David Limbaugh: The Left Says We Can’t Get Over Obama’s Black – “No, I Can’t Get Over He’s a Marxist”

If Obama re-elected ‘we don’t deserve to keep our country’

President Barack Obama and his administration have wreaked havoc on America, according to ”The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama’s War on the Republic,” a new book by New York Times bestselling author and attorney David Limbaugh.

While the title speaks for itself, Limbaugh dedicates over 400 pages to making a heavily footnoted case against the current administration, claiming the president is “waging a war on America.”

“I think we’re in a critical situation in this country today and we face crippling debt, and Obama’s policies are causing it, and he refuses to lead us toward fiscal solvency — and obstructs Republican efforts to stop it,” Limbaugh explained in an interview with The Daily Caller. “So we have to get him to see it. And I want to alert the public to the extent that I can just how bad his record has been, and how much worse it would be if he were re-elected.”

“So the goal is to help defeat him, ultimately,” said Limbaugh.

The book delves into Limbaugh’s analysis of Obama’s economic illiteracy but goes well beyond fiscal policy, with entire chapters detailing the president’s “wars on” energy, the Right, American culture, business, guns, national security and the dignity of his office.

Like Limbaugh’s 2010 analysis, “Crimes Against Liberty: An Indictment of President Barack Obama,” this follow-up pulls no punches.

“[H]e’s bankrupting us and obstructing our ability to reform entitlements, which are now at 99.4 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and his annual deficits are projected at almost a trillion a year, according to CBO, [for] the next 10 years — during which he says he’s not going to add a dime to the debt,” Limbaugh explained. “This brilliant president does not know the difference between the deficit and the debt so he’s not going to add a dime to the trillion dollar deficit!”

Read more here.

About those self-evident truths

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident…” What truths? What has happened to our passion for liberty? I am concerned that we conservatives, instead of making our case as fearless champions of liberty, are too often on the defensive, preoccupied with trying to prove we aren’t the demons the left says we are.

In the GOP primary contest, you’ll hear one candidate scolding the others for lacking compassion, another demagoguing a rival for advocating essential entitlement reform, and another shaming an opponent for being too wealthy.

Shouldn’t our side do a better job of proudly proclaiming our case for what we believe in rather than have our tails tucked between our legs, apologizing for conservatism and all too often neglecting our first principles?

Because we face an existential threat to the nation in our exploding discretionary and entitlement spending, we rightly aim our rhetoric against the deficits and the debt.

That’s critically important, but in the process, do we forget to explain that we favor smaller government also as a matter of principle? Do we make the case that we oppose a bigger and more intrusive government because a) it is incompatible with what we stand for — robust political liberty — and b) other than metastasizing and swallowing up the private sector and our individual liberties, government does only a few things well?

Likewise, do we connect the dots between our confiscatory tax policies and the diminution of our liberties, demonstrating a nexus between oppressive taxes and serfdom?

Do we protest that we are already overtaxed and that an onerous tax system, enforced by a menacing federal agency, devours our political liberty?

To the contrary, instead of communicating our passion for liberty — the bedrock principle upon which the nation was founded, lest we forget — we spend too much time defending against the false charge that we are evil elitists protecting a tax structure that is tilted in favor of the wealthy. It’s not.

We say we can’t support tax cuts during tough economic times, but are we tacitly conceding that it will be just fine to tax ourselves further into oblivion once the economy turns around?

How about saying, “We are taxed too much at every level, and our government’s financial problems are a result of overspending, not of under-taxation, and they will be solved not by increasing liberty-choking taxes, but by cutting spending”?

Read more here.

Obama decries demagoguing while, well, demagoguing

As the granddaddy of political demagoguery, President Obama might have outdone himself with his recent admonition to political opponents not to “demagogue” the immigration issue.

A “demagogue” is “a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.” “Ah,” you say, “Obama is onto something here. Those who oppose his open-border policy are appealing to prejudice against immigrants instead of to rational argument.” Wrong.

