Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

Listen to it Button

RUSH: The news coming out of Boston. Well, it’s not the news. There isn’t any news coming out of Boston. The speculation that continues in the Drive-By Media is becoming ridiculous and absurd, even more so than yesterday, if that’s possible. Like I have this here from CNN, the headline: “Boston Marathon Bombs Have Hallmarks Of ‘Lone Wolf’ Devices, Experts Say.”

Now, listen to this. “The devices used in the Boston Marathon attack Monday are typical of the ‘lone wolf:’ the solo terrorist who builds a bomb on his own by following a widely available formula. In this case, the formula seems very similar to one that Al-Qaeda has recommended to its supporters around the world as both crudely effective and difficult to trace. But –” but, but, wait for it, “it is also a recipe that has been adopted by –” dadelut dadelut dadelut “extreme right-wing individuals in the United States.” Right-wing individuals utilize the same tactics, techniques as Al-Qaeda.

Nowhere in any publication, on any website, will you read anybody speculating about the possibility that an extreme left-wing wacko did this. They don’t even consider the possibility. Let me throw one out for you. One of President Obama’s close friends is Bill Ayers. Bill Ayers got his start blowing things up, such as what happened at the Boston Marathon. Bill Ayers is well known as a bomber. He’s well known as a former terrorist, and Bill Ayers teaches. What if one of Bill Ayers’ students is out there trying to emulate him?

“Mr. Limbaugh, that is absolutely irresponsible. You can’t just openly speculate.”

Why not? The left is out speculating that it’s gotta be an extreme right-winger doing all this. Why can’t I pose the possibility? You got this guy, Bill Ayers, and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, and they’re out there teaching people, and they’re ex-bombers. They’re well known as bombers. They’re friends of the president. They’re very proud ex-bombers. They’re very proud of the fact that they bombed the Pentagon and police departments. And they teach kids. What if the terrorist happens to be an acolyte of Bill Ayers? I mean, it could be the ultimate extra credit project. It could be the ultimate polishing the apple for the teacher kind of thing.

“Mr. Limbaugh, this is ridiculous. You are reaching new lows.”

What do you mean, new lows, Mr. New Castrati? If you guys are gonna open this door and go in and start playing around with who mighta done this and who they are, why can’t we? I think it’s rather fun to think that maybe one of Bill Ayers acolytes did this, or one of Bernardine Dohrn’s. Or maybe that professor at Columbia who’s well known as a bomber and a killer. They all got their start doing stuff like this. By the way, I saw it on Drudge. There’s a story from 2010, some manual, some website, some publication exclusive to Islamists, jihadists, instructions on how to use pressure cookers. Yes siree, bobkin. It’s out there. It’s instructions and ways to use pressure cookers to create bombs. I’ve got it all here in the Stack of Stuff.

They even went out, CNN, dragged up this troll, this Mark Potok guy from the Southern Poverty Law Center. Now, Potok’s got a beard, and I guarantee, no way this guy can be considered sexy to anybody. Even Potok says (paraphrasing), “Nah, it can’t be a right-winger. It can’t be any of that because nobody targeted the government. They didn’t say they’re angry at blacks, Jews, gays, Muslims, and the government, so it can’t be a right-winger.” I got the audio sound bites to support all this.

Terry Francona, the former manager of the Boston Red Sox, now the manager of the Cleveland Indians, yesterday in Cleveland before they played the Red Sox, Francona held a press conference and a reporter said, “Given your roots in Boston, how tough was that whole day for you yesterday?”

FRANCONA: You know, you turn on the TV and you hear right wing, left wing. I wish there were no wings. I just wish people would get along. I don’t understand it and I don’t pretend to. I hope that there’s people way smarter than me that are somehow, someday able to figure this out so stuff like this doesn’t happen.

RUSH: Back to sound bite number one now. Terry Francona: I hear left wing, I hear right wing, I wish there were no wings. That, by the way — well, no. I was gonna characterize it as low-information, but I don’t think this guy’s a low-information guy. Francona probably epitomizes people as sick and tired of the kind of coverage an event like that — who started all this speculation, left wing, right wing, who does this? Who is it that politicizes everything? It’s the people in the media and the people on the left. Again, I just want to remind you what I do. I get up every day. I do show prep. I read. I absorb. I see. I listen. And I, every day, see people and issues and traditions and institutions that I love and revere under assault, and I come here and I defend them.

I never open the newspaper, never, I never go to a website, I never turn on the TV hoping to find something I can attack. It isn’t what I do. I defend. And it’s an everyday thing because we are under constant assault from the people in the media, from the Democrat Party, from the left, we are under constant assault. American conservatives, Republicans, constantly under assault, every day. It basically is just defending. And that act of defending what we believe gets mischaracterized as attacking people, and it isn’t. I don’t have it in me just to let some of this stuff go by without commenting. The attacks that deal with me, I do let them go. I don’t recognize those. But the things that I believe in, the people that I believe in, if they’re under assault, I defend them. Now, here’s FBI special agent in charge, Richard DesLauriers, he was in Boston last night at a press conference talking about the marathon bombing.

