{"id":4597,"date":"2015-12-21T18:45:15","date_gmt":"2015-12-21T18:45:15","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2015-12-21T18:45:15","modified_gmt":"2015-12-21T18:45:15","slug":"obama_addresses_the_bitter_clingers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2015\/12\/21\/obama_addresses_the_bitter_clingers\/","title":{"rendered":"Obama Addresses the Bitter Clingers"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Listen<\/a><\/p>\n

RUSH: No, no, no, no. No, no. My only point… I know everybody knows what I said in the first hour. Everybody in this audience. Again, I\u2019m just disappointed that so many on our side still refuse to see what\u2019s going on. They missed it seven years ago, and some are just now waking up to it because of personal experiences. You know, the problem for me is, folks, is that I saw all of this back in 2007. Not 2008 and not 2009. I saw all of this back in 2007. And people asked me, “How did you know? How?”<\/p>\n

Because I know liberals, and I understand the modern incarnation of liberals, and liberals are different than Democrats, and there is no old-fashioned Democrat around anymore. These people are all brand-new, radical left. And “liberal” doesn\u2019t even cover, really, what we\u2019re up against. It\u2019s, in fact, a little bit confusing, because, you know, we refer to Democrats of the sixties, seventies, and eighties as “liberals,” and they can\u2019t hold a candle to this group.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s really fascinating when this all began. The Democrat Party transitioned to an anti-American liberal party after the assassination of JFK, and I think, just to review that for just a second… If you remember JFK goes to Dallas in an attempt, it was said… He was having trouble in his reelection polls. It was 1963, and everybody was worried, and they said in the aftermath of the trip he had gone down to Texas to try to ameliorate support there because a bunch of right-wing radicals were opposed to JFK and were threatening great damage to the country and this kind of thing.<\/p>\n

And then the assassination occurred, and a communist killed JFK. <\/p>\n

A communist poisoned and influenced by Castro and the Soviet Union, Lee Harvey Oswald. <\/line><\/p>\n

I don\u2019t care whatever you think, Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK. He was not a right winger. He was not from Dallas. He was not an American conservative Republican Bircher or whatever the left wants to make him out to be. He was a flat-out, left-wing, uber-communist who was opposed to JFK and had been brainwashed into opposing JFK by the Castros, the Cubans, and the Soviet Union. He was a defector. In fact, the Soviet Union had kicked him out. The trail of proof for this is long, but it\u2019s not arguable. <\/p>\n

Well, the point is the left could not abide that. The left in this country. They were there, and they were as radical as they are now. They were just fringe back then. But they couldn\u2019t let it stand that one of their own had killed the Democrat president. That just couldn\u2019t be allowed to stand. Go take a look at the New York Times if you want to on the day after the assassination. You\u2019ll find on the front page columns by James Reston and others blaming the right wing in Dallas for influencing Oswald. <\/p>\n

I mean, they began the day after Kennedy was assassinated. The idea that the radical right was out committing assassinations. And that is when the modern incarnation of today\u2019s liberalism began in the sense of blaming America and American things began. The whole idea that America was to blame, that America was responsible and at the top for the assassination of JFK, and that\u2019s when the modern incarnation of today\u2019s radical liberalism began. And then of course Vietnam War came along and fueled it and everything which followed.<\/p>\n

But that\u2019s where it began, simply because the left back then could not let it stand that one of their fellow travelers had killed their president. That was never gonna be allowed to stand. That set in motion what to this day remains a standard operating procedure in the manual of American liberalism that America is to blame, America is culpable, America is flawed, and that political progress is there to be had by blaming America. And they have become experts at it. Anyway, I had seen all this back in 2007 with Obama. <\/p>\n

I\u2019d listened to his campaign speeches; I had listened to his tapes, interviews and so forth; I knew who he was, coupled with my in-depth understanding of liberalism. I was just surprised that people back then on our side wouldn\u2019t listen. It still boils me. It stills boils me. Because my insight was nothing unique. It didn\u2019t require any sort of super intelligence or insight or anything. It was just right there for anybody and everybody to see. It\u2019s not incredibly complex who Barack Obama is and what his plans were. <\/p>\n

If it were complex and hard to ferret out and hard to understand, I\u2019d be more sympathetic. But it isn\u2019t. It wasn\u2019t complex at all. Barack Obama was a five-alarm radical, and people on our side didn\u2019t want to see it. They just wanted to treat it as the traditional argument between left and right that\u2019s always gone on and there was nothing more to it than just political disagreements and arguments and debates in the arena of ideas and this, that, and the other thing. It\u2019s allowed for all of this transformation to take place. You may have heard that Obama interview on NPR. <\/line><\/p>\n

We have a couple of sound bites here. Morning Edition today. Steve Inskeep interviewed Obama. First bite, we have question. “Mr. President, we are nearing the end of a year where the question of national identity, who we are, has been a part of one large event after another.” See? I mean, they\u2019re even openly talking about it now: Who we are. “I made a list here, in fact. Gay marriage, the Black Lives Matter movement, immigration, the question of whether to admit Syrian refugees into the country, the question of whether to admit Muslims into the country. All of them in some sense touch on that question of who we are.<\/p>\n

“What is the reason, the cause, what has caused that issue of who we are to come forward again and again and again at this moment in history?” Another way to ask this question: “Why didn\u2019t any of this ever come up before you moved into the White House? What is it about you, Mr. Obama? What is it about you, Mr. President, that has made this whole question of ‘who we are\u2019 become a question? Why all of a sudden is it a question, ‘who we are\u2019?” I think the question answers itself if you phrase it that way. <\/p>\n

Obama is transforming ‘who we are\u2019 and redefining ‘who we are\u2019 because in his view, ‘who we were\u2019 was evil, immoral, unjust, corrupt, or what have you. And so now all of the victims of all of that corruption and unjust behavior and immorality, all of that we\u2019re getting even with now, and all the victims of all that corruption are now being empowered and will soon be running the country and will have their chance at payback. That\u2019s essentially what\u2019s going on. Here\u2019s Obama\u2019s answer to the question…<\/p>\n