Rather, those who support defending our borders believe in the rule of law and in law enforcement. The people of the United States — and Arizona in particular — have a rational interest in protecting their borders and in wanting to prevent illegal immigration. Though we’ve had immigration laws on the books for years, are Obama’s Democrats saying they are irrationally based — that anyone who wants to enforce these laws is prejudiced? That anyone throughout our history who favored controlling immigration was harboring racial prejudice?

It is Obama and many of his supporters who fall into the demagogue category by appealing to prejudices and fears in lieu of rational argument. Even in his invocation of the term “demagogue” to describe this issue, Obama himself is demagoguing. He must, because he has no reasonable arguments to justify his lawless policy.

Read more here.

Obama’s unprecedented arrogance

By: David Limbaugh

President Obama’s administration grows more arrogant, cavalier and fundamentally dishonest every day. Just in the past few days, we’ve seen a number of troubling examples. Frankly, sometimes it’s hard to keep up.

In a speech in Wisconsin, Obama was bragging about how wonderful the terrible economy is. You’ll recall that during both of President George W. Bush’s terms, Democrats, including Obama, castigated him for destroying the economy, despite the existence of empirically verifiable robust growth during some seven of those eight years.

Now that Obama has been in office for a year and a half and his economy is failing by all objective measures, he and his Democrats demand, once again, that we ignore the empirical evidence in front of our faces and bow down to them in reverent gratitude for ensuring that things are not worse than they are.

Everyone knows Obama promised — he was hardly tentative about his prediction — that if the nation followed him over the cliff with his harebrained “stimulus” scheme, unemployment would not exceed 8 percent. When unemployment soared above 10 percent, he insisted we be patient to allow his plan to work. Now that it stubbornly remains in the high 9s, he tells us that if he hadn’t implemented his stimulus bill, the economy would be much worse (12 or 13 or 15 percent), so we not only are forbidden from criticizing him for this disaster but also must genuflect because only three of the four wheels of the economy are teetering over the edge of the cliff.

He said, “There may be some roads that not only were repaired but also were … linked up to create a new industrial park that would facilitate long-term economic development beyond this immediate crisis.”

Can you imagine the reaction of the liberal media had a Republican president uttered such gibberish? There “may be some roads”? How’s that for a non-statement? That were linked up to a new industrial park to facilitate long-term growth? How about some facts here, Mr. Intellectual? Then again, how can you blame him for citing nebulous “facts” and failed economic theory when neither the real facts nor the economic evidence substantiates his claims.

He also said that every economist who’s looked at it has said that the recovery did its job. Would someone please get this man a link to The Heritage Foundation’s website or any other credible conservative think tank or economist? Time and time again, Heritage scholars have not only argued but also demonstrated why Obama’s economic policies don’t work in theory and haven’t worked in practice. As noted many times before, they have not helped avert a crisis, but have exacerbated already bleak conditions. Sure, all economists agree with him, just as all Americans agree with his socialistic policies.

Moving on, in the past few days, we’ve also heard from former Justice Department attorney J. Christian Adams, who has confirmed — from the belly of the beast — our worst suspicions about Obama and Eric Holder’s Justice Department’s dismissing a slam-dunk case for voter intimidation against New Black Panther Party members for racial reasons. This is an egregious trampling on the rule of law, an outrage that would subject any Republican president to charges of high crimes and misdemeanors, a scandal of the first order for which this administration isn’t even bothering to develop “plausible deniability.”

Next, we read about Obama’s reaction to Sen. Lamar Alexander’s reasonable suggestion that any energy discussion between the president and a “bipartisan” group of senators should include a focus on the oil spill and BP. Obama said, “That’s just your talking point,” and flat-out refused to discuss the subject. Is he king or what?

Finally, we’ve also witnessed this week another outburst from that paragon of smugness, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, whom I criticized earlier for mocking members of the press corps for their legitimate questions in lieu of attempting to answer them in good faith.