DESLAURIERS: At this time there are no claims of responsibility. The range of suspects and motives remains wide open. Importantly, the person who did this is someone’s friend, neighbor, coworker, or relative. We’re asking anyone who may have heard someone speak about the marathon or the date of April 15th in any way that indicated that he or she may target the event, to call us. Someone knows who did this.

RUSH: Folks, this isn’t comforting. They don’t have a clue. They don’t know anything. It’s wide open. It’s a cold trail. They don’t have any idea who did this, unless they do and are withholding it for some reason. But that doesn’t sound like it. From Salon.com, Salon magazine, a piece by David Sirota. Headline: “Let’s Hope the Boston Marathon Bomber is a White American.” Let me read that to you again. Salon magazine, David Sirota, S-i-r-o-t-a. Headline: “Let’s Hope the Boston Marathon Bomber is a White American.”

Why should we hope that the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American? In a nutshell, the author claims that, if the bomber or bombers turn out to be anything but white Americans, it will set back the cause of liberalism. That is, it will set back amnesty. It will set back gun control — about which I should note there’s a vote on the gun control bill at four o’clock this afternoon.


RUSH: We’re going to be talking about the gun control bill and some of the things related to it, but it is in peril now. It is in peril because of what happened in Boston. So is amnesty, or the immigration bill.

But in a nutshell, Mr. Sirota here at Salon magazine says that if the bombers in Boston turn out to be anything but white Americans, it’ll set back the cause of liberalism. That is amnesty, and gut national security. From the article: “That means regardless of your particular party affiliation, if you care about everything from stopping war to reducing the defense budget to protecting civil liberties to passing immigration reform, you should hope the bomber was a white domestic terrorist.

“Why? Because only in that case will privilege work to prevent the Boston attack from potentially undermining progress on those other issues. … [I]t’s easy to imagine conservatives citing Boston as a reason to block immigration reform defense spending cuts and the Afghan War withdrawal and to further expand surveillance and other encroachments on civil liberties.” In other words, we must not let a terrorist attack slow down our surrender in the war on terrorism.

And, by the way, what is really… It is. It’s hilarious. Here’s this guy; he’s a liberal. He’s wringing his hands. He’s all worried about increased surveillance. He’s all worried about the erosion of civil liberties, and who is it that’s out there demanding more cameras today? Who is it that’s saying cities need more cameras to be able to spy on more people and their activities? It’s Mayor Doomberg, is it not?

I’m sure every other liberal Democrat politician agrees, and yet these liberal writers at these websites are convinced that it’s still George W. Bush that wants to encroach on their civil liberties and spy on ’em. So stop and think. By the way, this guy, Sirota? He’s not a lone wolf. I guarantee you that his piece here represents the thinking of about 110% of the American left. “Oh, my God, if it’s anything but a white guy, oh, are we in trouble!”

From the moment this happened, they have been trying to steer everybody to thinking that a right-wing extremist did this, that the Tea Party did this. Any time something like this happens at all — up in Sandy Hook, out in Colorado — it doesn’t matter what happens. They don’t wait. They don’t care. They immediately get people thinking, “It had to be an extreme right-winger! It had to be an angry white guy!”

These people live in a world of cliches. They live in a world of stereotypes. They live in narratives. They don’t even live in the real world. They live in narratives. You know what the narrative on abortion is. The Gosnell trial hasn’t received much coverage until now. The reason it hasn’t is the narrative in abortion. There’s only one story in abortion the left covers. There’s only one story in abortion they care about.

That narrative is “the erosion of reproductive rights.” That’s all abortion is to them. Whenever the subject comes up, if the story can’t be plugged into that hole, they don’t run it. The only relevant fact to them, in the whole area of abortion, is the fact that there are people who want to take away women’s reproductive rights. So the Gosnell case comes along and we have infanticide! What this guy did is the subject of horror movies, horror television shows.

It’s unspeakable what this guy was doing. But it doesn’t fit the lone narrative that the left has on abortion, and that narrative is: “The only story on abortion is, ‘There are Republicans who want to deny a woman’s right to choose! There are Republicans who want to stop women’s reproductive freedom!'” So you have the Gosnell case where you have infanticide, where you’ve got murder of babies who survive abortions.

He was doing what State Senator Obama voted for back in Illinois. Gosnell was killing babies who survived abortions. In unspeakable ways. In unspeakable, filthy conditions. I mean, it’s unspeakable what this guy was doing! That doesn’t matter. There’s one narrative in abortion, and it’s the only narrative that’ll get covered, and that is: “Republicans want to deny women their reproductive freedom!”

