RUSH: Dinesh D'Souza. Name ring a bell? Dinesh D'Souza is a well-known conservative journalist and a well-known conservative filmmaker now. Dinesh D'Souza has made two movies about Obama which attempt to explain things about Obama that no one else in the liberal media will say about his background, why he is the way he is, the way he is, what he is doing to the country, motivations, why he's doing it. All of this time...
I've interviewed Dinesh D'Souza two times for the Limbaugh Letter about his two movies and about one of his books. I think he's even been on the program a couple times over the recent number of years. And all of this time I was under the impression that Dinesh D'Souza got Obama. I was. I had the impression that Dinesh D'Souza knew Obama. I was under the impression that Dinesh D'Souza knew what we were up against with Obama. It turned out I was wrong, in a very key way. Now, I don't want anybody misunderstand.
This is not a criticism of D'Souza. It's an eye-opener about a lot of people on what I call "our side." You remember back on January 16th, 2009, a few days before Obama was to be inaugurated, I mentioned on this program the Wall Street Journal had asked me (along with a lot of other people) to write 400 words on my hopes for the administration, the first African-American president, Barack Hussein O. And I told you what I told them, 'cause I wrote back and I said, "I don't need 400 words; all I need is four words: 'I hope he fails.'"
Well, little old me, I assumed that virtually everybody that I knew and even the people that I knew of "on our side," quote/unquote, among us conservatives would know exactly what I meant and would agree with me. And then we all saw that apparently very few people agreed with it on our side, and many were aghast and appalled that such a thing would be said even before the new president, the first African-American president -- historic president -- was inaugurated. "How dare something like this be said!"
It would fuel those on the left who want to mis-portray those of us on the right. And I literally was surprised -- and I was wrong to be. I was surprised. The reason I was surprised was because I figured that, like me, most everybody on the conservative side of the aisle knew liberalism, understood what liberalism is. I thought after two years of an intense campaign that the people on our side, the people opposing Obama had learned what I had learned about Obama, had learned how truly radical he was.
And not just in the Alinsky mold, and not just in the Reverend Wright mold, but I mean literally radical, radical. The most radical leftist Democrat ever elected to the White House and maybe by a long shot. And I was under the impression that people on our side understood the danger, the real danger to the country. And even now, after reading a review of Dinesh D'Souza's book, I was shocked over the weekend. Barack Obama put Dinesh D'Souza in jail. All these people out there rip Trump for praising Putin and all this.
I tell you people in the media -- if I may make a brief departure -- you gotta learn something real quick about Trump. He doesn't lie. If he said something, he may exaggerate it, but what he says is gonna end up being true to one degree or another and you're always gonna end up with egg on your face every time you think Trump says something outrageous that you think is an out-and-out lie. It's gonna come back and bite you. Trump says nobody's proven Putin killed journalists; nobody proved Putin put journalists in jail.
No, but Barack Obama has put journalists in jail. And the journalist he put in jail was Dinesh D'Souza on a trumped-up, phony campaign finance charge. There is no question that the Obama Department of Justice went after Dinesh D'Souza. It's been studied. D'Souza admits that he violated campaign law. He's not claiming he didn't. But it was tiny and practically irrelevant and common, and nobody's ever been prosecuted for it the way D'Souza was, and nobody's been imprisoned for it.
In fact, there have been many who've done far worse and have broken campaign finance law in many more egregious ways than D'Souza did. They've never been prosecuted, much less convicted and put in jail. But D'Souza was, and he has written a book about it now called Stealing America: What My Experience with Criminal Gangs Taught Me about Obama, Hillary, and the Democratic Party. And you know what this is? Up until now, Dinesh D'Souza admits that he thought all this time that Obama was just a liberal, a Democrat, another in a long line of Democrats.
And that the liberalism of Obama was just an intellectual exercise against which we must debate. There was nothing inherently destructive about Obama. He was just a liberal, and it was an intellectual challenge for us on the right to go up against Obama and to see if we could win the argument in the arena of ideas. I was stunned. I have to tell you, I was stunned that it took being put in jail for Dinesh D'Souza to admit that he didn't know what Obama and let modern day Democrat Party was really all about.
Meaning the transformation of our country, the destruction of our country as founded, and the transforming of it into something it was never intended to be. The all-out assaults from day one on all the traditions and all the institutions and the people who have defined this country and made it great. It has been the singular mission of the Obama administration to transform this country. The evidence is everywhere. And D'Souza was not alone. I can quote you David Brooks. I can quote you all the conservatives who praised the nomination of Eric Holder for attorney general. You can even see it in this most recent budget debate.
