RUSH: To Houston, Texas, next. This is Paul. Great to have you on the EIB Network, sir, hello.
CALLER: Hey, pleasure to talk to you, Rush. And my question for you was, how likely do you think it is that some of our defense cuts that we’ve made, like the F-22, some of these fast destroyers, are appeasement for the Chinese buying up our debt to sort of empower their —
RUSH: Well, that would require speculation. I would rather put the cuts in defense where they belong. I mean you can blame the ChiComs all you want, but it’s Barack Obama ordering them, right? Now, who cares why? He’s cutting the expansion of defense systems. The secretary of defense, Robert Gates, who is a holdover from the Bush administration, says, (paraphrasing) ‘We don’t really need all these anymore. We’re going to go high-tech. We’re going to get more intel. We don’t need the F-22, we don’t need this, we don’t need that, we don’t need the new Navy destroyers, cruisers,’ whatever the hell they are. This is just Obama. Democrats do two things: they raise taxes and cut defense. Now, if you want to say that the ChiComs are having a role here, I’ll tell you where the ChiComs are involved. Does anybody but me — I mean, this was hilarious. If it weren’t so serious, it would be hilarious. There’s Barry, he’s over in Europe promising a nuclear free world at the moment Kim Jong Il launches his test missile. And Obama said, (doing Obama impression) ‘I know, I know, I’m not naive, I’m aware, uh, uh, but I’m not naive.’
I’ll tell you, if you want ChiCom involvement, the ChiComs own us. They are our banker. We want more debt we gotta go to the ChiComs. The ChiComs’ allies are North Korea and Iran. This is the problem we have. The ChiComs, they might be telling Obama, ‘Hey, Bam, you want to keep us as your banker, get rid of these weapons systems that could pose problems for us,’ but our nukes do that anyway, and Obama is talking about getting rid of those, too. Folks, I gotta tell you something. It’s no wonder Obama is so damn popular over there. Who’s he talking to? He talking to Putin. He’s talking to Medvedev. He’s talking to the KGB. He’s talking to the Iranians, (doing Obama impression) ‘We’re going to lead the way. We’re gonna get rid of our nuke weapons; we’re the only nation that ever used them and that means that we have a moral authority get rid of ours, moral leadership to show the rest of the world how it’s done.’ And they’re going, ‘Yay, what a great guy,’ and Putin is looking at Medvedev saying, ‘Can you believe this gift? This loco weed is going to get rid of his nukes, and he thinks we’re going to get rid of them too. Hell’s bells we’ll applaud that, damn right, and when he wants to verify we’ll take him all over Siberia and say, ‘See, there aren’t any.” And the mullahocracy down in Iran, they’re doing the same thing.
Of course he’s popular. He’s disarming the United States. Now, this business with North Korea launching the nukes, Gates said there’s nothing we can do to stop it. The Japanese just had to watch it and they said, ‘If anything falls in our country, we’re going to go after it.’ But nothing did. It made it across Japan and into the Pacific Ocean. Do you realize the moral leadership or authority we have surrendered in claiming we can’t stop the Iranians? Do you realize how much is being repeated? I’m going to tell you who Obama is in world history. Neville Chamberlain. He is the spitting image of Neville Chamberlain. Neville Chamberlain was as popular as Obama when he got back from visiting Hitler. In fact, there is a story in the New York Times recently — might be today, might be yesterday, I forget which — Hitler’s economic policies were not bad for Germany. The New York Times, Hitler’s economic policies, they weren’t bad. He got a little excessive here when the Holocaust got kicked up, but Hitler’s economic policies were not bad. Well, now, why would that assertion be made by the Drive-Bys who are hell-bent on Obama being seen as something other than he is?
So I am telling you, if you want to compare Obama in any way, compare him to Neville Chamberlain. He comes back, he says we’re going to have peace in our time, and he’s feted and he’s adulated and he is celebrated and he is regaled, and Obama is basically doing the same thing in his world tour. (doing Obama impression) ‘We’re going to have peace in our time. Get rid of our nuclear weapons, by the way, the United States is not going to do the awful things that we’ve been doing. Now I’m in charge, we understand what we’re guilty of, we’re sorry, and we’re gonna become mediocre like the rest of you. That way you won’t hate us.’ Well, I’ve been asked the question, ‘Do you think anybody believes he’s really going to get rid of nukes?’ At this stage, again using intelligence guided by experience, Mr. Snerdley, and looking at everything else Obama is getting rid of you have to keep it open as a possibility. You have to. That’s who he is. Don’t you understand, what was the nuclear freeze movement, the global peace march for nuclear disarmament?
