Last week David Limbaugh and I discussed his new book Crimes Against Liberty: An Indictment of President Barack Obama. This week? The interview is live and the timing is fantastic because Limbaugh’s book has hit #1 on the New York Times Bestseller list.
What follows is a slightly edited transcript of our conversation. Enjoy!
First question, in your mind is it fair to call Barack Obama a socialist?
In a word, yes. I think it’s fair almost to call him a Marxist. John, he has a visceral contempt, an abiding contempt for capitalism, and while he holds himself out as a fierce advocate of the market, he’s constantly badgering and bullying capitalism. He calls bankers “fat cat bankers.” He resents legitimate profits made in the private sector. He talks about insurance companies’ “obscene profits” when they, of course, were making modest profits at the same time he was characterizing them. He wants to radically redistribute wealth.
I think he has a grudge against pre-Obama America and he wants to rectify that situation by taking money from people he doesn’t believe deserve it and redistributing it to those he believes do deserve it. His qualification for “deserving it” is that they don’t have it. You know he’s a guy that firmly believes in redistribution.
We saw that when Charlie Gibson asked him about the capital gains tax and why he would advocate increasing the tax when empirical evidence demonstrates that when you reduce the capital gains tax rate, you increase revenues and when you increase the rate, you reduce revenues for all people. He said, “Well, Charlie, it’s not about the revenues. It’s a matter of fairness.” So, in his mind it’s better to shrink the pie for everyone and spread the misery as long as you punish the wealthy than it is to expand the pie and increase the prosperity. It’s a warped way of thinking.
I think the evidence is abundant that he does not like capitalism and he wants to use government to level the playing field — and by the way, he even wants the Supreme Court to proactively administer economic justice, which is a famous euphemism of the Marxists of old….
You said and I quote, “The Barack Obama presidency is young, but is already the most destructive in American history.” That’s a pretty bold statement, so can you give us a sweet, short synopsis of why you believe that’s the case?
Well, no. I’m incapable of any kind of sweet, short synopsis. I’ll give you sweet and long. No, just kidding. I’ll give you sweet and rambling. Here we go.
I, of course, don’t set out to empirically prove that he’s worse than some of the past failed presidents. I’m making a statement that he is single handedly driving America over a cliff financially and economically — and if he keeps going on paths that he’s deliberately set us on, he will bankrupt the nation. That alone will make him the worst president because once we reach that tipping point of bankrupting the nation, there is no returning.
I don’t think we’re going there. We’re not going to allow ourselves to get there. I’m not a pessimist, but no one can argue that if he bankrupts the nation, that he’s not the worst president in American history.
Also by sinking his roots systemically into the health care system, even if he doesn’t bankrupt us there, he’s going to further suppress our liberties. The same with cap and trade and on down the line. These are major, major changes that are occurring in our politics and our government.
Do you think Barack Obama is intentionally or unintentionally following the Cloward-Piven Plan?
I don’t know. I’ve got a good friend who subscribes to that theory and has written a book on that. A lot of people like him, that I trust, make that case. I think it’s a very plausible case.
In the end, I’m not sure that it matters. I think Obama is a committed Alinskyite. He’s committed to undermining America’s founding principles. He’s committed to doing it by deceit. His whole campaign was a deceit where he claimed to be post partisan, post racial, and post grievance and all that. He was anything but what he appeared to be. He was the opposite of what he held himself out as being. So I believe that he will do anything in order to accomplish his ends.
I point out in the book, I can’t remember the name of the liberal writer, but I do remember Jonathan Chait who cited this liberal writer who came up with an observation. He said, I don’t know why everybody’s so mystified and thinks there’s some kind of false conflict between Obama’s apparent conciliatory method and his radical leftist extremism. There is no conflict here. His method is an Alinskyite type method where he pretends to be conciliatory so that he can get conservatives at the health care summit on his side, put them on a board, and then ram through what he wants to and pretend that he did it in a bipartisan way. In other words he’s completely scheming, calculating and manipulative. So ultimately, I really think that’s the answer to the question.
Do you think Barack Obama has done anything in office so far that at least merits a serious discussion of impeachment?
