RUSH: Grab audio sound bite number two. You know, I'm so frustrated sometimes. I know these people. It's so easy to know them. I get frustrated that there's any doubt or misunderstanding about liberals and Obama and who they are. That whole 1998 tape has surfaced, the one in which Obama talked about loving redistribution and so forth. Well, there's another aspect of it, and it's exactly what this campaign is. He says in 1998 what he believes a winning coalition is. Welfare recipients would be a majority coalition for somebody. It's exactly what he's doing. That's his campaign, and we pointed it out to you. This is October 19th in Chicago, 1998. Loyola University, then-state senator The One.
OBAMA: What I think will re-engage people in politics is if we’re doing significant, serious policy work around what I will label the "working poor," although my definition of the working poor is not simply folks making minimum wage, but it’s also families of four who are making $30,000 a year. They are struggling. And to the extent that we are doing research figuring out what kinds of government action would successfully make their lives better, we are then putting together a potential majority coalition to move those agendas forward.
RUSH: All right, so NBC went and dug up the full audiotape to verify that it was Obama. Remember, "Angrier" Mitchell, NBC News, would not play the audiotape of Obama saying that he believed in redistribution. They couldn't confirm it even though White House had confirmed it. The White House said, "Yeah, that's our guy." Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, refused to believe it. They had to independently verify. What does that tell you? (laughing) So, anyway, they did, they went through the whole tape to verify it was Obama, and what they failed to report is that at a different point in the tape, Obama admits exactly what Romney said on his tape: Obama's intention to build a majority coalition of dependence on the state.
That's what you just heard, a "majority coalition" of welfare recipients. That's Obama's constituents, and this is back in 1998. This is many, many moons ago. A little Elizabeth Warren lingo there. Do you realize, by the way, William Jacobson, who's doing good work at the Legal Insurrection blog, posted recently that she, according to an investigation, had been practicing law out of her Harvard professor's office illegally. That she wasn't licensed in Massachusetts to practice law, and she's admitted it today. It won't matter because liberals don't have standards that they're held to. The law doesn't matter. All that matters is the intentions. Was she trying to help people? Yeah. She was trying to help people. Was she licensed to practice?
"No, but that doesn't matter because she was trying to help people. What does it matter? It doesn't mean she doesn't know how to practice law. She just hadn't bothered to get licensed, but that doesn't mean she can't do it! It doesn't mean she doesn't know how. You gotta give her credit, man. She's at least trying."
"What about the regulations, the legal regulations that say that she has to be licensed in the state?"
"That doesn't matter, man! It doesn't matter because she cares." I fully expect that to be the reaction of the majority people: "Doesn't matter. She isn't licensed to practice? No big deal."
There's such cultural rot taking place, such a disintegration throughout our culture. Values, morality, you name it. Standards have been relaxed, and people are not being held to them. People's intentions, if they're said to be good and honorable, that's all that matters, whether you violate regulations or not. But, at any rate, here's Obama admitting it. You know, he's admitted so much in all these tapes that we found in 2001 and 2007.
He talked to his union buddies about single-payer, nationalized health care. He's admitted everything. It's on tape. Everything that he's doing is on tape. Now, the Drive-Bys haven't dug it up. We in the New Media have, and everybody in our audience knows about it. But the rest of the country's in the dark. Majority coalition? Now, strip away (if you can), take away everything else you know about the campaign, about Obama.
What if you, just out of the blue in a presidential campaign, heard or learned that one of the candidates is seeking to build a majority coalition -- in other words, he wants to win the election -- by securing the votes of welfare recipients on the basis that he's going to continue to take care of them as welfare recipients; that he is not going to try to reduce the numbers of people on welfare?
In fact, he's going to try to increase that number because that's how he wants to get elected. What would your reaction be? Who in the world would vote for that? Not 25%, 30% of the country would. Maybe all the welfare recipients, who knows? But at least... (interruption) No, I'm not happy that I'm right! I'm used to being right. I don't get jazzed being right. What I get frustrated about here is that I'm right and so few people see it, even when it's right in front of their faces.
That's what frustrates me.
Well, "Who wants to believe it?" It's not a question of who wants to. We better believe it because that's our future. We have to confront it. I know what you mean by saying, "Who wants to believe it?" But it's out there. Folks, here's another thing: Do you know why we can't believe the 1998 tape? Because I'm talking about it. Because I'm talking about it, that disqualifies everything on that tape that Obama said.