It is clear that many Republicans and a lot of conservatives even to this moment do not really understand what we're up against and what we have been up against for seven years. As far as they're concerned, it's just liberalism, and we face here an intellectual debate and challenge in the arena of ideas, and our task is nothing more than convincing the American people that our ideas are superior to theirs. It is shocking. This is a guy, D'Souza, who put together two movies on Obama... If anybody should have known what Obama was about and who he was and his purpose, it should have been D'Souza.
But this is the eye-opening thing for me. I still... I shouldn't admit this, but I guess it just shocks me that even now, toward the end of Obama's seventh year, we still do not have apparently a majority of people in the Republican Party or in maybe even the conservative movement who really understand what Obama is doing, and it may even be worse than that. It may well be they do understand it. It may well be that they're fully aware of the effort to overturn this country has founded. I mean, that's what's taking place here. And I don't see how that can be so easily denied.
I mean, the evidence is staring in the face, more so each and every day. My quote/unquote "problem" is I knew it before Obama was even inaugurated what was coming down the pike. I knew what his purpose with Obamacare was. I knew when he threw the Winston Churchill bust the Oval Office. I knew when I listened to tapes of Obama talking to his buddies in 2002, 2005, 2006. I knew what he thought of this country: Unjust, immoral, should not have existed, not a legitimate superpower, there's no such thing as American exceptionalism.
That, folks, is not just the average, ordinary serving up of liberalism that we debate every day.
This is the first time in our country's history that such a leftist radical has been elected and has proceeded unopposed for seven years in erasing the origins of this country, under the guise of fixing it, under the guise of fixing the never-ending racism and bigotry and racism and homophobic, all these other things that in Obama's world define this country. I think it's one of the things that explains this budget deal. I think it explains a lot. The Republican Party is not pushing back, not wanting to disagree. If they do recognize what I recognize, it must have been pretty daunting to say so and stand up and fight against it, which maybe they don't want to do, I guess.
There could be any number of explanations.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Greetings, folks. Rush Limbaugh.
Let me read to you, just to batten down what I'm talking about here. Andy McCarthy wrote the review on National Review Online for Dinesh D'Souza's book. Again, by the way, there's nothing personal here and there's no attack on anybody. This is just, again, for me on an eye opening learning experience, an opportunity for this to be a teachable moment, actually. But just the things that have happened here for seven years that need not have happened, if only people had been awake.
"Precious were the recriminations after the first Democratic presidential debate. Putative nominee Hillary Clinton, amid what is more a coronation than a contest, had proudly boasted of making the Republicans her 'enemy.' 'How despicable,' GOP graybeards gasped. After all, this is just politics, not war. At the end of the day, we're all fellow patriots, all in this together: not 'red states and blue states,' as ... Barack Obama framed it in 2004 ... but 'one people...'" These old Republican gray beards, these old line Republican moderates believe, "Yeah, we're all together!
"All of us are defending United States of America. Democrats have their ideas, and we have our ideas, and Obama's just the latest Democrat to come along." But now Dinesh D'Souza has seen the light. "He would tell you that Hillary hit the nail on the head," that she does look at us as the enemy. I've been screaming this and shouting this seven years! The Democrat Party considers us a greater threat to them than they do any foreign threat. I want to develop this a little further, and there's a companion piece as it turns out on National Review about the new totalitarianism of the Democrat Party, which is out there for one and all to see if you want.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, don't worry, I could spend a full two hours on this concept here that I'm developing, and I'm not gonna do it because in a sense we've been there and done that. My only new addition to it today is I continue to be amazed at how many people still don't get it or are just seeing it for the first time, or at least admitting it. That, "Hey, you know what? We're all fellow patriots, we're all Americans here. I mean, this is just common, ordinary, everyday political argument and dispute. There's nothing more to this than that."
Now, you can say that the Republicans have chosen to stay silent because they're afraid of being called racists. I don't know. I'm worn on, folks, on the excuses. I'm worn out. We won two landslide elections and somehow were dealt a bad hand in the budget. We win two landslide elections, the Democrats lose a thousand seats, and somehow the clock ran out. All of these excuses. And every time Obama wins, it's not just liberalism winning and another day that we lose and making it harder and harder to eventually win the argument. This is not about winning the argument anymore. That's just phase one. There's a whole lot of really bad stuff that's been done the past seven years that has to be rolled back if this country is to resume its normal behavioral track.
