RUSH: Now, Obama’s speech last night, what have you heard? If you’ve spent some time in the media listening to analysts and commentators talk about Obama’s Oval Office speech, you probably heard a couple things, that he stood behind a podium, rather than sitting at his desk and everybody wondering why did he do that. Who knows. It was obviously for some optics reason.
And the next thing, even from liberal, friendly sectors of the media, you’ve heard people say that it wasn’t anything new here. Obama didn’t do anything new. I mean, he finally called Fort Hood “terrorism” rather than “workplace violence.” Aside from that, there was nothing new. There was no strategy, there was no new strategy. There was no “we’re gonna get these guys.” There’s nothing like that at all. So what was the purpose?
Ladies and gentlemen, look, I’m gonna put this in perspective for you as briefly and powerfully and as poignantly as I can by reminding you of something. Way back during the early days of Obamacare, going all the way back to 2010 when those of us who took the time to read it read it, we noted that there was no way it was gonna work. There was no way it could work. And that its objective was to wipe out the private sector health insurance market leaving people only one place to go, i.e., the federal government. That has been the purpose of Obamacare since the beginning. It’s designed to not work.
We are in the midst — how many places have you seen, this exchange or that co-op or whatever is bombing out and failing, and then we saw the United Health CEO say, I’m sorry, I tried, but I’m pulling out, I can’t any longer afford this. That was last week. And, you know, that kind of ticked me off because it was known that this was gonna happen. It was just cronyism that forced a lot of these hospital and insurance company CEOs to sidle up with Obama on Obamacare. But we had the quotes from Obama about how he’s talking to his Service Employees International Union buddies. We played all these sound bites during the 2008 campaign, that his real objective was single payer but the American people weren’t ready for it, that it was gonna take 10, maybe 15 years to get there. We couldn’t do it overnight.
We can’t do it overnight, the president said, and he laid out a strategy whereby the people will actually demand it. Well, how’s that happen? How do people who live in a capitalist country demand the greatest act of socialism ever? Well, it takes a lot of work to make what happens in the private sector fail. So the first thing you do is you take over the health insurance market under the guise of lowering prices, including premiums and deductibles and copays and then you lie to people and tell ’em they get to keep their doctor if they like him, or her, and they get to keep the insurance plan if they like it. And then all of a sudden none of that happens, prices skyrocket, you don’t get to keep your plan. The exchanges are unaffordable. The website, healthcare.gov does not work. I mean, it’s amazing, all of it was a mess.
My point all along was that was the design, because the real objective was not to fix the health care system. The real objective was to take it over. Much like Fast and Furious was an effort to get the American people so riled up that they would demand further gun control. Fast and Furious didn’t work.
But what it was, if you recall, the Obama administration facilitated the sale of American weapons, American gun stores, that would then be allowed to cross the border into Mexico and eventually end up in the hands of drug cartels who would then use those weapons and kill people and wound people and create mayhem. And it was supposed to be that the American people would then find out those were guns sold in American gun stores like any other gun is, and look at what happened. American guns in the hands of drug cartel kingpins and they’re murdering people and killing people.
And the reaction of the American people was supposed to be, “Stop it. We need more gun control! We need the government to move in and prevent this from happening.” Same thing with health care. The design of Obamacare was for it all to implode on itself, as it is doing. Not so that it can be rewritten and done right. No. So that the American people will clamor for the government to fix it. Now, all the while on Obamacare, Obama is employing the Limbaugh Theorem.
He’s over there as though he’s got nothing to do with this. He designed a great health care overhaul, he designed this great bill, and now what’s happening? These evil, greedy SOBs in the private sector are destroying it just as Obama knew they would, and he’s powerless to do anything to stop it. He’s trying! He’s really hoping the American people don’t get ripped off like this, but that’s what capitalism is, and that’s what our private sector is.
So while he designs a system along with the Democrat Party — they’re all-in on this — for Obamacare to fail, he’s over there acting like he has nothing to do with it, and he’s just as mad at all these private sector people as you are. And eventually people are supposed to throw up their hands in total frustration, and demand that it be “fixed,” because that’s what always happens. A government devises a program, the program doesn’t work or is mangled badly, and the American people demand that the people who broke it, fix it.
Well, I’m… The fact that there was nothing new in the speech last night (except that it was from the podium), the fact that there was no new strategy, the fact that there was… I mean, Obama spent more time last night talking about anti-Muslim bigotry than he did criticizing terrorism. Look, Folks, I’m sorry to tell you, but the whole… This is Obamacare — and Fast and Furious — tried again. These attacks, such as San Bernardino — and all attacks
in the future — are going to be used by this administration to somehow enact even greater gun control measures.
That’s what this is all about.
That’s why there’s not much to say about this speech last night.
The speech is not designed to rally you against ISIS. I mean, I couldn’t believe the way Obama was talking about this. He was talking about “We’re gonna defeat ISIS like we did Al-Qaeda.” Those are paraphrased quotes. Here, grab sound bite number one; I’ll show you what I mean. This is last Wednesday. This is not in the speech last night, but this is the mind-set that led into it. CBS Evening News last night, correspondent Norah O’Donnell interviewing Obama.
She said, “The FBI now has active investigations into ISIS sympathizers in all 50 states. You have had more terrorism-related arrests in one year since September 2001. Do you think Americans are living in a bit of fear that Paris could come here?” This is Wednesday. Now, don’t forget going into Thanksgiving, this president told us there was nothing on the horizon. We had nothing to fear. We had no imminent ISIS attacks. Zilch, zero, nada, remember? No chatter, no nothing. Now, I want you to listen to what he says and listen to his prepositions and listen to his possessives in this bite. It’s just 21 seconds.
