|
Rush Limbaugh on Homeland Security
Conservative Talk-show Host
|
|
|
Fiscal cliff cuts defense without any political price
Back to the fiscal cliff. Obama wants to go over the cliff. It's hard to believe that Obama would want to go over the cliff and start his second term with a new recession and massive unemployment.So you say, "Okay, why would he want to go over the
cliff?" Well, what happens when we go over the cliff? A Democrat orgasm happens. Taxes go up for everybody. That's nirvana to these people. Taxes go up on everybody on January 1st, in all kinds of ways: income, payroll, ObamaCare, taxes up for everybody.
The second most orgasmic thing that could happen for Democrats is the defense budget gets cut. So you've got uncontrolled joy. You've got tax increases for everybody, and then you've got massive defense cuts.
I cannot emphasize enough how excited they
are at the prospect of taxes going up on everybody and the defense budget being cut and nobody has to do anything. There's no political price to be paid, it's already signed as part of the raising the debt limit last time, sequestration, all that.
Source: Rush Limbaugh Show, "Going Off the Cliff"
, Nov 29, 2012
Defense Authorization Act is total authoritarianism
The thing Obama signed on New Year's Eve, the new Defense Authorization Act. I don't know if people don't know what's in this or if other things take precedence. Folks, you know what this thing does? It allows the United States military to detain anybody
for no reason! They don't even have to charge you. I mean, this is specified. This is not the Patriot Act. This is way beyond. This is total authoritarianism. This is the kind of stuff that exists in Third World banana republics. The government can
detain anybody! All they have to do... They actually don't have to do anything. They just have to say they suspect you of terrorism. They don't have to prove it. They don't have to have any evidence. They can charge you. They can put you away in a jail.
You are not allowed a lawyer. You are not allowed habeas corpus. Obama even issued a signing statement with it in which he said: "Don't worry, I'm not going to do this." Well, he can, as can anybody in the military, as can any future president.
Source: Rush Limbaugh Show, "Power to Detain US Citizens"
, Jan 3, 2012
Al Qaeda people would surrender to get treatment like Gitmo
"The inmates of Guantanamo have never been treated better and they've never been more comfortable in their lives. And the idea that somehow we are torturing people in Guantanamo is absolutely not true, unless you consider having to eat chicken three
times a week is torture."
--Rep. Duncan Hunter, chairman, House Armed Services Committee, June 12, 2005
"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what most Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you
would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some made regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings."
--Sen. Dick Durbin, on FBI report on treatment of Gitmo prisoners, June 17,
2005
"If the word of how they're being treated keeps getting out, we're going to have al-Qaeda people surrendering all over the world trying to get in the place."
--Radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, June 16, 2005
Source: The War in Quotes, by G.B. Trudeau, p. 66-68
, Oct 1, 2008
Nobody got physically injured in Abu Ghraib scandal
When the photos of the abuse at Abu Ghraib first surfaced in 2004, most people around the world were appalled. Not Rush Limbaugh: "I thought it looked like anything you could see at a Madonna or Britney Spears concert."The next day, Rush drew a
different parallel: "We're going to ruin people's lives over it, and we're going to hamper our military effort, because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. You ever hear of emotional release? You ever heard of 'need
to blow some steam off'?"
On day 4: "All right, so we're at war with these people. And they're in a prison where they're being softened up for interrogation. And we hear that the most humiliating thing you can do is make one Arab male disrobe in front
of another. Sounds to me like it's pretty thoughtful. Sounds to me in the context of war this is pretty good intimidation. Maybe the people who executed this pulled off a brilliant maneuver. Nobody got hurt. Nobody got physically injured."
Source: The Truth (with jokes), by Al Franken, p.272-273
, Oct 25, 2005
No women in combat
What is the whole purpose of the armed forces? It is designed to kill people and break things. We have to look at the military as a separate and unique institution with separate and unique requirements. It’s different from all other institutions in our
society, and our only standard must be excellence-no matter whose feelings get hurt. Our only concern should be that the military does what it is supposed to do. Would an all-female combat force provide our nation with the best possible defense?
Clearly, the answer to that question is no. With an all-female combat force, would there be a need for men? Clearly, yes. Now, with an all-male combat force, do we have the best fighting machine we can assemble? Clearly, yes. No one has ever suggested
that women are vitally needed on the front line to improve our battlefield performance. So, if there is no need for women in combat as it relates to our purpose and objective, why are we considering it? Obviously, the answer is, For political reasons.
Source: See, I Told You So, p.290
, Jul 2, 1993
No gays in army; not a place for social experiments
There will be consequences to lifting the ban on homosexuals in the form of harm to the military & thus, arguably, our national security. If you don’t want to accept my judgement in this matter, perhaps you would be prefer to listen to Gen. Schwarzkopf,
who echoed what I have been telling you for years: “The job of the military is to go to war and win, not to be instruments of social experimentation.” Schwarzkopf says that although homosexuals have no doubt served honorably in the military, in every
case he knows about, their units have become divided when others learn of their sexual orientation. Every case!Did anyone notice Les Aspin’s report that the military is not in a high state of preparedness? Could it be that the best and the
brightest of our young men have no desire to participate in the kinds of social experiments politicians are forcing on the military? Could it be that there is no way to foster esprit de corps when you treat the military like a social laboratory?
Source: See, I Told You So, p.291-92
, Jul 2, 1993
Do not subject women to the horrors of combat
Congresswoman Pat Schroeder is leading the charge to have women in the military be given the choice of entering combat. She claims that unless women are allowed to serve in combat roles, they won’t get to climb the career ladder of the military & become
generals. Her philosophy illustrates precisely why we have to keep the ideology of feminism out of the military. What will the feminists seek in the military, first and foremost? Equality. Fairness. Gender quotas. Well, the military’s chief goal is
excellence. We shouldn’t emasculate (pun intended) the military by shackling it with the demands of every silly social movement that is currently fashionable. The military has a job to do.I don’t believe that women should be in combat roles even if
they can do the job. Why? Simple. Women have a civilizing role in our society. They establish enduring values that are handed down from generation to generation. I just don’t believe that we have to subject women to the horrors and rigors of war.
Source: The Way Things Ought To Be, p.200-1
, Jul 2, 1992
Page last updated: May 01, 2021