These people set out to transform this country into something it was not founded to be, and they've had a lot of success, while the Republican Party has sat by and some of our intellectuals have sat by silently just thinking there's nothing more here than an academic debate going on. And the only thing I'm saying, I'm surprised that D'Souza was one of these. I thought D'Souza was among the crowd of us who got it from the get-go and understood it. But apparently it took being thrown in jail on a trumped-up charge for D'Souza to finally see who Obama is and what his agenda is really all about and that the nation, as we know and love it, is actually in the process of being transformed and some might say up for grabs now.
Now, the companion piece I referenced is Kevin Williamson in National Review today. "The Democrats’ Theme for 2016 Is Totalitarianism." Well, it's more than a theme. I'll share with you the beginning of this piece. "At the beginning of December, Rolling Stone writer Jeff Goodell asked Secretary of State Kerry --" This is a journalist now, Rolling Stone magazine, far-left rock 'n' roll magazine. "At the beginning of December, Rolling Stone writer Jeff Goodell asked Secretary of State John Kerry whether Charles and David Koch, two libertarian political activists, should be considered ... 'an enemy of the state.'"
Now, Charles and David Koch, Koch Industries, true, they're wealthy, yes, they're Libertarians. They raise money. They stand for traditional American values. They employ tens of thousands of people. I mean, they're standard, ordinary, everyday American citizens. They are great patriots. Rolling Stone magazine goes and asks John Kerry, should they be considered enemies of the state? He also posed the same question about Exxon. Do you realize enemy of the state, do you know what kind of language that is? Enemy of the state, there's no such concept in the US Constitution when we're talking about domestic politics and competing ideas. These kinds of phrases, "enemy of the state," this kind of status occurs in dictatorships, in tyranny, banana republics and so forth.
So the Rolling Stone writer, Jeff Goodell asked Kerry if the Kochs should be considered an enemy of the state and Exxon should be considered an enemy of the state, and John Kerry, who ran for president in 2004, said that he looked forward to the seizure of Exxon's assets for the crime of proselytizing impermissibly about the question of global warming. John Kerry responded to the Rolling Stone writer by saying, yeah, he looked forward to the government seizing Exxon's assets for the crime of opposing global warming. Folks, this is not Lyndon Johnson back in the days with Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon. This is a whole different ball game that we're involved in here.
You have a secretary of state who's unafraid to acknowledge that he'd be perfectly willing and is looking forward to seizing Exxon's assets, a worldwide multinational corporation, simply because of the way they talk about global warming. How in the world can we still have Republicans or conservatives thinking that all this is is something akin to a debate in the faculty lounge at Harvard or Yale? How can it be that so many people still fail to come to grips with what we're up against? And that all of this in the country, support for Trump or anybody other than an establishment candidate, is patriotism? It's not racism or sexism or bigotry or any of these things. It's people who love their country, who see it being snatched away from them, who see it being transformed before their very eyes.
How can you not, with the borders wide open and the influx of people who in no way, shape, manner or form even understand where they're coming except for the fact that it's a welfare state, or it's something to undermine. If you happen to be a terrorist sleeper cell member, it's a place to come to undermine, it's a place to come to get even with, it's a place to come because you think it's guilty of all these atrocities around the world for 200 years. We have made a joke of the whole concept of any new arrivals assimilating and becoming Americans because to this current crop of liberal Democrats, America is a dirty word now. America equals the white male patriarchy that has to change. We have to get rid of it. And if you think that that is an exaggeration, hang in there and be tough, because I have found a piece -- you might think it's written by a kook and a wacko and an old ball, and it is, but that's the point. The kooks and oddballs and wackos have become the mainstream; the radicals are now the mainstream.
Writer Rebecca Traister: Obama and Hillary represent the death throes of exclusive white male power in the United States. This was last Wednesday. And it's not in the communist Daily Worker. It's in New York Magazine. "The current election campaign pits the forces of backlash, the old and angry --" That would be the white male power structure. "-- against the forces of frontlash. That would be the new and different." The new and different are Hillary and Obama and left-wing causes.
She posits in this piece that Obama and Hillary represent an "altered power structure and changed calculations about who in this country may lead." She said: "And while the resistance may be symptomatic of death throes, a rage at the dying of the white male light, it nonetheless presents a very real threat. ... Imagine Ted Cruz or Donald Trump or Marco Rubio in office with a Republican Congress and Supreme Court seats to fill. Voting: restricted. Immigration: halted. Abortion: banned. Equal pay: unprotected. Same-sex marriage: overturned." We can't permit this. That is the way they are mobilizing. This moment, this election, these years represent the death throes of exclusive white male power in the US.