No. It's because I, according to people on the left, cannot be believed. My credibility, my integrity, my reputation have all been successfully tarnished now, so that what whatever I say cannot be listened to. It cannot be accepted because I'm disqualified. I'm gonna prove this. Sunday morning PBS, Inside Washington. It's their version of these roundtable chat shows.
We have Roger Simon of Politico, Colbert King (known to his friends as "Colby," Colby King) of the Washington Post, and Charles Krauthammer. They're talking about Romney's "attacks" on Obama's 1998 video saying he's in favor of "redistribution." The host, Gordon Peterson, says to Roger Simon of Politico, "Roger, Romney's attacks don't seem to be sticking out there. Why is that?"
SIMON: (whispering) All this small stuff is being dismissed --
SIMON: -- by the American people as mere politics.
KRAUTHAMMER: Why is that "small"?
SIMON: Because nobody cares about the deep --
KING: And the -- and people consider the source! Do you under...?
SIMON: -- in the roots parsing of language.
KING: They consider the source. When you have people like Rush Limbow (sic) m-minute after minute after minute still making that same kind of argument in the face of truth, that goes just the opposite way. People dismiss it. They just tune it out.
RUSH: Do you hear what he's saying? Here's what he says. He's got Obama on tape in 1998 and it confirms what Romney says: Obama's big objective is the redistribution of wealth. Obama says it. It's undeniably on the tape. Gordon Peterson asks, "Why isn't it sticking? Why don't people care?" And Colby King says: Because Rush Limbaugh's the one telling them, and since Limbaugh has no credibility or integrity...
Since we've successfully decimated and destroyed Limbaugh, if Limbaugh says it, nobody's gonna believe it. That's what Colby King is saying to people. That was his point. I have become a... (interruption) Well, he's a columnist or used to be at the Washington Post. Anyway, that's his point. Look, I would think these guys would then want to get every bit of this information into my hands and have me be the one saying it, because then nobody'd believe it.
That's what they believe. If I say it, then the whole country will reject it because, in their minds, they have successfully damaged my reputation, integrity, credibility. So it doesn't matter that these words are right out of Obama's mouth; the reason nobody cares is because I'm talking about it. Therefore, as far as Colby King is concerned, Romney would be better off if I were to take a 55-day vacation. Anyway, that's the point of his comment there.
RUSH: So I had it wrong. Colbert King of the Washington Post is not saying that people don't believe it because he's destroyed my credibility. He said people don't believe it because everybody knows I lie. That's what he's saying: Everybody knows I lie. All I was doing was telling people what Obama himself said. Obama himself said on the 1998 tape: Redistribution!
That's what Obama believes in. That's how we make people rich. That's how we make people well. That's how we have a solid society: Redistribution of wealth. (Which, of course, you can only do one time.) The key to this... Of course, there are many keys to it, but you can only take significant amounts of money from people one time. After that they're not going to have any more money for you to take. The old argument is you could confiscate every dollar of income over $250,000.
Not tax it, confiscate it. Just take it. Take every dollar over $250,000 in income from everybody who earns it. You could run the government for less than a month, if that. But you could only do it one time. Do you think people are gonna work to earn that kind of money if it's just gonna be taken from them every year? Would somebody who manufactures a product continue to manufacture it if they broke even? If that's all that happened, they broke even? Why do it?
(New Castrati impression) "Because you love, Mr. Limbaugh. You love your job and your product, and it's a wonderful thing, that product you're providing for the American people." Yeah, but there's no point in it. You can't live if you're breaking even. "Well, but it's a service, Mr. Limbaugh, to the people. There's no reason why people should profit in this country." This is the voice of the New Castrati. "Especially, Mr. Limbaugh, in medicine! There's no reason that doctors should profit treating the sick."
Right. That's coming, by the way. I want you to keep a sharp eye for that one. If Obama wins reelection, that's gonna be one of the things that will become oft used in the advancement of Obamacare to lower costs, which they're gonna have to do. "Why should doctors make a lot of money? Who said that? That seems unfair, immoral, unjust." You can only do it one time. You can only take what people have one time, and then you're finished.
That's just one of many reasons, but it's near the top, why redistribution doesn't work. There's nothing to redistribute after you do it the first time. But the left doesn't really know that. They think people are gonna continue to work, that the rich are just rich. They're just there. They're just rich 'cause that just happens. They don't see the process people went through to get rich. They don't see the hard work; they don't see the failure. They just see the trappings, the outcome, the result.
