RUSH: The question is will America, will America make it through Obama's second term and be America as founded at the end of it. That's the question. Because Obama's not going anywhere. I don't mean to depress anybody. If you've got your hopes up for that, I just don't see it. No way. Already happened. This stuff has been unacceptable for three years.
The real question is, we're in the middle of a coup. Are we gonna survive it? We're in the middle of a peaceful coup d'etat. There is no Idi Amin Dada running around here. It's just a peaceful coup d'etat. This country is undergoing a transformation. This country is being run by people who do not appreciate the way it was founded. They do not appreciate the Constitution as written, and they are in the process of implementing and behaving as they wish the Constitution existed. They wish a Constitution existed which invests in government all power. They want all power. And they're in the process of behaving as though they have it.
Nobody's really pushing back to stop it. And that's what all of these data mining scandals really focus on. We're looking now at this Edward Snowden, the 29-year-old young man who has gone public with the PRISM program. And the real danger here -- and look, John Bolton is out. Snerdley's livid at this guy. A lot of people are. John Bolton is out saying, "This guy is a traitor and he needs to be charged and tried as a traitor." And there are some people that think that if we'd have dealt with Bradley Manning when he gave up all those documents to Julian Assange, that this wouldn't have happened.
Other people are sympathetic because this guy admitted he had all kinds of high hopes for Obama to stop this stuff, and Obama's only exacerbated it and made it worse, which is one of the reasons he's stated that he's come forward. The real danger to me, though, is not one or two rogue employees at the IRS or the NSA or the CIA. The real danger is having a rogue administration. And we do, I think. This is the primary challenge that we face.
RUSH: We go to Russell, San Angelo, Texas. You know what I love about San Angelo is, you have to be going there to get there. You will not accidentally --
RUSH: -- run into this place. How are you, Russell?
CALLER: I'm doing well. Thank you, Rush. Edward Snowden I'm absolutely convinced should not be prosecuted for any kind of leak. I believe in the Whistleblower Law and I think he should be immune to prosecution. My reasoning is this. The whistleblower laws were specifically designed for folks who understood they were being ordered to do something that was illegal or participated in something where higher-ups told them to do something, and just like the Nazis, you don't have a defense in doing something wrong or immoral because you were ordered to do so from the top. And therefore if what was going on that was illegal above him is true, he has a defense under the Whistleblower Law, and I think he should be immune from prosecution.
RUSH: Well, let's take the occasion of your phone call -- I need to ask you a question, though, seriously Russell. What if everything -- well, it wouldn't be. I was gonna say, what if everything was the same but you had a Republican president. Snowden did not go the route of whistleblowers. He should have, he should have --
CALLER: He should have.
RUSH: He didn't. He actually did not choose that route to go, but try to be as honest with me as you can here because I want to find out what you're really thinking. What percentage of your thinking that he should not be prosecuted is because he's exposing things happening under Obama?
CALLER: There is a part of that, but the other part of me also believes that things that Richard Nixon directed that were illegal, if he did indeed direct them, should not have been protected down the line. So to me it doesn't matter if it's a Republican administration or Democrat administration, if, in the chain of command -- and I learned this in the military, if you're given an order to do something that's illegal, you have a responsibility to disobey that illegal order and to do what is right. So to me it doesn't matter if it's Obama, Bush, Nixon, Reagan, it doesn't matter; he has a responsibility to blow the whistle and say something illegal is going on.
RUSH: Well, the name Nixon keeps coming up here, and Nixon didn't even dream of stuff like this. We are so far beyond what happened in Watergate with this it's astounding to me. We're so far beyond the attempted bugging of the Democrat National Committee and covering it up and all this Deep Throat -- I mean, we're so far beyond that. Obama has done that and more. Where Nixon failed to bug --
What are you exercised about in there, Snerdley? What's gotten you so upset? Well, okay. This is the conflict. There are people who think that no matter what, you don't compromise your intelligence gathering like this. No matter what you're exposing and no matter who you're exposing, you just don't. John Bolton would probably gain your approval today. But Bolton thinks this guy ought to be tried for treason. He ought to be pursued right now. They ought to be dragging him back here by the knuckles, bring him back here and draw this guy up no matter what because this is an expose of the entire technique and ability that we have that our enemies are -- and, by the way, people now saying, "Is this guy a Chinese agent already? Was this done to coincide with Obama's meeting president ChiComs?"
Try this theory, folks. When I read this I had to laugh. It's from some learned think tank. I don't remember who it was. "Well, let me tell you something. The reason why all this happened, the Chinese are behind this. The Chinese are behind Snowden. The Chinese are tired of Obama accusing them of hacking here and hacking there, so the Chinese released all this to show the world it's not just them hacking, it's the US hacking everybody."