So, as far as this woman is concerned, believe me, she's not an outlier. She's mainstream. Your support for Trump or your outrage against the Washington establishment, Republican or otherwise, all it means is is that you are in the white male camp, and you have always had the power, you've always been able to dictate the social norms and the political direction, you've been able to dictate everything about this country, but not anymore, because we're taking it away from you. You destroyed this country, you white males, going back to the founders. You implemented all this hate and racism and imperialism. You destroyed poor people all over the world. You became an illegitimate superpower by stealing every other nation's resources. Everything about you is illegitimate, including your white race, and we are getting even.
And this is what's mobilizing out there. It's right in front of your face, it's wherever you look, from the White House on down to whatever it was, Occupy Wall Street, you name it, "hands up, don't shoot," Ferguson, Baltimore, it's everywhere. This is what's mobilizing it. And it's not just anger at white male power. That's a way to mobilize the anti-forces. This is a direct frontal assault. It's not even happening under cover of darkness now. It's a direct frontal assault on the very idea of the United States of America as a capitalist entrepreneurial nation of individual liberty and freedom, transformed to a nation of totalitarian state control, to enforce upon a majority of people things that they oppose, would never support, would never vote for because they are illegitimate by virtue of their own existence.
That's what we're up against. And apparently, folks, there's still a very precious few of us who actually understand it. And the danger is, if we're wrong, well, okay, we've been wrong, and the result's not so bad. If we're right but we can't get a majority to follow us and if we're right and we're not able to stop this, then all this fear that people have, the future of their kids and their grandkids -- it's real. The fear, the opposition that exists out there, it's not rooted in racism and bigotry and sexism. It's rooted in patriotism and a love for what this country was, still is in some places, and should always be.
Anyway, I'm long here. I gotta take another break. Pretty much move on from this point. You get the drill. The point is that if you want to understand why the Republican budget deal was the way it was, they don't understand we're up against. And even that it's hard to rationalize. "Well, we were dealt a bad hand. Well, the clock was ticking." None of that, just don't understand. We won two landslides.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: You still think I'm exaggerating? Well, let me remind you -- or, in some cases, let me inform you of things that you may not know. The Democrats and their allies on the left have now voted in the United States Senate to repeal the First Amendment. Not in a blanket basis. It came up in a specific sense. But there was a vote on repealing the First Amendment. It's all about climate change. The Democrats have proposed putting people in jail for holding the wrong views on global warming.
Now, when they say this, there are people who say, "Ah, that's the kooks, the oddballs, the weird." They're not the kooks. They're not... Well, they're kooks and oddballs. They've become the mainstream, folks, is the point. I was having lunch after golf on Saturday. Some people were telling some stories, some of the crazy stories they're reading what's going on on campus. You know what? I was reading about those things 25 years ago myself, and I was laughing about 'em. Today, they're happening. They're coming true.
And now you're talking about things that haven't come true, and you're laughing about 'em. I'm telling you, they want to make 'em real. This stuff is happening. It's no laughing matter anymore. They're telling us exactly what they're gonna do, when they want to do it, and how they're gonna get it done. The Democrats and their allies have voted to repeal the First Amendment. They have proposed putting people in jail for holding the wrong views on global warming. They have sought to prohibit the showing of a movie critical of Hillary Clinton.
They have proposed banning politically unpopular academic research (again, tracing back to global warming) and other things. They have demanded that funding politically unpopular organizations and causes be made a crime, and funding politically unpopular organizations and causes would be anything the left disagrees with. They've been attempting to criminalize conservative policy for years now, and the reaction has been, "Ha! Look at those kooky students," or, "Look at those crazy, wacko, extremist Democrats. Man, are they pieces of work or what?"
They're mainstream now.
They're dead serious.
They have proposed that RICO, the organized crime statute, be used as a weapon against targeted political groups. They have filed felony charges against a Republican governor for vetoing a piece of legislation. They have engaged in naked political persecutions of members of Congress. They have used the IRS and the ATF as weapons against political critics. On college campuses, they shut down unpopular ideas or simply forbid opposing ideas from being heard in the first place. They have declared academic freedom is an outdated concept.
"Yeah, man, those wacko students! Look at those weird students."
The people implementing these things today were the wacko students of the sixties.
END TRANSCRIPT
No comments:
Post a Comment