Well, it’s kind of like the (Birther) thing. I think that there is a lot of reason to be suspicious about Obama’s background. This guy is mysterious — but, I don’t want to pursue those things because I think they’re ultimately quixotic pursuits. I sat around salivating for eight years thinking that we could get Bill Clinton impeached because of all of his high crimes and misdemeanors. He clearly committed perjury…and we ended up nowhere. In the meantime, we lost ground in fighting for the substantive things that we needed to be fighting for. …I think what he is doing is systematically abusing his authority to contravene the rule of law and the Constitution to the detriment of our liberty.
Now having said all that, I need to add that I do think there are some things, that if we were a sensitive society, if we weren’t so apathetic, if we weren’t so negligent and lax as guardians and stewards of the Constitution, we could look at some of the stuff he’s done and consider it impeachable.
Now I don’t want to say this too loudly in this book interview and I’m certainly willing for this part to be on the record, but I want to issue caveats, because I’m not advocating this. You asked me the question.
Intellectual honesty demands that I say that when the President, in contravention of an express prohibition from Congress, pledges $140 billion, with a b, to the IMF to be redistributed to third world nations, that there is something radically wrong. I mean that ought to be an impeachable offense.
I’m not advocating it, but if you’re asking me in the purest sense. When he threatens Arizona with withholding its stimulus funds because Senator Kyl had the audacity to suggest to him that he implement an across the board freeze on stimulus spending, he had four cabinet secretaries simultaneously send threatening letters saying we’re going to withhold your Arizona stimulus money if that’s the way you want to be. So these people think it’s their money and they can withhold stimulus money from Arizona because a senator innocuously suggests that Obama be prudent and quit bankrupting us.
They think they can summon people, insurance executives to the White House and make them come with papers to justify their rate increases or threaten to sue insurance companies because they share information as part of a required regulatory filing with the elderly saying they might lose benefits if Obamacare goes through.
These guys are tyrannical, dictatorial Stalinists and I would be remiss if I didn’t say that in answer to your question. So if anybody was of a mind to look at high crimes and misdemeanors, I think they’re certainly there. Still, I would recommend against it because all there’s going to be is a backlash — and that’s not the purpose of my book. My purpose is to hit him head on, fight him, and defeat him at the polls in a peaceable revolution.
Yes, related question, something you mentioned early on in that answer. Now you’ve studied Obama, you’ve written a book about him. You know his history very well. I have two simple questions. Is he a Muslim? Was he born in Hawaii?
You know, John, you are much more of an authority on the Hawaii thing. I don’t know. I think it’s intriguing. I think it’s possible that he wasn’t.
I’ll tell you the Framers, when they inserted that provision in the Constitution that you couldn’t have an alien be President — they did it because they didn’t believe a foreigner would have the loyalties to our country. I will just say this and this is kind of irrespective of the rule of law in the legal question, I think Obama has the kind of visceral disloyalty and contempt for America that the Framers were trying to avoid.
I agree with that, for sure.
I honestly don’t know factually whether he was born in Hawaii, but I do know there’s a lot of suspicious activity and he’s done a lot to suppress his records. He’s gone around and asked Harvard student classmates of his not to talk about him. We don’t even know if he went to Columbia. Maybe we’ll find out later, but this guy’s mysterious and his background is so suspect and so negative after being raised by all these America-hating, racist, card-carry communists. ….And what was the question again?
I asked if he was a Muslim or born in Hawaii.
OK, John, this is an interesting question to me and as a fellow Christian, you will agree with me that we can’t know someone else’s heart. But you’re asking my opinion and not asking me to be clairvoyant and psychoanalyze, so let me give you my intellectually honest opinion.
Barack, while he very well may be a Christian, I’ll issue that disclaimer; I have my serious doubts for a bunch of reasons.
We don’t have time to go into them all, but he was born a Muslim. I think he has an affinity and an affection for that religion and that culture. You see it in his body language. You see it in his expressed statements. You see him writing in his book that the sweetest sound he ever heard was the Muslim call to prayer. I find that very odd that a Christian, an authentic Christian could say that.
I find it very curious that he could go to a church spewing a black liberation theology, which is more race centered and Marxist centered, than it is Christ centered. I say that with all due respect and after having studied it, I’m not an expert. But that’s my assessment of it. His own church, with Pastor Wright, was supportive of Hamas and Hezbollah – and these are terrorist organizations. So there’s a tie between that church and the Palestinians and there’s an anti-Semitism in that church. There’s an anti-Americanism in that church. There’s a race or racist orientation in that church. Barack Obama voluntarily sat in those pews for 20 years and chose to get married there and baptized his kids there — and he has the audacity to tell us that he didn’t listen to any of the negativity and the anti-Americanism and race rhetoric from Jeremiah Wright
Yet, we know he dis-invited Jeremiah Wright to some appearance because of how incendiary he was and the kind of inflammatory statements he was known for making in the church. Obama did this before he denied having any knowledge of his inflammatory statements. In other words he had taken affirmative action to disinvite Wright months or maybe a year before he claimed for the first time he didn’t know Wright was that way. So that’s a bold, bald faced lie on his face.