This time, this little smarmy nerd-thug mocked Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona for claiming Obama told him in a private meeting he would not secure our borders because it would disincentivize Republicans from supporting his effort to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” (read: amnesty). Gibbs accused Kyl of changing his story and basically arguing with himself on the matter, even though Kyl has not retreated an iota from the only relevant assertion: that Obama made the statement in question. Watch the video in which Gibbs clearly intends to create the false impression Kyl had vacillated on his charge (http://freedomslighthouse.net/2010/06/30/robert-gibbs-mocks-gop-sen-jon-kyl-in-answer-about-border-conversation-with-obama-video), and tell me with a straight face we’re not dealing with an entirely unprecedented level of arrogance in this White House.

What would Saul Alinsky do?

By: David Limbaugh

Remember the popular motto “What would Jesus do?” which was invoked by many Christians as a moral guidepost for daily living? President Barack Obama more likely adheres to “What would Saul Alinsky do?” as most recently evidenced by his apparent defiance of a federal court order on his moratorium on offshore drilling.

Politico reports that the drilling companies who secured the court order blocking the moratorium say the administration indeed is going to defy the court order. I’m quite sure that Alinsky would applaud this move: If at first you don’t succeed through proper legal channels, proceed anyway, because nothing is more important than the radical ends you seek, including the means that must be trampled in the process.

Of course, shrewd Alinskyites like Obama will always have a plausible excuse for their deceitful tactics. In this case, they are alleging newly discovered facts. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said he intends to reimpose the drilling moratorium based on information that wasn’t “fully developed” in May, when the six-month moratorium was imposed. Quite convenient.

The administration is also sending mixed signals, probably to introduce sufficient confusion to cover its disobedience. The government’s brief filed with the court insisted, “Of course, until a further order of this Court or the Court of Appeals granting relief from this Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order, Defendants will comply with the Court’s Order.” But attorneys for the drilling companies warn that “Secretary Salazar’s comments have the obvious effect of chilling the resumption of (outer continental shelf) activities, which is precisely the wrong this Court sought to redress through its Preliminary Injunction Order.”

The companies’ point, notes Politico, is that Salazar’s public announcement that the administration will reinstitute the moratorium will have the same practical effect as actually doing it because companies are not about to prepare rigs for drilling when they might be shut down in a few days. The administration predictably pooh-poohs the companies’ concerns and says these new “facts” present an entirely different scenario. How convenient. Whenever you can’t advance the football, just move the goal posts your way.

Can’t you just hear an irate Alinsky-schooled Obama behind closed doors learning of the court order audaciously purporting to limit his plenary executive authority? “Just find the damn loophole — or say you did — and I don’t want to see you again in this office until it’s done.”

Defying court orders is just one of many ways Obama abuses his authority. When Congress failed with its initial efforts to impose cap-and-tax legislation designed to suppress traditional energy production and consumption in the United States for the ostensible purpose of reducing global temperature an imperceptible amount over the next century, Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency just issued ultra vires regulations to accomplish similar results. It didn’t matter that every literate and intellectually honest person had to concede that the EPA had no statutory (or any other) authority to issue such sweeping regulations. What mattered were the administration’s radical environmental goals.

When Obama wanted to secure for his favored unions a stake in his new General Motors far exceeding their actual ownership interest and rob secured creditors of their preferred-creditor status and the value of their investment, he used the power of his office to strong-arm a restructuring of the company to accomplish his aims. When Democratic Party donor and super-lawyer Tom Lauria opposed this plan on behalf of his client, the White House, according to Lauria, threatened to destroy his client’s reputation. One unnamed source described the White House as the most shocking “end justifies the means” group he had ever encountered. Another attributed Obama’s negotiating tactics to a “madman theory of the presidency,” saying Obama wants to be feared as someone who is willing to do anything to get his way. In return for standing up for their legal rights as secured creditors and not bending to Obama’s horrendously unfair demand, er, offer, Obama maligned the recalcitrant creditors as “a small group of speculators.”