I actually saw that explanation for what this is all about. The ChiComs have their feelings hurt that Obama's accusing them of hacking everybody and so the ChiComs, all right, let's show the US is doing it as well.
Now, Snowden did not go the route of whistleblowers. He should have. Snowden says he wanted leak information starting within a year of his working at the CIA in 2007. But he leaked the PRISM information less than three months of working for this consultancy, Booz Allen, essentially the National Security Agency, whatever that means. I think it's a good opportunity to go through who this guy is.
He was an NSA employee essentially working through outside contractors. Twenty-nine years old, lived in Hawaii, lived in a number of places, got hired by the CIA supposedly or the NSA with no high school diploma, no formal education at all. He was hired as a tech specialist. He was entrusted with some of the most intricate of this nation's secrets. I mean, there's a lot about his biography here that is just mind-boggling. If you listen to him, if you read what he says and then you learn that he's 29 years old, you wonder how's he been alive long enough to know everything he knows and to have the accompanying maturity and wisdom to go along with what he knows?
Now, he could be one of these really focused tech people who are, in their area, just out-of-sight brilliant. And they do it exist. But I made the mistake -- I don't know mistake, but I found myself when I was reading transcripts of interviews with the guy in the UK Guardian, when I was 29, I wasn't capable of speaking that way. I didn't know anywhere near what this guy knew about the ways of the world. Not just about CIA, but the ways of the world. I don't think I had anywhere near that level or degree of maturity, at least as I read what the guy had to say. Twenty-nine years old.
But again, there's a lot of other factors here that mitigate. Who's the source? Glenn Greenwald. Glenn Greenwald, UK Guardian, is as far left a journalist in this country as you can get. Okay, so that's a red flag for me. So I'm in a holding pattern just to wait and see, because, as you know, I do everything I can to avoid the conventional wisdom of the day, to follow the crowd. I do everything I can to not get caught up in what the daily media focus on energy is. And right now it's this guy and what he did and PRISM. Well, it's not just that. It's everybody's take on it, too.
I'm sitting here sort of undecided. Snerdley's been asking me, "Do you think this guy ought to be tried for treason?" I don't know yet. I'm not gonna be hurried into judgment on this, because to me it matters who has this kind of information. It matters to me who's collecting it. It matters ideologically who they are. Yeah, I do defend institutions and traditions, but they can become corrupted. And if this guy is participating in dealing with corruption, if he's ultimately trying to do something good and protect something that's going on -- I know it doesn't look at that now. It looks like he's exposing it. He is impugning it. He's maligning it.
There's also some confusing stuff. This guy says he's in Hong Kong because it's a beacon of hope and freedom? Where is that ever established? Hong Kong? The ChiComs can pull anybody out of Hong Kong any time they want. There's no extradition agreement between China and the United States. Hong Kong? This guy could go to any number of places. He could go to Sweden. He could go to any number of places. Hong Kong? I don't understand that at all. I don't see what secrets he revealed with PRISM. He basically told the story of a process.
But he didn't give away any secrets, Snerdley. What secret did he give away? The fact that we're doing it on this kind of a massive scale? I'm sorry, but if you didn't think this was going on already then you need to reapply yourself. The Google guy's alone are helping the administration do this kind of stuff. There's a news story about Eric Schmidt and his investment in the Obama administration, data mining and all kinds of stuff. I just printed it out. I must have put it on the bottom of something. The high-tech specialists of the world in Silicon Valley have been working with Obama since 2007, 2008 to give his campaign and the Democrat Party a leg up in all this stuff. The fact that it's going on to this degree doesn't surprise me at all.
I think there are some myths when I hear the guy say that he could read an e-mail of the president if he wanted. I don't believe that. Not without a warrant. This guy says he could, as long as he had somebody's e-mail, he could go find anything about 'em he wanted without a warrant. I'm not sure that I really believe all that. That's why I'm in a holding pattern on a lot of this stuff and trying not to jump any kind of a gun. But he didn't really reveal any secrets. He revealed a process that's taking place. I thought that we already knew everything that the Washington Post reported, except for the NSA's direct access to servers. That was new.
But when I first heard about PRISM, this is just to illustrate, when I first heard about PRISM, whenever last week, the first story that all these high tech companies were agreeing and supplying the government with this kind of information, I wasn't surprised at all. I've been under the impression that this kind of stuff has been going on a long time and that a lot of Americans are very much aware of it, directly or subliminally. You've got cameras on every street corner now. Everybody thinks their phone calls can be bugged. Everybody think their emails can be read. If you have Google or Yahoo you know your e-mails are scanned for target advertising purposes.
RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, let me ask you one more question about all of this data that's being collected, because Mr. Snerdley's thinking may represent the thinking of a lot of you. And that is, you seem to accept as okay that the government, intelligence agencies, would be collecting all of this data on Americans. And what makes you mad is that this little twerp has come along and exposed how it's done. Do any of you care why this is being done? It matters to me who is doing it. I've accepted that it's being done just like a lot of you have. But there's a question that I think needs to be asked. And that is, why are they doing this? No, no.
Seriously. You might say, "Well, we gotta protect against terrorism." But they're sweeping data on everybody.
In addition to who is doing it, what about the why are they doing it? Are any of you interested in that aspect of this? Well, of course they say national security, and then when they say national security, "Oh, oh, okay, okay, fine, fine." And then you forget about it. Well, you don't forget about it, you just assume. I think everybody's walking around at some level of consciousness, thinking that if somebody wants to find out about them, they can. In addition to that, everybody, if you go to these social networks, Facebook, Twitter, everybody, or a lot of people are volunteering every bit of information about themselves without having to be spied on. Putting a lot of trust in everybody, putting a lot of trust in their fellow citizens, in their friends, in government -- 'cause they want fame, they want to be known. That's its own problem, which we have addressed.
But in addition to who is in charge and has access, there's another question to me that's relevant, and that's, why?
Now, here's the Eric Schmidt story. Bloomberg Business Week: "Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt is pouring 'several million' dollars into creating a digital analytics firm made up of Obama for America alums. The new consultancy, Civis Analytics, is being headed up by 30-year-old Dan Wagner and will be based in Chicago, according to Bloomberg Businessweek. The new outfit plans to apply the same data strategies that produced a win for President Obama last year toward advancing other progressive causes -- and only progressive causes."
Now, I'm not equating what Google's doing with the NSA, don't misunderstand, spying on everybody, but Google is the place that the Obama regime goes to find campaign worker support. And you can be fairly confident that Google is doing everything they can to find out everything about as many people as possible so as to make that data available to the Democrat Party so that they can use it in ways that benefit them. You might say, "Well, the Republicans are doing the same thing." Well, I don't know if they are or not. It's just another example of massive data Hoovering that's taking place out there.
RUSH: There's an interesting little news item here from Eli Lake at The Daily Beast, which is Tina Brown. It's a left-wing website. And Eli Lake is reporting that the CIA has been after Edward Snowden since back in May when he left Booz Allen out in Hawaii. Now, you're going, "Yeah, see, Rush, yeah, they've known."
What good is all this monitoring, if they can't even find one of their leakers? They've been looking for him since May. The CIA has not been able to find him. He finally said. "I'm here, I'm out here in a motel room, I'm getting room service. I'm here in Hong Kong. I mean, the CIA station is right up the road. Come get me. I'm worried that you are. I'm really worried you're gonna come get me. I'm in Hong Kong." Noted bastion of freedom, by the way.
I think it's a good question. They've been after Snowden, the CIA, since back in May -- I guess about a month they've been looking for him. My question is, what good is all this monitoring if they can't even trace one of their leakers? Inside the "Q Group", the Directorate Hunting Down Edward Snowden, from the article, "The top secret 'Q Group' has been chasing Edward Snowden since he disappeared in May. The people who began chasing Snowden worked for the associate director for security and counterintelligence according to former US intelligence officers who spoke on condition of anonymity." The "Q Group" is the NSA's internal police force, in effect. That's what the "Q Group" is, they their own cop force there and be they've been looking for the guy for a month.
I'm sorry. I don't mean to laugh. I know it's our nation's security here. If what? Well, if he were Tea Party, would they have found him the next day? What you're saying is that they let him slide?
RUSH: Peter in Seattle. I'm glad you called. I'm glad you waited. It's great to have you on the program, sir. Hi.
CALLER: Rush, it's good to be on. At times like these, it's obvious why you are a living national treasure.
RUSH: Well, sir, if you knew what was going on today you would understand why I really appreciate you saying that. You will never know why I have so much appreciation for you saying that today, but I want you to know that I really do.
CALLER: Rush, nothing can make me happier than making you happy.
RUSH: Well, you did, you really did.
CALLER: What I wanted to say and why I called is, I agree with you. I don't believe the American people will never hold Obama responsible for his activities. However, I believe the Chinese may have found Obama fiscally irresponsible for his profligacy in spending and in quantitative easing. I believe Snowden has been backed by the Chinese. He's in Hong Kong, the "Q Group" couldn't find him, China engages in intensive data mining. They have obviously come across fellow miners in their travels. And how long do you think China's known about PRISM? Probably years and years. What China is experiencing is internal instability caused by inflation, hot money moving through the economies of the developing world. And if you ask China what they're mad about, all you got to do is read the paper. They've been complaining about quantitative easing for years, and that it's going to destabilize their country and other developing countries.
RUSH: Now, let me step in here for just a second because there might be people in the audience who are scratching their heads and saying, "Why do we care if the ChiComs are mad at us? If we're acting in our own best interests, why do we care if a bunch of communists are ticked off?" What would you say if somebody said that to you?
