RUSH: Get this. Let me find it. This is Foreign Policy magazine! Folks, this is highbrow. This Foreign Policy magazine is not quite Foreign Affairs or the Trilateral Commission, but it's not the Walla Walla Sunday Times. I mean, Foreign Policy magazine, they fashion themselves as a serious bunch of people there, think tankers and that. The editor of Foreign Policy, David Rothkopf, says that Mitch McConnell is a bigger threat to the United States than Kim Jong-un. I'm telling you, I can't keep up!
I can't connect the dots. Everything is so upside down. Nothing makes common sense. There is no rationality when I look out over this country. When I look at what's in the news and how it's presented, nothing's rational.
RUSH: I predicted to you that David Corn, who is the editor of Mother Jones magazine, would be celebrated. I predicted to you that he would be hoisted up as a hero. And he is being so.
The editor of Mother Jones magazine, who got the illegal tape as a result of Mitch McConnell's Senate office being bugged, campaign office in Louisville, being bugged, and there wasn't anything even defamatory on the tape. They were laughing at Ashley Judd. That's not permitted. You can laugh all day at Sarah Palin. You can laugh all day and impugn and make fun of and destroy, if you want. You can't laugh at Ashley Judd. And those people in McConnell's office, they laughed once when she explained what her floating vision of God was. But mostly they just quoted what she had written. And they only know this because of the illegally wiretapped Mitch McConnell office.
David Corn, Mother Jones, published, or got a hold of the tape of Mitt Romney last May at a campaign event talking about the 47% who will never vote for him. It was Corn who did that, Mother Jones. So he is being celebrated. David Corn is being hoisted up on a huge pedestal, Washington Post: "David Corn and Mother Jones Find Themselves With Another Audio Scoop -- David Corn says one good scoop may have led to another. And might even lead to still others, too. The Mother Jones magazine reporter and MSNBC pundit was busy Wednesday handling the fallout from, and some fawning over, his latest revelation about a prominent Republican. Corn unearthed the audiotape of a private meeting in which Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and his aides mocked a would-be political rival, the actress Ashley Judd, and plotted tactics to undermine her. An unidentified source leaked the surreptitious recording of the February meeting to Corn."
All of that is just flat-out wrong. Corn didn't unearth anything. He was sitting there minding his own business and whoever illegally wiretapped McConnell's office sent him the tape, the equivalent of coming in over the transom. They didn't plan to undermine Ashley Judd. They were planning to defeat her in a campaign, in an election. But you would think that that's a criminal act now, for McConnell and his guys to be sitting around talking about a potential opponent and ways to beat her. In the United States, in 2013, for Republicans to engage in that kind of behavior is criminal, and the Democrats have been wanting to politicize or criminalize Republican ideas, conservative ideas, for as long as they have been alive.
"An unidentified source leaked the recording of the February meeting to Corn." No. A criminal illegally bugged Mitch McConnell's office and eagerly handed over the recording to David Corn.
"And just like that, Corn and Mother Jones had their second major bombshell in seven months. The first, of course, was one of the most consequential scoops of the presidential campaign -- a leaked video recording of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney saying at a small fundraiser last May that '47 percent' of voters were 'dependent' on the government. (Corn will receive the prestigious Polk Award for Political Reporting for the Romney story on Thursday.)"
Now, Corn didn't do anything. Corn's sitting around minding his own business, as far as we know. I don't think Corn has taken credit for being at the fundraiser and videotaping it himself. He just sat there minding his own business and it was given to him.
RUSH: I do want to finish the thought on this, the editor of Foreign Policy magazine, which is a serious foreign policy magazine. The magazine from the Council on Foreign Relations, which is a left-wing think tank, David Rockefeller, Trilateral Commission, black helicopter, that is Foreign Affairs. Foreign Policy magazine fashions themselves to be the same kind of players, and the editor of Foreign Policy is a guy named David Rothkopf. And he's out there saying that Mitch McConnell is a bigger threat to the United States than the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un.