When inspector general Gerald Walpin blew the whistle on the corruption of an Obama friend and supporter, Obama fired Walpin and sought to discredit him as a senile misfit — a charge wholly unsupported by the facts.

And I won’t begin to recite the many ways (e.g., reconciliation) Obama sought to circumvent the legislative process en route to Obamacare.

Alinsky is surely beaming from the other side.

Obama’s Latest Shakedown

By: David Limbaugh

President Obama’s oil spill speech revealed, once again, how stunningly shameless he is. This relentless ideologue is not even marginally competent at masking his ongoing crusade to apply a wrecking ball to every sector of our economy and remake it in his own image.

And I do mean “his” own image. Once again, his speech was loaded with first-person references, from “I refuse to let (Gulf Coast residents lose their way of life)” to “I expect (the new commission tasked with determining the cause of the explosion) to do that work thoroughly and impartially” to “I am happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party.” More on that last howler in a moment.

Obama’s MO is so predictable that sophisticated practitioners of Marxist transformation should be embarrassed. Then again, Obama doesn’t need to be subtle; he is the president — a president who rejects the constitutional limitations that applied to his mortal predecessors.

After sitting on his hands for months, he comes out rhetorically swinging with both barrels of his teleprompter blazing. First, declare a crisis — meticulously distorting the facts, especially those relative to what caused the crisis. Second, isolate a scapegoat (along with the awful, resource-exploiting, oil-inhaling, pre-Obama America) to be demonized and bullied into conspiring with him to launch his transformational solution — a solution that has nothing to do with solving the “crisis.” In the meantime, shield the true culprits from any blame. Third, unveil his grandiose plan for salvation by the federal government, provided it first acquires structurally new powers. All the while, he not only downplays the government’s culpability in all of this but also overstates its (and his) response to date.

A returning space traveler watching his speech would have assumed Obama actually had been “kicking tail” throughout this “crisis” instead of partying and playing golf. Upon watching the speech, the traveler would not have experienced the megadoses of d?j? vu felt by the rest of us, who had watched this movie — starring this very president — many times before.

To be sure, the oil spill has been terrible, and BP doubtlessly bears much blame. But do any of us know all the facts? Should the president be unilaterally declaring BP’s strict liability as if he were the final judge, jury and executioner — without even affording the company any opportunity to defend itself?

Alinsky-starved radicals might find it gratifying for a dictatorial president to beat up on such an evil agent of capitalism, but some of us find his approach unseemly and disturbing. Besides denying the company any semblance of due process and fairness, how about his habitual expenditure of negative energy — pointing fingers — instead of employing a constructive approach?

No matter how culpable BP is ultimately determined to be, Obama’s bullying should not deflect our attention from another culprit here: environmental extremists.

Just as Obama blamed Wall Street and exempted government (liberal policies) and quasi government entities (Freddie and Fannie) for their complicity in the financial meltdown and just as he blamed doctors, pharmaceuticals and insurance companies for soaring health care costs caused mostly by socialistic governmental policies, he is summarily blaming BP and exempting unreasonable liberal environmental policies for shutting down more conventional and safer drilling methods — and venues. As usual, he and his ilk greatly contribute to problems and then use those problems as catalysts to justify even greater doses of their destructive socialistic prescriptions. It’s maddening.

Just as Obama browbeat and bought off the American Medical Association and big pharma to go along with Obamacare, he summoned BP executives to his office. Flanked by Attorney General Eric Holder, who has threatened criminal action against BP, he shook down BP into forking over a $20 billion installment to defer the government’s further wrath. BP is but another prop Obama has chosen to advance another plank of his statist agenda — this time his plan to shut down our conventional energy industry in favor of new, quixotic alternative energy methods that will succeed only in propelling this nation even faster toward Third World status.

I’m surprised Obama didn’t give another “shout-out” to “Joe Medicine Crow” as he began his speech designed to pretend he cares about the victims of the oil spill (even his lib media enablers aren’t buying it this time) — for the sole purpose of passing cap and trade on their backs. Cap and trade has already failed, but so had health care before he finally crammed it through.

