“Screw Ups” or On Purpose?

RUSH: Maybe what we ought to do folks is start working on our national security system. Maybe we ought to work at making sure that Fruit of Kaboom Bombers don’t get on airplanes with bombs in their underwear. Obama running around talking about it was a screw up. A screw up? A screw up that could have been a disaster. A screw up is something that could happen to anybody. After a screw up you say I’m sorry, you move on. You don’t fire somebody for a screw up. Letting the Fruit of Kaboom Bomber on a jet into the US is gross incompetence. It’s almost an indictment. Has anybody been fired in the Secret Service or the White House for three crashers? Is there any accountability in this administration anywhere?

Oh, by the way, I’m prepared, I know how you leftists work out here because the release of prisoners at Gitmo to Yemen, we’re going to pull back on that, yeah, we’re going to pull back on that, doesn’t look good and the leftists say, ‘Hey, Bush let a couple of them out.’ Not because he wanted to. Bush released people from Guantanamo Bay because our good old ACLU and a number of leftist organizations and members of Congress decided to take the powers of commander-in-chief away from Bush in that way. Bush did not want to release anybody from Guantanamo. But the idea that there is some kind of equivalence between Bush and Obama regarding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay is simple folly. What we have here, folks, is not a screw up, and Obama is not going to fire anybody over this because that would be evidence that he screwed up. Obama will end up holding nobody responsible unless he can find a Bush appointee because it would be a poor reflection on himself, which is pure narcissism. He’s going to hold nobody accountable because he doesn’t want to be held accountable.

These show trials that Obama is going to bring off, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the boys, Eric Holder and Obama. This is an absolute disaster waiting to happen. It’s going to cause great harm to the criminal justice system in and of itself. Now, is giving Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11 and his two henchmen, giving them a show trial with full constitutional rights in New York City, is that a screw up? Is giving the Fruit of Kaboom Bomber, who isn’t a citizen of this country, an attempted act of war, giving him full constitutional rights, is that a screw up? Multiple unauthorized guests in the White House, is that a screw up? Fort Hood terror attack, was that a screw up? Being tougher on Israel than Iran, is that a screw up? Planning on sending 90 hardened terrorists from Guantanamo Bay to Yemen, a screw up? Is lifting an executive order giving Interpol immunity from American laws a screw up? Is reneging on an unprompted, calculated campaign pledge to put Obamacare negotiations on C-SPAN eight different times, is that a screw up? Is creating two trillion-dollar slush funds while calling them TARP and job stimulus plans, is that a screw up? Has Obama screwed up in everything he’s done to try to reignite the US economy? Ten to 17% unemployment, is that a screw up? No. No, all of this is on purpose. Everything I’ve just gone through is on purpose, including 17% unemployment.

Now, for those of you who still doubt, who still have trouble putting your arms around the concept that this economic disaster is purposeful, Peter Schweizer has written Architects of Ruin, page eight, this is a look back at Saul Alinsky. Saul Alinsky — Obama is one of his acolytes — argued the middle class would have to be brought around slowly to revolutionary change, to radical change, couldn’t do it overnight. And that the best way to do it was to take everything away from ’em. This is Alinsky: ‘Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, nonchallenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.’

Now, speaking for myself, I have no doubt that Obama wishes to remake this country because he finds it guilty, it is immoral, it is colonial, it has been imperialistic, its military is immoral, we have supported the wrong people, we have plundered the earth, we have stolen all these resources for our own benefit and our own lifestyle. He thinks that way of this country, it’s what he’s been taught, it’s what he learned at Harvard, it’s what he learned in Hawaii, it’s what he’s learned everywhere he’s been in school and by the people that matter to him. This country is unjust and immoral and he’s going to make it right. He was taught Alinsky at the University of Chicago, he lectured on Alinsky. Alinsky is a god to leftist radicals. And so when Alinsky writes that people have to feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the current system, i.e, capitalism, that they are willing to let go of the past, capitalism, and change the future, socialism. Well, I don’t know if you’ve seen the economic news. If you haven’t, I’ll share it with you. But they’re talking a double-dip real estate problem, unemployment, no change coming. People are unhappier in their jobs than ever before. There is a lot of frustration. There’s a lot of defeat out there, a lot of people feeling lost, a lot of people feeling futureless. And the way Obama and Rahm Emanuel look at this is a crisis to be taken advantage of.