Here's why, according to the editor of Foreign Policy. Because Kim Jong-un, "even with his nuclear weapons, is hardly likely to launch an attack on Americans anywhere given that the response would produce the instant and certain obliteration of his regime. What that means is that for all his bluster, the chubby little autocrat is very unlikely to cost one American his life. But in vowing to block any vote on even the most modest legislation to rein in America's out-of-control gun culture, the Senate minority leader all but guarantees that the toll in America's street-corner war will continue to rise."
Mitch McConnell is responsible for more deaths -- doesn't have anything to do with Ashley Judd, has nothing to do with the illegal wiretap of his office. This has to do with gun control legislation. And Kim Jong-un, he's not gonna launch any nukes, and even if he did, they're not gonna reach us, and even if he did, we would obliterate North Korea. Folks, we have discovered the missile silos in North Korea. We know where they are. My question is, why are they not rubble? If we know where they are and we haven't taken them out, what is this automatic assumption that if they launch, we are going to obliterate their country?
Do any of you believe that would happen? I'm serious. North Korea launches nukes at us. They can't hit us yet, so they fall whatever hundreds, thousands of miles short. But the intent was clear. You think we'd retaliate? Do you believe that the United States of America, as led today, would retaliate, as Mr. Rothkopf says here, by obliterating the regime of the chubby little autocrat? Note, he's not even a dictator. He's an autocrat. You think we would? Even if it were closer to the midterm elections, do you think that we would launch a retaliatory strike on North Korea? Do you think the president of the United States, who has made it his objective to get rid of our nuclear arsenal, would use it? Well, what does "obliterate his little regime mean"?
I think it's a fair question. If the North Koreans try to nuke us -- that's what we're talking about here, right? If the Norks try to nuke us it's the theory here that we'll obliterate the little guy. He's not gonna do that because he knows we'll obliterate him. He's not gonna be responsible for one dead American, but Mitch McConnell will be, because Mitch McConnell's standing in the way of new gun laws.
Now, this was precisely my point when I was talking to Torsa in the previous hour about Michelle Obama in Chicago. We've got plenty of laws on the books to deal with the perps in Chicago. The real question in Chicago is why are the gun laws not being used to prosecute the perps that are gunning down our kids, quote, unquote, in Chicago?
May I be so bold as to answer the question for you? Why in the world, if you are pushing for brand-new gun control laws and your premise is that we don't have the ability to rein in this gun violence so we need new laws, why in the world would you effectively end gun violence in the middle of that debate?
It's like Wayne LaPierre said about Clinton back in 1993 or '94, that President Clinton was comfortable with a certain level of violence because it kept the issue alive. Now, my only point to you here is that we have all the legal ammunition that we need to deal with the crime spree, the murder spree going on in Chicago and anywhere else. But we are not, are we? It doesn't appear that law enforcement in Chicago is doing very much to bring those perpetrators to justice. So why? What would be the explanation for that?
My theory is that, well, if you are in the midst of new gun laws, you're trying to get everybody to agree with massive new gun control laws, what's the premise? The premise is we need new laws to stop these school shootings. We need new laws to stop the shooting of innocent kids in the streets of Chicago. So why would you go ahead and use existing law to prosecute perps today, you would illustrate you don't need the new laws. You would illustrate you don't need anymore gun control, so why do that? These people politicize everything. I mean, the Democrats politicize everything.
The real question has been and should be today, to anybody in Chicago and to Mrs. Obama, why aren't you prosecuting that crime, in Chicago, today? The murder rate in that city's a national embarrassment. We have plenty of laws on the books to convict and punish the people who are caught and convicted, put away. We have it amply, but we're not doing it. But stop and think now. Mitch McConnell, in a respected American publication, Mitch McConnell is more dangerous than a communist dictator who's threatening to launch nuclear weapons at us. It doesn't even get a rise out of people, just ho-hum and maybe some low-information people agree with it. 'Cause they're all caught up in this gun control stuff, which, again, has one objective and that is to separate you from your guns.