Just as Obama fraudulently promised to listen to Republican ideas at his bogus health care summit after he’d shut them out of the process from the beginning, he promised to “look at other ideas and approaches from either party” on his cap-and-trade fiasco. Oh, yes, he’s all about considering the ideas of others and the will of the American people. And I’m all about advancing liberalism. LOL.

Obama’s (Axelrod’s) choreographed media blackout

By: David Limbaugh
Examiner Columnist

Our “most open and transparent” president in American history is still playing hide-and-seek with the press, and even the liberal New York Times has begun to notice it, as indicated by this headline: “Obama Turns His Back On the Press.”

If the mainstream media were not so ideologically wedded to President Obama’s big-government agenda, they would be doing more than pointing out his secrecy and hypocrisy with the occasional headline. They’d be skewering him daily for his marked inaccessibility. Not having a genuine news conference since July would be remarkable for the least transparent administration, let alone one that made openness a signature campaign issue.

But not everyone in the leftist press is exercising such restraint about Obama’s media blackout. CBS News’ Chip Reid decided to ask Obama a question following his signing of the Freedom of the Press Act. Doing his best Hugo Chavez, Obama said, “I’m not doing a press conference today, but we’ll be seeing you guys during the course of this week.”

HotAirPundit posted a video of Reid explaining that he asked the question because the irony of Obama’s signing the Freedom of the Press Act while rarely fielding questions “in impromptu situations” was “too rich to resist.” Reid asked, “Mr. President, in the interest of press freedom, might you consider a couple of questions on BP?”

When Reid took Obama up on his noncommittal pledge and tried to ask him a question at the Rose Garden “news conference” with the president of Mexico a few days later, Obama ignored him.

This should surprise no one. A case could be made that Obama’s never had a news conference that he hasn’t largely controlled. He and his handlers, from David Axelrod to Rahm Emanuel, understand the importance of managing the press to control the message in the interest of advancing the leftist agenda.

They know that their statist goal of greatly expanding government depends on Obama’s not revealing any more than necessary how radical to the core he actually is because true transparency about his real agenda would be suicidal.

But his handlers also realize, even if Obama doesn’t, that the less scripted he is the more difficult it is to manage the message. And they understand that he ought not be allowed to venture too far from the teleprompter very often, lest he demonstrate that his manufactured reputation both for eloquence and wisdom are, well, manufactured. Oh, yes, and don’t let me forget those manufactured bipartisan myths, but surely no one is clueless enough to pay any attention to those anymore.

There’s just no telling what he might say off the cuff, whether it’s an awkwardly inappropriate “shout-out” to Dr. Joe Medicine Crow before delivering curiously disconnected remarks on the Fort Hood massacre or telling Joe the Plumber we need to spread the wealth around a little or saying, “At a certain point, you’ve made enough money.”

But Obama’s repeated gaffes tell me that he’s too narcissistic to fully grasp that he often undermines his own cause when off-script because he can’t refrain from playing his hand.

But I would bet that in their inner-circle huddles, Obama’s handlers have somehow persuaded him — because he always must be the boss — to studiously avoid unscripted moments like the plague, leave the message scripting to the choreographers, and deal with any press blowback through damage control. That’s a much lesser evil than getting off-message.

In one of his extemporaneous moments at Hampton University, he unwittingly disclosed the administration’s MO, not that discerning observers didn’t already know it. He openly lamented the advent of the “24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank that high on the truth meter.”

He might as well have just directly said it: “I don’t like the free flow of information in the new media, which tends to impede the advancement of my agenda, which depends on keeping the public in the dark.”

That is exactly the philosophy of his appointed “diversity czar,” Mark Lloyd, who idolizes Hugo Chavez and believes freedom of speech must be subordinated to the left’s “greater” societal goals, and of his Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, who complained about the “overabundance” of ideas that might require government action to “un-skew.”

