Tech Blog Libs Have No Idea What Happened in Benghazi
RUSH: I mentioned to you often that I read voluminously and I read omnivorous. I read everything, not just politics and stuff, and I am learning a lot as I do this. One of the great advantages of reading a lot of different sources is you get a very good idea how effective the left is with their message and permeating virtually every corner of the world. Now, my hobby is high-tech stuff. I love it.
I absolutely, physically enjoy learning about high-tech stuff and staying up to speed on it all. So I read some of these blogs. And every day, sometimes more than one instance, I literally stop myself when I read something and realize how effective our opposition is at persuading people of lies and convincing them that BS is the truth. This latest example is stupefying. I don't believe it. Well, I do believe it. I'm just dumbfounded by it.
See, I think the truth is not hard to find. I don't think it's hard to find at all, and I think finding the truth only requires a little curiosity and being a little dubious, being a little suspicious, of everything you hear from everybody. Benghazi. Is it not widely...? Maybe I'm wrong about this. Is it not widely known now that the video had nothing to do with that event that killed four Americans?
My perception is that, for the first two or three weeks, the administration blamed the video? Susan Rice, Obama, Hillary doing ads in Pakistan? For three weeks or two weeks, they blamed that video. And all during those weeks, there was an entire media-industrial complex on the right that knew it wasn't true and that was getting the message out that it wasn't true, that the video had nothing to do with it.
But all the while the mainstream media was promoting the fact that the video had everything to do with what happened in Benghazi. The mainstream media wanted to get nowhere near what really happened in Benghazi, and then the latest development was that four State Department officials were fired. But they weren't. Well, no! I take it back. They were "fired," but they were not made to leave.
They were "fired" and they stayed on the job.
So, anyway, my point is when I run across people who even now still believe that the video led to the death of four Americans, I'm sorry, but I have trouble processing it. How can people be so stupid? But here is an entry in a tech blog, and this is probably a 24- or 25-year-old kid, and what they have done is they've written a piece here on how the film was made. Let me just read this brief excerpt: "Back in July a controversial film appeared on YouTube.
"The low budget, poorly made film appeared to have been made with a main goal of offending and inflaming Muslims... A lot of controversy resulted when the video went viral..." It didn't "go viral" folks. Nobody saw it! This video never went viral. But this kid at this tech blog thinks it did. "A lot of controversy resulted when the video went viral: YouTube pulled it from several markets when it was rumored to be a source of protests that broke out in Benghazi, Libya[,] in September that attack resulted in the killing of" our ambassador.
None of that's true! There were no protests. There was a terrorist incident. There were no protests. This is last September. This tech blog happened on January 1st. And people read this stuff. These are supposedly smart kids, smart in one area. Look how duped they are. There wasn't a protest, the video didn't go viral, and the video had nothing to do with the murder of the ambassador or the other three Americans.
So, yeah, I'm dumbfounded by this, when the truth is "widely known" but it isn't widely known. And, of course, then I say, "What can we do about this?" This is how lies, disinformation, misinformation, propaganda get believed. I mean, intellectually I know it all works, but this? Have we not succeeded in exposing this by now? The vast majority of Americans still think the video led to protests which led to the death of the ambassador?
And then I have to say, "Yeah, it's probably the case. Because nobody's really paid a price for this." I don't know. Maybe I shouldn't be so shocked and surprised. Maybe I'm not. I'm just disappointed, I guess. I guess the other aspect is these are not low-information people. I mean, these are... Well, it turns out they are, but they're not stupid. Not intellectually. They have the ability to learn, comprehend, and understand the truth.
In fact, the whole "film" was never even posted! It was 30-second clips of the film that were on YouTube. And the guy is in jail! The filmmaker is still in jail and none of these civil libertarians on the left have the slightest problem with it.
Matt Damon Makes Anti-Fracking Movie, But IS NOT an Idiot
RUSH: The New York Times had a story recently. They're very, very upset about something. You know, we've got this fracking story. Oh. Folks, that's another thing. There's a movie, Ben Affleck movie -- no, it's a Matt Damon movie -- called Promised Land, and it's the new China Syndrome.