Anything else doesn’t get covered because there is nothing else important about abortion. That’s why the Gosnell piece wasn’t covered until they were shamed, basically, by Kirsten Powers of Fox. So now they’re desperately hoping, “Oh, it’s gotta be a white guy that blew up the Boston Marathon! Oh, the guy has to be white. If it’s a minority, oh, God. If it’s an immigrant, oh, no! Oh, no! If it’s Al-Qaeda, oh, no!”


RUSH: Okay, David Sirota at Salon magazine: “Let’s Hope the Boston Marathon Bomber is a White American.” I have to think that most liberals are thinking the same thing. I have a question, seriously. If a liberal in Boston happens to know that the bomber is not a white American, will the liberal tell the FBI? The left does not want this bomber to be a minority or Al-Qaeda or a Muslim or terrorist. The left wants the bomber to be white and conservative. And if they know the bomber is not white, will they shut up and not tell the FBI? Is it that bad?


RUSH: I want to ask another question. If we’re supposed to be rooting for a “white American” to be the Boston Marathon bomber, are we also now supposed to be rooting for a white American to be sending ricin-tainted letters to politicians? I mean, after all, if the left is hoping for a white American to be the bomber, would they not tell the cops about suspicious packages dropped off by nonwhite Americans? (interruption) No, no, no. Mr. Snerdley, I’m dead serious when I ask this question. (interruption)

No, I’m not trying to be provocative or stir things up. Look, we’ve got a whole piece here at Salon.com: “Let’s Hope the Boston Marathon Bomber is a White American.” You know that he’s not a lone wolf here. You know that a lot of liberals are thinking the same thing. They’re thinking, “Oh, gosh, I hope it’s a white guy. Oh, God, it can’t be one of us! It can’t be an immigrant. Oh, no! It can’t be Al-Qaeda,” because Al-Qaeda is on the run. We beat terrorism.

“Oh, no, it can’t be! It’s gotta be a white guy. It’s gotta be Tea Party. It’s gotta be, gotta be.” So if we find evidence to the contrary, if there is a witness out there who has any idea who did this but who did this is not a white American, are they gonna shut up and not tell the authorities? Remember, liberals are liberals first. Whatever they are next — women, Jewish, black, gay — they’re liberals first and foremost. Mr. Sirota, I want to give you a few more excerpts from his piece.

“[I]tÂ’s easy to imagine conservatives citing Boston as a reason to block immigration reform defense spending cuts and the Afghan War withdrawal and to further expand surveillance and other encroachments on civil liberties. … If recent history is any guide, if the bomber ends up being a white anti-government extremist, white privilege will likely mean the attack is portrayed as just an isolated incident — one that has no bearing on any larger policy debates.”

You know, like the way the Oklahoma City bombing was never used to whip up fear of right-wing extremists. It doesn’t work that way, does it? It seems to me that when militant Islamists engage in terrorism, the first thing we’re told is, “This is a lone wolf, doesn’t represent anything more than just that one guy. Don’t say it! This doesn’t taint his religion! This does not taint a group. No, no. Don’t even go there.” The Fort Hood shooter?

The Fort Hood shooting, they called it “workplace violence.” Oh, no, no, no. Fort Hood shooting? No, no, no! Nothing more than workplace violence. This guy claims here that if it’s “a white anti-government extremist,” who bombed the Boston Marathon “white privilege,” white power, will prevail and make sure the attack is portrayed as just one by this lone wacko. Anyway, I could give you other excerpts, but you get the drift. This is how they think. Again, this is nothing new. Ever since…

My gosh, I guess it’s ever since Oklahoma City and even prior to that. I’ll tell you when this phenomenon began. You could have incidents like this and nobody politicized them right off the bat. It wasn’t until the Drive-By Media lost its monopoly, it wasn’t ’til the late eighties and early nineties that trying to blame “right-wingers” for every circumstance like this began in earnest. Now, CNN has this story. “New Issue of Magazine Offers Jihadists Terror Tips.” This is from October 12th of 2010.

“The second edition of an online al Qaeda magazine has surfaced with frank essays, creatively designed imagery and ominous terror tips such as using a pickup truck as a weapon and shooting up a crowded restaurant in Washington. The magazine is called Inspire and intelligence officials believe that an American citizen named Samir Khan, now living in Yemen, is the driving force behind the publication,” and as you read the story, you come to this:

“An idea in the first edition, ‘Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom,’ is touched on again. ‘The pressurized cooker should be placed in crowded areas and left to blow up. More than one of these could be planted to explode at the same time. However, keep in mind that the range of the shrapnel in this operation is short range so the pressurized cooker or pipe should be placed close to the intended targets and should not be concealed from them by barriers such as walls.'”

Now, you can go out and you can hope all day long that the terrorists and the bomber is a white conservative, but here in a terrorism magazine called Inspire is the idea of using a pressure cooker and how to do it.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This