Rush Limbaugh: Mathematical and architectural historian
By Simon Maloy

As you might have already guessed, we here at the Limbaugh Wire are consumed by a sense of self-righteous masochism. As such, we stopped watching a perfectly good sporting contest last night so we could flip over to Fox News and confirm that Sean Hannity's interview with Rush was proceeding exactly as we had predicted. Sure enough, we were right -- Rush was armed with the same worn-out jabs at President Obama that we've all heard before, and Hannity looked like a Kindergartener staring with wide-eyed wonder at Santa Claus. But then there was this gem from El Rushbo: “If Al Qaeda wants to demolish the America we know and love, they better hurry, because Obama's beating them to it.” There are a couple of things wrong with this, and while we momentarily found ourselves hesitant to point out the obvious, that hesitation was obliterated by the fact that pointing out the obvious is our job, so here it goes. Al Qaeda does not want to destroy the gauzy concept of “the America we know and love,” they want to destroy America -- with guns, bombs, shurikens, pointy sticks, or any other destructive implement they can lay their hands on. Obama, on the other hand, wants to raise Rush Limbaugh's taxes. So until Obama gives a speech while holding an AK-47 or Osama bin Laden unveils his plan to hike the capital gains tax, the comparison is foolish.

Rush got things rolling today by attacking the “state-run media” -- the Associated Press in particular -- for reporting that the “number of people on the unemployment insurance rolls fell slightly for the first time in 20 weeks, while the tally of new jobless claims also dipped.” The intent behind this sort of reporting, Rush said, is to prop up Obama and shine a positive light on a bad economy. But, said Rush, the AP also reported that the “unemployment rate, meanwhile, will rise to 9.2 percent from 8.9 percent in April, analysts forecast.” Rush was sure that everyone was wondering how unemployment can go up while the number of Americans on unemployment fell. Well, Rush attempted to explain, these figures do not include the people who have given up looking for work. (Since people generally have to be seeking work both to be counted in the unemployment rate and receive unemployment payments, Rush is leading his audience astray.) The state-run media, said Rush, is doing “everything they can” to make it look like the economy isn't so bad. We have to think that if the media were doing “everything they can” to make the economy look better than it is, they wouldn't even bother reporting on rising unemployment. But we'll leave Rush to explain that hole in his theory.

Then Rush moved to E.J. Dionne's Washington Post column this morning, in which Dionne wrote that the “power of the Limbaugh-Gingrich axis means that Obama is regularly cast as somewhere on the far left end of a truncated political spectrum. He's the guy who nominates a 'racist' to the Supreme Court (though Gingrich retreated from the word yesterday), wants to weaken America's defenses against terrorism and is proposing a massive government takeover of the private economy.” Rush said Obama's not proposing it -- he's doing it! Rush elaborated: “His speech assuring the country what was going to happen to General Motors after bankruptcy -- 34 times he used the word 'I.' He never -- he never said we're going to get legislation to get this done: 'I, the president.' The president and the White House statement that came out: 'The president has deemed the plan put fourth by GM workable.' The president -- we've got a miniature dictator-in-waiting here, in his own mind, and he is taking over the private sector.”

Noting that Dionne highlighted Steve Forbes comparing Obama to Juan Perón, Rush bragged that he got there first, and then attacked Michelle Obama, President Obama, and Judge Sonia Sotomayor for being “angry.” Rush concluded all this by explaining that Dionne doesn't understand how it works, even though he's a member of the “state-run media.”

After the break, Rush set his sights on Obama's speech in Cairo this morning, first airing a sound bite of Obama saying:

OBAMA: As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam - at places like Al-Azhar University - that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

Rush explained that he understood that the media consensus was that this was an incredible speech and we're not supposed to criticize it, but this was “outrageous” and “absurd” said Rush. Algebra, said Rush, was invented by the ancient Greeks, not Muslims. Well, Rush, Muslim mathematician Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Musa Al-Khwarizmi is considered to be “the founder of algebra.” Then Rush objected to Obama saying that Muslims have helped “our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed,” reprising his inane comments from yesterday: "[A]re there Nobel Prizes for medicine awarded to Muslims I have missed?" Rush also objected to Obama saying: “Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires.” Rush retorted by saying that arches and spires predate Islam by centuries -- “anyone hear of ancient Rome?” Well, Rush, that would be a fine response had Obama said that Muslims invented arches and spires. But he didn't.