CALLER: Well, I think the American public probably doesn't care, but the reality is, Obama does, because what's been revealed is sources and methods, which is the most important thing an intelligence agency has -- how do they collect data? Further, China has basically put out a welcome mat for people who would defect, and I believe it's a shot across the bow of the Obama administration to say, restrain the money printing, you're going to internally destabilize China. And I believe that they've -- how could you even get into Hong Kong -- and you've said that Snowden's a smart guy -- how would you show up in Hong Kong and expect they'd provide you any cover if the entire United States was after you?
RUSH: Well, I don't know who's providing him cover. You know, when he's saying he's staying at a posh hotel and room service, if he was making 200 grand, it's a lot of money, but it's not a lot of money to live ongoing the way he is. Somebody has to be bankrolling him. But as to your other question, the fact that we keep printing money, $85 billion a month be with the China owns a lot of our debt, that's a reason why they would be livid.
I mean, if you look at this objectively, as objectively as you can given that the ChiComs are communist, they should be furious about what our Federal Reserve is doing, printing $85 billion a month, in a sense devaluing their currency, while at the same time we've got people here in this country upset at the Chinese for playing games their currency
CALLER: Right. If I could just add, my concern is for the American working public.
CALLER: The results long term of this kind of monetary expansion are going to hurt rank-and-file Americans.
RUSH: Oh, there's no question. They already are. And you are exactly right. Printing all this money to prop up the stock market so as to allow Obama to claim an economic recovery or a strong economy or whatever, yeah, you're absolutely right about this.
CALLER: And the other thing, he keeps his own base happy. Twenty-three million people on food stamps.
CALLER: Where's all the money coming from for that?
RUSH: Well, look at the numbers on disability now. We got more people on disability and Medicare, rather, than the populations of some European countries. We got all these people not working who are eating and phone calling and watching television and driving cars. Somebody's providing money for that, you're right, that's Obama. this is your point. People's savings are being raped. Right?
CALLER: Absolutely. And I believe that the Chinese are -- the one thing about the Chinese activities relative to Americans is it's kind -- in some very distant analogy -- is kind of like the French during the Revolutionary War, were the French really motivated by how much they were impressed by our ideals, or did they have an ongoing struggle with the British and not want the British to have a colony that was resource rich and basically further empowered the Brits? They made a decision based upon their own interests which happened to provide an opportunity for Americans to maintain and gain liberty.
RUSH: Well, it's amazing how things work out.
CALLER: And the Chinese activities may -- you know I love America, and I want America to prosper, but I think that it's a message that you have to -- it's unimaginable that they could not get this guy if he didn't have some type of national support.
RUSH: By the way, you're back to Snowden. According to the latest reports we have here that buzz in over our various information, we have our own Hoover system here. We sweep a lot of data in here ourselves, and according to what we have, the latest Hoover we have here is that Snowden has left his hotel in Hong Kong. Nobody knows where he is. After divulging that he was in a fine suite with room service and mounting bills, he's now vanished from that hotel and nobody knows where he is.
CALLER: Well, I fear that he is a idealistic person that doesn't know what he's gotten into.
RUSH: It does, to me, sound like exactly he knows -- maybe he doesn't know the full scope, but he knows he's hunted, he knows his family's up deep doo-doo, he knows that he thinks he may be killed/
CALLER: I think that's a reasonable assumption. And my fear is that when he becomes no longer useful --
RUSH: Wait a minute, wait a minute. Reasonable assumption be killed -- in your mind, reasonable that who would kill him?
CALLER: The reality is that he has ruffled a lot of feathers, and the fact is he's a whistleblower? How many whistleblowers have preceded him that weren't quite as smart, that didn't go to the right paper, that didn't go to Hong Kong, that didn't do everything right and the "Q Group" came across them before they said word one?
RUSH: I don't want to nitpick here, but he really didn't whistle blow. He should have -- technically -- it's complicated, but he -- he's actually didn't engage in whistleblowing. Now, the LA Times is saying that Edward Snowden is gone from his Hong Kong hotel, whereabouts unknown. How anybody knows that, I don't know. I mean, how do you know he's gone if you don't know where he is?
But look at what we're talking about here. You just agreed, "Oh, the likelihood, yeah, he's dead, somebody's gonna kill him." We're talking about our country? Are we talking about our government? Listen to this. Listen. How acceptable it is. That's right. We can kill American, all we gotta do is find this guy with a drone, and "poof," as Lanny Davis says, "poof," he's gone. If we got a drone anywhere near where the dude is, Obama's got his finger on the trigger, they keep telling us that. I'll bet you if they find this guy, we'll know where Obama is every second of the day as they're tracking him. Be totally unlike Benghazi.