OBAMA: ISIL does not gonna pose an existential threat to us. They are a dangerous organization like Al-Qaeda was, but we have hardened our defenses. Our homeland has never been more protected by more effective intelligence and law enforcement professionals at every level than they are now.
RUSH: Okay. So last Wednesday night, ISIL… You know, here’s the difference. ISIS stands for the Islamic State Iraq and Syria. ISIL the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant. Now, why would he call it ISIL instead of ISIS? Well, the Levant is more than Syria. Levant is the whole region. I think it’s not an accident that he calls it ISIL, and I think it’s not an accident that he wants to be using an abbreviation including the term “Levant” ’cause it’s the whole region, because… I just think so. I’ll leave it at that.
I think there’s a desire to show respect, if you will, for what’s going on over there, and “ISIS” is not complete. But “ISIL” is the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. It’s more than Syria. Yes siree, it’s the whole region. Anyway, “ISIL is not gonna pose an existential threat to us.” Well, even when he said it, it was BS. They do. “They are a dangerous organization like Al-Qaeda was.” That’s what stood out to me in this bite. “Al-Qaeda was? Al-Qaeda is no more? Al-Qaeda has been tamed? Al-Qaeda’s not a factor anymore? Oh, really?
So this is nothing more than a continuation of the political posturing that preceded and was part of the Democrat convention in 2012, that Obama — by killing bin Laden — had vanquished Al-Qaeda, that it’s in the rearview mirror. (Obama impression) “There’s no more Al-Qaeda. We beat ’em. We beat ’em bad. They surrendered! They surrendered and we got bin Laden. It’s over.” Now, ISIS is all brand-new, and it’s like something else is gonna be brand-new when we take care of ISIL and so forth. But Al-Qaeda is not dead. Al-Qaeda’s not past tense!
There is no “was.”
Al-Qaeda’s a very big “is.”
So this is pure political posturing, and it’s disingenuous. It isn’t true. “We’ve hardened our defenses.” Look, this is key, folks. “We’ve hardened our defenses. Our homeland has never been more protected by more effective intelligence and law enforcement professionals at every level than” every before. And yet this thing still happened, see? So Obama lays out this case. We’ve never been better protected. We’ve got Al-Qaeda in the rearview mirror! ISIS?
Yeah, they’re dangerous, but yet they don’t have any way of threatening us. And then they do what they did in San Bernardino, and that is supposed to… You take Obama saying everything’s cool, we don’t have a threat, nothing to worry about — then, of course, we do — and the logical next step is for the American people to demand Obama do something. And in his world, “doing something” is taking away your guns. Make no mistake about this, folks.
RUSH: Okay. So the Republican presidential campaign has some fascinating developments over the weekend, including a reported strategy from the guy who runs the Jeb Bush PAC by the name of Mike Murphy. And I’m gonna get into that in due course.
But just a couple more sound bites on San Bernardino and Obama’s speech last night. Walid Phares was on Fox News just moments ago (well, a little over an hour ago now), and remember it was Walid Phares a couple, maybe 10 days ago, who pointed out that the reason we don’t really hit ISIS is because we are aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood and Syria and Iran. Obama is. And Iran wants nothing done to ISIS. Iran capitalizes from the chaos and the instability in the region brought about by ISIS.
So Walid Phares was brought back by Fox today to try to explain from his standpoint what’s going on, what Obama’s speech last night meant, whether or not we’re serious in dealing with ISIS and defeating them. Walid Phares is the National Defense University professor. And the question he got was this: “We heard from the president that we have to be careful about indicting or taking violence out on Muslim communities, because we know that these are terrorists. What do you think of those comments, as well as the president saying that we need the Muslim community to stand up against this extremism?”
PHARES: It’s the same dilemma has advanced with regard to Iran: “Either you go to war or you do the deal.” No! In the case of the Muslim community there are forces in the Muslim community such as the democracy forces, the reform forces. We need to partner with them. Unfortunately, the administration has been closer to those who are close to the Muslim Brotherhood.
JENNA LEE: Why?
PHARES: Because they think that the Muslim Brotherhood are the best defense against Al-Qaeda, not knowing that it’s the same ideology at the end of the day.
RUSH: Well, now, that’s really assuring. (chuckles) But I thought Al-Qaeda was gone, defeated, having slinked away (or is it “slunk” away?) into being a nonfactor. But what he’s saying is that we do not partner with these moderate Muslim forces, because Obama thinks the Muslim Brotherhood is the best defense against Al-Qaeda, not knowing that Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda are the same ideology at the end of the day. That’s really an indictment from this guy on Obama. So the next question was, “Well, you said that President Obama didn’t identify ISIS’ ideology. Is that still because of political correctness?”
PHARES: Because of political calculations, not just correctness. Because in the case of Arab armies, if the president goes and meets with those leaders, who would be upset in the region? Iran. We are bogged down by the Iranian deal because the Iranians don’t want Arab Sunnis going against ISIS.
JENNA LEE: If we stay bogged down, can we ever win?
PHARES: No, we cannot. At least not for the next year.
RUSH: Meaning, “We can’t win, we can’t defeat ISIS as long as Obama’s president because he’s never gonna take them out.” And reason he’s not gonna take them on, Phares believes, is that it’s because of Obama’s association with or alignment with Iran over the nuclear deal. And that may well still be a factor. A lot of people think this is cynical. I don’t. This is intelligence guided by experience saying this.