RUSH: Doug in Orlando. Nice to have you with us, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Hey, mega dittos, Rush. And, yes, we want victory. (chuckles)
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: Hey, you know, professor/state senator Barack Obama is sounding pretty theoretical in that clip you played, but he wasn’t theoretical at the time at all. I went to the Way Back Machine. I don’t know if you know what that is, but I looked at the Woods Fund website back in 2001 and 2002, and there you can see what they did and who was there, and there he was: Barack Obama, on the board of directors with Ayers. And in 2001, they were going through a strategic reorganization of the Woods Fund toward… You know, they crafted a new strategic plan, and they crafted it so that the Woods Fund would go in the direction of distributing money for projects that were community activism. You could see who they gave it to like ACORN and so on. They wanted to promote social change. So it’s an experiment with community organizing, you know, to promote or advance social change. So it wasn’t theoretical. It sounds theoretical; it certainly wasn’t. He had the means, the money, the mechanism in hand there with Ayers to experiment with this stuff and put it on the street.
RUSH: All right, now, I agree with all of that. But we’ve got eight days to go. We’ve gotta start thinking tactics now. It’s like this driver’s license thing, folks. Let me just hit you between the eyes: It’s a waste of time. We can’t prove it! When you can’t prove something, you drop it. It’s a waste of time. Now, the judge threw the case out in Philadelphia last week. A Mr. Berg had filed it and so forth. Nobody was ever going to be able to prove it. All there is is speculation. Eight days speculation is not going to do anybody any good. It’s not going to sway any independents. It’s not going to change anybody’s minds. You know, the birth certificate thing, who knows? They may find out at some point, but you can’t prove it, so it’s a waste of time. This Woods Fund stuff and Bill Ayers, there’s no question that Obama found these people.
We’ve got eight days to go. We need to focus on Obama not the Woods Fund, because, ‘Who’s that?’ And we need to focus on Obama, not Ayers, because I guarantee you, a lot of people don’t know who he is. McCain focused on Ayers in one of the debates, but he didn’t tell anybody who Ayers is so nobody outside of this universe of people that really cares about it understands who Bill Ayers is. And the Drive-Bys are doing CYA now. The New York Daily News has a story today saying (paraphrased), ‘Come on! Bill Ayers is a 1960s joke. You know, it’s time to give the guy a break, cut him some slack. There’s nothing there.’ They’re trying to cover the bases, circle the wagons and all this stuff. It’s time to tie Obama to Obama! We’ve got to tie Barack Obama to Obama, and after we tie Obama to Obama then tie him to hear Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, and what’s going to happen to this country if they get unchecked power.
RUSH: Let’s go back to the audio sound bites. This is yesterday in Colorado Springs on the radio, Senator Barack Obama.
OBAMA: There are a lot of Democrats who may be elected who have made a commitment to their constituents to be centrist. I don’t think they’re going to want to have big, sudden lurches to the left, I don’t think that we’re going to have to time to engage in a bunch of crazy things that people — that the McCain campaign specifically has — has suggested we might.
RUSH: I’ll tell you something, Senator Obama, I’m not even listening to Senator McCain on this, I’m listening to you. I am not worried about whether Senator McCain can accurately express or convey to people what you’re saying. I just need to listen to you. And listening to him in this bite, ladies and gentlemen, is more confirmation. There are a lot of Democrats who may be elected who have made a commitment to their constituents to be centrist? Yeah, with Barney Frank talking about a 25% cut in the military budget, when we’ve got two wars going on and an enemy at our doorstep every day and night? Centrist? Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, centrist? Forget about these Democrats who may be elected who have made a commitment to their constituents to be centrist, we look at the leaders, Obama. That means Reid and Pelosi and you, and we hear what Pelosi wants to do and we hear what Reid wants to do, they’re salivating at 60 votes in the Senate. I don’t think they’re going to want to have sudden lurches to the left?
Where do you think we’ve been heading under your party for all of these years? We’re just doing everything we can to stop you in your tracks! A sudden lurch to the left took place decades ago in your party, and it hasn’t stopped except when we’ve beaten you at the ballot box. Then he says, ‘I don’t think we’re going to have to time to engage in a bunch of crazy things that the McCain campaign specifically has suggested we might’? Not going to have time? He could do a lot of this by signing one piece of legislation, some little peace treaty with the UN. He could do a lot of damage in six months, suddenly lurching to the left. We’re not going to have time? Otherwise you’d do it? We’re not going to have time to lurch to the left? That’s much different than saying, I don’t want to lurch to the left, I’m a centrist moderate. We’re not going to have time. We’re not going to have time to lurch to the left. If you, again, this Obama tape, I want to again remind you, he is complaining in this tape from 2001 that the Supreme Court hasn’t been radical enough, and he doesn’t think he can count on the Supreme Court to accomplish all the redistribution that he wants. There’s too much in the Constitution about limited powers. There’s too much in the Constitution about separation of powers. It’s problematic, too much to do there.
The Constitution is too big an obstacle is what he’s saying. This whole discussion of negative versus positive rights can be boiled down to something very simple. What Obama wants to do and his buddies, they want the Constitution to be used to forever require judges to rule as a matter of law for economic and social justice. That’s the bottom line. They don’t think there are enough rights in the Constitution. They think the Constitution limits the federal government too much. They want the Constitution to have more rights, but they can’t do that, it’s too big a problem to change that so they want the judges to do it for them, just the way they found rights to allow Roe v. Wade. They want new rights found in the Constitution by judges and they’re calling this positive. They’re calling all of this positive rights. They’re looking at it as expanding constitutional rights for social justice and economic justice, and social and economic justice simply equals redistribution. They want judges to find these rights, since it’s too problematic to go argue before the courts all the time because it takes time, the judges are going to get caught up in the Constitution itself.