There are Americans, people around the world who think the only reason the world is at war is because of us; we’re too big; we gotta be cut down to size; it’s not fair there’s only one superpower because we’ve become a superpower not because of our Constitution, but we’ve stolen all these resources; we’ve stolen the best people; we’ve stolen everything; we use it for ourselves; we haven’t paid it back, people live in poverty because of us. Obama believes this garbage, I’m afraid. Do Medvedev and these guys think that he means it? Even if they don’t, they’re going to try to encourage him to do it. You gotta take it seriously.
RUSH: Look, it’s a very simple question. If Obama does not intend to reduce our stockpile of nuclear weapons, why is he saying he does? (interruption) For adulation. So he’s just saying it. He doesn’t mean it. He’s just saying it because he wants to get the adulation at the thought to it, just like he’s not really going to get us out of Iraq. He’s just going to say so because he wants the adulation and all that. Ah, you may have a point. The point is he won’t be able to get rid of them. That is the bottom line. Congress would stop him from doing that at some point. (interruption) Yes, Pelosis and Harry Reids. Yes. At some point, you know, sanity will emerge for fleeting moments when it’s necessary. Otherwise, it will remain hidden behind the rocks.
RUSH: I was asked earlier, ladies and gentlemen, by somebody doubting me, ‘Do you really think Obama intends to get rid of nuclear weapons? And do you really think all these world leaders think that he means it?’ Let me read to you from the Associated Press, the writer of the story, Anne Gearan. She says that Obama’s no-nukes promise is not so farfetched, and this is what suffices as AP analysis: ‘Nuclear weapons have become more trouble than they are worth, an expensive luxury for superpowers and a threat for the rest of the world.’ Nuclear weapons have become more trouble than they’re worth? Who the hell believes that? I dare say only the American left believes that. I’ll guaran-damn-tee you Putin doesn’t believe it. I’ll guaran-damn-tee you the mullahs and little Mahmoud don’t believe it, but I will guarantee you that Kim Jong Il does not think that they are more trouble than they are worth. They probably all do agree with the fact that they are a luxury and a threat for the rest of the world. I’m sure they agree with that. That’s why they want them.
Here’s the second bit of analysis from the brilliant Anne Gearan at AP: ‘The size of the U.S. and Russian arsenals inspires nuclear starter-states such as China to add to their stockpiles and give non-nuclear states a reason to join the club.’ That’s right out of the belief system Obama I’m sure grew up with being taught, that the rest of the world is mean because we are, that the rest of the world has weapons because we do. No moral distinction whatsoever. There’s a moral equivalence. We’re bad, therefore they’re bad. We behave in a braggadocios, bullying way, in their view, it’s only natural the world would stand up to us. It’s all our fault and this is the AP agreeing with it, and a lot of the American left does, too. And then this is the piece de resistance. This is the third analysis point from Anne Gearan of AP: ‘Getting serious about eliminating nuclear weapons makes the United States more credible when it argues that states such as Iran should not be able to build their own arsenals.’
So these naive little people believe that if we get serious about eliminating nuclear weapons, we are more credible when we tell the Iranians not to. It’s not, Mr. Snerdley, they ‘will’ think we are fools. They do. They think we’re fools for electing Obama already. I guarantee you that the mullahs and Putin and Medvedev and Hu Jintao in China celebrated the day Obama got elected because they know what liberals in this country believe. They believe all the Soviet communist propaganda that was put out for 40 years. It’s the US’ fault. That’s why he’s going to be applauded, that’s why I told you he is applauded over there. These people hope he means it. They’re going to try to hold him to it. They’re going to make him try to do this because they’re going to lie to him and tell him they’re interested in the same thing, except the Iranians. The Iranians will not because they claim they need to wipe Israel off the map, to which people will yawn, you know, no big deal.