It is a movie about fracking.
It is a movie about the latest technology for getting clean energy out of the ground: Natural gas and, of course, oil. It is a technique which has the potential to make this country more energy rich than Saudi Arabia. So right on cue, here comes Matt Damon with a movie claiming that it kills cows, that it kills people, that it leads to poisonous gases in the air and all this BS. Now, in the case of Matt Damon, I know that he's an idiot. Uh, sorry! Sorry! Wrong thing to say. Matt Damon's a hero.
But remember The China Syndrome?
The China Syndrome, the Jane Fonda movie, did more to damage nuclear power and its advancement and spread in this country than anything else. The left is looking at this Matt Damon movie as having the same potential. They hate fracking. The environmentalist wackos hate it. It's gonna result in energy independence. It's gonna result in jobs. There's an economic boom where it's happening. But they oppose it. So the New York Times has a story. They're very worried here that teenagers in states where fracking is booming, are choosing to work in these new oil-rich economies right out of high school instead of going to college.
It was a front-page story. And the New York Times said: Taking a job is "a lucrative but risky decision for any 18-year-old to make, one that could foreclose on his future if the frenzied pace of oil and gas drilling from here to North Dakota to Texas falters and work dries up." So you have some people, some 18-year-old kids who are deciding, "You know, to hell with college." I mean, they're looking around, they see an economy that cannot handle or absorb current college graduates.
They look around, they see all the money it costs to go to college, the indebtedness you incur with student loans, and they're saying, "You know, got this oil boom going on. I'm gonna go work for the oil company. I'm gonna go work for the fracking company." And they're starting to work for the fracking company, and they're making good money, and the New York Times is worried that there might not be any jobs in that business down the roads and these kids are screwing up by not going to college.
Now, I have a simple question. What's gonna happen to the fracking industry? Is the New York Times aware that they're gonna succeed in shutting it down, much like they shut down nuclear? Is the New York Times aware of that they're gonna be part of an effort to try to freeze this entirely new way of getting oil and natural gas out of the ground? Probably. They also want every young skull full of mush they can get to go to college because that's where they're propagandized and indoctrinated. That's where they're turned in to young mind-numbed liberals.
Every kid that doesn't go to college is a kid missed by the liberal propaganda machine. But these are teenagers. What are they learning when they go to work? They're learning the basics. It's great education, work is. It may be a very smart thing not to go to college right now. Look, they can see all these graduates with no jobs. They can see all the debt that graduates are incurring. So they decide to go to work for the fracking company. They learn showing up. They learn getting a paycheck. They learn the value of work. They learn a lot of lessons. There's a lot of great things that happen to you when you go to work. And the New York Times is upset by this.
The New York Times is so distressed that they put it on the front page of the newspaper. What do you bet if these teenagers were deciding to go to work for some left-wing nonprofit ? That would be fine. If they were to say go to Legal Aid or they wanted to help recruit women for Planned Parenthood or some such thing, that would probably be cool. But these kids in Montana and in the Dakotas, North Dakota, all the way down to Texas, are going to work for Big Oil. A hated and reviled industry. Stunning. And yet, it's gonna be one of the best educations these kids have had.
RUSH: I want to apologize for calling Ben Affleck an idiot. That was the old Rush Limbaugh. I mean Matt Damon. Well, I've probably called Affleck an idiot, too. And I apologize for that if I did. That was the old me. We love Matt Damon, and his wife and his kids and, you know, Goodwill Hunting. Oh-ho-ho-ho. Yeah. Right on, dude. I just happen to think that he is wrong about this latest movie, Promised Land. He is a great guy. He is a wonderful guy. If I see he's gonna be on the E Entertainment network, I make sure to DVR it, just so you know.
Twit: Unemployment Benefits Will Result in Economic Growth
RUSH: So I'm looking at Twitter, and there's some idiot on Twitter, the $30 billion in new unemployment benefits will result in $48.3 billion in economic growth. Thirty billion people, the people aren't working, $48 billion in economic growth. This is the kind of mindless ignorance that we're up against. I mean, we may as well just have nobody work, and that's how we grow the economy. That's what a bunch of twits think out there.