Anyway, Colby King is saying: Ah, the reason why people don't care that Obama talked about redistributing wealth is 'cause Limbaugh's the guy saying it, and Limbaugh lies. Okay, really? All I did was repeat Obama's own words. Does that mean that all I have to do to give Obama...? If I quote Obama saying the most damaging thing, all I have to do is be the one to spread the word and Obama gets a pass because I'm the one doing the criticizing?
That's what Colbert King wants you to believe.
That's what he does believe.
Twenty-four years of these assaults and attacks and so forth, and that's where it's ended up. That's how they erase it as a factor in their minds. And they're gonna be shocked on Election Day, just telling you. By the way, that 1998 tape? Obama also talked about gun control in that tape. I don't have the audio but I got the transcript here. He's a state senator and he said, "The vast majority of Americans would like to see serious gun control." That's 1998.
He was wrong, but that's what he said. "The vast majority of Americans would like to see serious gun control. It doesn't pass. Why does it not pass? It doesn't pass because there's this huge disconnect between the people, what the people think and what legislators think, and they're willing to act upon." So in 1998, he believes the majority of the country wants gun control, but elected officials don't (because they're under the thumb of the NRA, is his unstated point).
Now, remember at this point in time in 1998 Obama's a brilliant constitutional scholar. He was teaching (scary thought: teaching) the Constitution at the University of Chicago Law School. This is the exact kind of thinking that was behind Fast and Furious, which was all about closing this "huge disconnect" between what people think and what legislators like him think. By the way, this '98 tape is a gold mine, and it's the same Obama. That's the same guy, and it's out there.
Of course, it's "small." It doesn't really matter. It's so long ago. Limbaugh's the one talking about it.
No, no, Obama's the one talking about it. We're just passing along his words.
My point is, it's all out there for people to learn.
It's all out there for people to understand and learn from about just who Obama is.
RUSH: So let's go back to the 1998 tape for just a second. On that tape, Obama sees welfare recipients as a majority coalition, and now we have record numbers of people on food stamps. Coincidence? And we have record -- well, not record unemployment, but we've got a government growing bigger and more in debt with more dependent people all over the place, and Obama in 1998 said that's how he wants to build a winning coalition. Coincidence? And, furthermore, on the 1998 tape, there's Obama talking for widespread gun control. And we got Fast and Furious. Coincidence? No. It isn't a coincidence, folks. This is who the guy is. It's out there. This is what's frustrating. It's out there. Whether the media tells people or not, I don't care, can't control that. It's out there for people to know.
Vince in Medina, Ohio. Welcome to the program, sir.
CALLER: Rush, a pleasure to meet you. Pleasure to listen to you every day.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: I'm a little bit nervous. I just want to say that at the beginning of your hour you talked about how they call you a liar. Well, the fact of the matter is, they don't like you because you're telling the truth, and quite, frankly, they hate you. That's what it's all about. They hate you because you're right, and that's basically what I have to say. Do I sound nervous?
RUSH: No, no. You don't sound nervous at all.
RUSH: You sound forceful, confident.
RUSH: Yeah. You sound fabulous out there.
CALLER: This is cool. This is really cool.
RUSH: Well -- (laughing) -- no, you really were worried sounding nervous?
RUSH: No, no. Not at all. I wouldn't lie to you about that. Maybe other things, but not that.
RUSH: So you think that -- well, they're just afraid. Here I am, but it's more than just I'm right, if I might chime in now on this.
RUSH: See, truth is the new hate speech.
RUSH: Truth is the new hate speech. I can be right all day long and, if I had no effectiveness with it, they wouldn't worry. I think it's the fact that I do have credibility with millions of people, is what bugs 'em.
CALLER: I absolutely believe that wholeheartedly.
RUSH: I thank you for making the call and pointing this out, I really do. Vince, you did great. You didn't sound nervous at all. I defy anybody to say that Vince sounded nervous.
RUSH: Here's Obama on gun control from that 1998 tape. I just want to play it for you 'cause Colbert King says that when I say it, you don't believe it. So here's Obama himself saying it on October 19, 1998 at Loyola University.
OBAMA: The majority of Americans would like to see serious gun control. It does not pass. Why does it not pass? It doesn't pass because there is this huge disconnect between what people think and what legislators think and are willing to act upon.
RUSH: So, in Obama's world, the American people wanted gun control, but elected officials didn't, and that's why we didn't have it. It's the other way around. Every Democrat president, Democrat senator, Democrat House of Representatives member wanted gun control. It's the people that don't want it and never have. Not the kind of gun control these guys are talking about. Anyway, that's Obama. He said it, not I.