After the break, Rush announced that he will ignore the alleged dictate from the media to not criticize Obama's speech and announced that if Obama can give a speech about all the contributions to humanity from the ancient Muslim world, then take heart, because it may be that, some day, he can give a speech about America and all its accomplishments, too.

Then Rush read from Red State's Erick Erickson, who wrote this morning that Obama, in his speech, “put[] the genocide of 6 million Jews in the same category of what has happened to the Palestinians.” Erickson was referring to Obama, who, after acknowledging the horrors of the Holocaust, said: “On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people -- Muslims and Christians -- have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.” We saw this as more Obama saying “both these things have happened,” rather than “both these things have happened and were the same,” but Rush declared this “unconscionable.” The 6 million Jews who were slaughtered were not terrorists, like the PLO and Hezbollah, said Rush. Rush said he doesn't consider this to be a “gutsy” speech -- a gutsy speech would have been Obama outlining the long list of horrors committed by the militant wing of Islam. Rush also faulted Obama for not outlining the efforts the U.S. has made to save Muslims, like giving missiles to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. Those would be the same Mujahideen who later formed the core of Al Qaeda, so you can see why he probably didn't bring that particular example up.

Anyway, Rush's question -- and he made sure we knew that this was a “serious” question -- was: What is Obama's plan for defending this nation and its allies? Has he articulated that plan? No. It's his belief that he can end all strife and wars with his words. Israel, Rush concluded, is in deep trouble, because they're on their own and they know it. We heard a different message in Obama's speech: “America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.”

After the break, Rush had another sound bite from Obama: “For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail.” To Rush, the most interesting line in that bite was the last sentence. Rush said it was a foundational reason for the redistribution of wealth around the world. “This is a call for the end of sovereignty.” From there, Rush launched into -- and stop us if you've heard this before -- exonerations of “American exceptionalism” contrasted with Obama's agenda to cut the nation down to size: an agenda that is fueled by “anger.” And, of course, Obama is both socialist and fascist. This statement by Obama, said Rush, is a guarantee of world-wide misery with Obama and people like him benefiting.

Greg Lewis and Lauryn Bruck contributed to this edition of the Limbaugh Wire.

Highlights from Hour 1

Outrageous comments

LIMBAUGH: Somebody counted it up the other day -- his speech assuring the country what was going to happen to General Motors after bankruptcy -- 34 times he used the word “I.” He never -- he never said we're going to get legislation to get this done: “I, the president.”

The president and the White House statement that came out: “The president has deemed the plan put fourth by GM workable.” The president -- we've got a miniature dictator-in-waiting here, in his own mind, and he is taking over the private sector.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: Steve Forbes, writing for his magazine, recently went so far as to compare Obama's economic policies to those of Juan Perón's Argentina. I don't -- I'm just going to point this out, but I think I did that first, too, when talking about industrial policy and automobiles that's -- and Forbes is right. This is out of Juan Perón's Argentina. The only thing we're waiting on is for Michelle to become Evita.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: Our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed? We have -- are there Nobel Prizes for medicine awarded to Muslims I have missed?

[...]

LIMBAUGH: The most interesting line in that bite to me is the last sentence: “Any world order that elevates one nation or a group of people over another will inevitably fail.” Now there is a foundational reason -- he's offering a foundational reason for the redistribution of wealth, not just within a country, but around the world. That is -- hello, United Nations. This is a call for the end of sovereignty. Somebody would have to mandate this.

“Socialism” and “fascism” watch

LIMBAUGH: Trying to force some kind of result, some kind of world order will inevitably fail, and I see this last line in this speech as a call for a world order; and when you have a world order where nobody's elevated above anybody else, either from nations to nation or person to person, what do you have? What do you have?

When everybody's the same in terms of outcome, what do you have? You have socialism. You have socialism and you have fascism. And you have the president of the United States discussing here the concept of a world order that would bring about that kind of sameness.

Echo chamber

Read extensively from RedState.com's Erick Erickson's rantings on Obama and “moral equivalency.”