So he’s saying to change the Constitution, we’re going to have to get judges appointed that will simply invent law and therefore call it constitutional. That’s his idea. And along with that, when he says ‘One of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.’ Let me translate that for you. Yeah, the courts aren’t the place to do this redistributive work. The Constitution’s usefulness in this regard was limited by the founders. There are all kinds of separation of powers claptrap; this bogs down our mission. The secret of transforming America to my Obama utopia is community organizations and all the hell they can raise, like ACORN. That’s the fulcrum of the power we can leverage to remake society, community organizations just raising hell. I mean, the notion that Obama believes the key to his radical agenda is organizations — the reason he says that, by the way, is ’cause they last. You set up an ACORN, you find a way to get the federal government to fund it and it’s there forever.
It’s all over his early writings. It’s all over his early interviews, and this one, too, from 2001 that we’re playing. And it’s easy to gloss over these kinds of statements ’cause community organize — we still make fun of it. We make fun of the fact he was a community organizer, but he’s dead serious about it, and that’s his foundational building block to change the Constitution from outside, not within. He was doing that. He got hold of ACORN, he aimed it straight at the heart of the American republic. It was the key to voter fraud and the torpedoing of the American economy. Without ACORN, they would have had a much tougher time bringing off this calamity that the subprime mortgage crisis is, because ACORN was out there agitating, which is what community organizations do, everybody, banks, government, politicians, you name it, and they were getting federal money to do it to boot. So if you take ACORN out of this subprime mess, you have less of a subprime mess. I am convinced that ACORN is and has been far more significant and dangerous than we even realize.
The way for me to sum this up to you, the way I look at this — and, yes, I’ll admit I have fear about this, we see all these investigations for fraud involving ACORN, 15, 17 of them, whatever the number is now, they’ve been at this for 30 years. This is what America is going to look like in order to accomplish Obama’s social and economic justice, his redistribution. Along with his tax increases, this group out there working on his behalf, this is what America is going to become, one giant, constantly agitated populace. And you know people don’t like to be agitated, and when they start to be agitated and people start harassing you and start hassling you, you do one of three things, but the idea of any action you take is to stop it. And most Americans are appeasers. Oh, you’ll stop harassing me if you get this, fine. And they’ll vote for somebody to give ’em that, just for peace, just to get some peace. Even if you’re a businessman, you don’t want to be hassled by ACORN, fine, give ’em something, get ’em off my back. It’s easier to appease them. But they are never satisfied. You can never give the left enough. Look at all they got in the Great Society. Look at all they’ve gotten, eventually every social program they want. It’s never enough. They just keep coming, and that is why it’s crucial we have people willing to stand up and stop ’em.
There are fewer and fewer on our side willing to stand up and stop ’em. And to those I say, who are unwilling to stop the forward march of the left, fine, go join ’em if you want a job with them down the road.
RUSH: We’ll go to San Francisco. This is Jeff. Nice to have you on the program, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Hello, Rush. Thank you for taking my call.
RUSH: Yes, sir.
CALLER: You do great work. I’ll get right to the point, as Bo told me. I recently reread Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals after about 35 years, and it’s the key to Obama. The whole book is about rubbing raw the healing wounds of the society in order to gain power. And one of the things he says, and this is a quote, ‘An organizer working for change doesn’t have a fixed truth. Truth to him is relative and changing, and if you’re worried about this gives somebody like Hitler moral credibility, you’d be right, if he won the war. But since he doesn’t, he’s devil.’ And he goes on to say, ‘The organizer must gain the trust of the people by looking and sounding just like them. All effective actions require the passport of morality. If the people are churchgoers, the organizer had better go to church, too.’ And he says that the ends always justify the means. And he also makes the point in there that nothing can help the poor but that the people who are in the middle are the ones for whom you can gain trust and credibility and therefore gain power, and that’s what Obama is.
RUSH: Now, how would you explain Saul Alinsky to people who never heard of him?
CALLER: Well, he was an organizer in Chicago, which I believe is why Obama went to Chicago.
RUSH: Let me shorten the question, because of time. Why would anybody like Saul Alinsky, why would anybody like Barack Obama, why would they want to take this great country and pervert it and change it? Why are they so angry about this great country?
CALLER: Well, I think what he preys upon, at least to that, is the idealism of youth; people who really are not experienced and don’t know very much about American history and about the Constitution and who do see some, you know, injustice and poverty about them and are motivated to try and correct them. But they don’t understand that America is the vehicle for correcting those problems.
RUSH: Right, that’s exactly right. The people, their social justice desires are preyed upon, and they become useful idiots. They become pawns for Alinsky and his disciples to actually reform the government, and have whatever you want to call it. Socialist, Marxist, whatever it is. They want to destroy capitalism. They use the guilt and the fear of the majority of people, which is the middle class, constantly throwing at them, ‘Look at how unfair this is, the person sleeping under the bridge or the sewer grate. This is unfair. We’ve gotta do something about it.’
‘Yes it is totally unfair. I don’t like looking at it.’
‘Well, we’ll raise taxes on people! We’ll redistribute income. That will get rid of it.’
‘Oh, yeah! I want to feel better about my country and so forth.’
They have no clue how they’re being utilized because the idealism of their desires, wanting a utopia, is what allows the Obamas and the Alinskys to further their notions.