He's not FDR. He's not trying to return the country anywhere or to lead us back to fiscal -- that's almost insulting. The guy who single-handedly destroying every day -- and wait 'til health care, if it is, fully implemented. Bye-bye fiscal health. It's not even a possibility. There's no chance of fiscal health if that thing survives.
Obama's moving forward from where we are. He's trying in his mind, Mr. Rothenberg, to fix 200-plus years of immorality, unjust social justice, you name it. He's not your traditional Democrat. I think there are a lot of Democrats that don't understand that. I really do. I think there are a lot of wealthy, rich Democrats, even consultants who don't understand. Now, I may be pie-in-the-sky there. They may be all gone. They may be all of the same belief, that this country is unjust and immorally founded, it was a mistake. Maybe so. But whatever, that's irrelevant. Obama is not about returning to anything. We're moving forward, that's his slogan, on the same path that we are on. He's not proposing any changes. He wants four more years, Mr. Rothenberg, to finish the job.
Dana Milbank: The Preezy is Sleazy
RUSH: Here's the money quote. Nah, not the money quote. It's the money excerpt from Dana Milbank's piece. Dana Milbank, State-Controlled Media, is a big Obama fan. He thinks Keith Olbermann's one of the most talented people on TV. He's that kind of guy. He works at the Washington Post, and he's got this piece out. It's "President Obama, Campaigner-in-Chief," and here's the money excerpt: "I'm not troubled by President Obama's slow-jam with Jimmy Fallon, who dubbed the commander in chief 'preezy' during Obama'’s appearance on late-night TV. No, preezy is making me queasy because his nonstop campaigning is looking, well, sleazy -- and his ad suggesting that Mitt Romney wouldn’t have killed Osama bin Laden is just the beginning of it."
By the way, having Bill Clinton be the voice in that ad added to it. "In a political culture that long ago surrendered to the permanent campaign, Obama has managed to take things to a whole new level. According to statistics compiled for a book to be published this summer, the president has already set a record for total first-term fundraisers -- 191 -- and that's only through March 6. Measured in terms of events that benefit his reelection bid, Obama's total ... exceeds the combined total of George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter." That's amazing. That's an incredible stat. Obama has already done more fundraisers than those other presidents combined, and that's why Dana Milbank is not happy with the "preezy," who he thinks is "sleazy."