The next reason I think I doubt his authentic Christianity is the bitter clinger statement where he derided conservative Christians and small town Americans as those who cling to their Bibles, guns and religions and have an animus toward people who don’t look like them. He has a visceral contempt for those who we might call Bible believing orthodox Christians. I find that very curious for one who claims to be a Christian.
And he, if you recall this, he sneeringly derided Scripture in an appearance when he talked about, well, it depends which scripture you’re going to talk to me about. If you’re talking about Leviticus where God’s ordering people to kill or are you going to talk about the New Testament, the Sermon on the Mount? It was the most irreverent thing — a God fearing person would never do because he was talking about Holy Scripture, not tea partiers, and he was deriding it. I thought, my gosh, he’s got contempt, even for the Bible. That was haunting for me to hear him say that.
I think you made a very good case that he’s not a Christian. You talked about Obama’s time in Jeremiah Wright’s church. So, do you think there’s a good case that could be made that Barack Obama is a racist?
…I think he is a racial president. I don’t want to go so far as to say racist because that is so inflammatory and so incendiary. While I want to speak the truth boldly, I want to be very careful on that one. But, I will say that it seems to me that he has a little bit of angst about some race issues. We’ve seen that manifest itself in the new Black Panther case which I think was clearly race motivated in the way it was handled.
The Justice Department lawyers who were so upset about it seemed to suggest the Obama-Holder Justice Department was not going to prosecute the new Black Panther party members for voter intimidation precisely because they reject the idea that there can be a white victim of black civil rights abuse. So I have to believe that’s a completely race oriented position. It may not result from racism, but it certainly is allowing racial policy to affect something that should be race neutral in our society, and that is the administration of the law.
The whole thing about America and the Lady Justice is that justice is blind. That’s what we mean by this. You can’t apply those kinds of standards. I think we’ve seen him in other areas where Eric Holder is free to make speeches which have nothing to do with his job as Attorney General, saying things like we’re cowards and don’t talk about race in this country.
Now they’re suggesting because the rap and hip hop have gone down in the ratings and conservative talk have gone up, they’re suggesting there’s some racial basis for that. They seem to play the race card every time they get a chance. It’s anything to paint conservatives as bigots or as nativists because they want to protect the border in Arizona, protect themselves, the rule of law, or the unique American culture.
That is an outrageous abusive epithet and they’re exploiting it. Look at the way Obama and his supporters have characterized the mosque thing. That also has racial overtones.
And so does Obama’s reflexive reaction to the Cambridge police arresting his friend, Professor Henry Gates. It was obvious to me that there was some race based thinking in his mind there when he said that the police were acting stupidly. I think Obama instinctively, reflexively assumed that there was a race-based reason for the arrest as opposed to some bonafide disturbance of the peace. He didn’t know the facts and without knowing the facts, he went ahead and pre-judged, condemned, and slandered the acting police officers and law enforcement in general. I thought that was an extremely racist thing that could only be born of some deep seated baggage that Obama carries.
And you can read his book and make another point. Remember he made the statement about his grandmother being a typical white person…
Yes, yes, because his grandmother got harassed by somebody at a bus stop. She was afraid of him and Obama came to the conclusion it was because the guy was black.
Yes, That’s it. See, imagine that. He’s got to have some deep baggage on that. …
Do you read the new media? Do you read blogs? And if so, which ones?
Oh, my gosh, yes. I mean, I bookmark a bunch of blogs, have the RSS feeds, and use that application that allows you to download them to and update frequently to your iPad and iPhone. Of course, I read yours. I read the Corner at National Review, Michelle Malkin — the only trouble with naming these is I’m going to omit people, so I don’t even know how to answer it.
Well, David, outstanding. I think this is going to be a great interview and I appreciate your time.
Once again, you can get David Limbaugh’s brand new, #1 bestseller: Crimes Against Liberty: An Indictment of President Barack Obama by clicking here.