Think about it: Without Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the new media shining the light of truth daily, populist lies, such as that the Arizona law is racist and discriminatory, might go unchallenged.

We are dealing with a totalitarian mindset in this administration, and it might sound more civil to candy coat that fact, but it doesn’t serve the interests of truth or of the nation.

Examiner Columnist David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His book “Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today’s Democratic Party” was released recently in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his Web site at http://www.DavidLimbaugh.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page.

R

David Limbaugh: Obama’s planned remarks at Quincy just as telling

By: David Limbaugh
Examiner Columnist
May 5, 2010

Pundits are making a great deal out of Obama’s ad-lib statement during his speech on financial reform in Quincy, Ill., about profits and earnings. But his prepared remarks are just as revealing, even if not obviously so, of his profit aversion and his belief in government control over the private economy.

In his prepared remarks, Obama said: “Now, we’re not doing this (financial reform) to punish these firms or begrudge success that’s fairly earned. We don’t want to stop them from fulfilling their responsibility to help grow our economy.” But live, he added, among other things, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

Let me first address his prepared comments, about which I haven’t heard much criticism. He assured us he wasn’t pushing the financial reform bill — his latest socialist (actually, it’s closer to fascist, but why pick nits?) monstrosity — to punish success that’s fairly earned.

Well, why do you suppose he needs to assure us he’s not intending to “punish”? A little subconscious admission perchance? Remember, he protests that he’s a fierce advocate of the free market. Remember also that he is allowing the Bush tax cuts — because they are “tax cuts for the wealthy,” who don’t pay “their fair share” — to expire, not to mention the host of other taxes he is imposing on the “rich” — and many on the rest of Americans, too, despite his pledge not to.

Please put aside for now the outrageousness of this ongoing lie designed to divide America by income groups and to win Democratic votes through propaganda and demagoguery. Of course the rich — especially the top 1 percent, 5 percent and 10 percent — pay a higher percentage of income taxes than the poor and also pay more in actual taxes, while the bottom half of income earners pay a negligible amount.

The point for now is that Obama says he wants to rectify the tax code to make the “wealthy” start paying their fair share, as if they don’t already. And you don’t need to be Freud to realize his prepared remarks reveal that his true motives include punishment. You just need to have paid attention to his statements and behavior since he bopped onto the national stage.

The next noteworthy phrase from his prepared declaration is “fairly earned.” Fairly earned? Who is he to say what is fairly earned, unless he’s talking about legally earned? But it’s obvious he is not. He’s talking about his own value judgments. It wouldn’t matter so much what he or any other socialist-leaning pol thought about what is fairly earned if he didn’t think he had a right, nay, duty to assert some kind of regulatory control over what is fair. But he does think that and is attempting to act on it — actually has acted on it with TARP companies and beyond.

So though it’s big of him to assure us that he’ll keep his big-government hands off “fairly earned” income, what about what he doesn’t think is fairly earned — according to his values? I can guarantee you that Obama and free marketers will never agree as to what is and isn’t fairly earned or when, if ever, it is government’s business to insinuate itself into the issue at all.

Next, it is doubtful a free marketer would talk about a financial institution’s fulfillment of its “responsibility to help grow our economy.” Banks are obviously indispensable to economic growth, but they are for-profit institutions that have no duty to operate at losses any more than insurance companies — though Obama begrudges their profits, too, as he proved in his slanderous onslaught against the entire industry and his distortions about their profitability. Obama’s characterization of banks’ role in terms of a duty to the collective economy is just more of the same — an affirmation of his belief that if banks or other businesses are not contributing enough to the economy or whatever else, in his view, it’s government’s place to step in.

Of course it’s none of his business as president to pass on whether someone has made too much. But nor is it any president’s business to punish the wealthy or to involve himself in whether private-sector firms “fairly earn” their keep.

There is one other peculiar thing about Obama’s inclusion of all of these remarks in the context of his speech on financial reform — again, an unintended revelation. Obama has not been promoting this bill as having anything to do with profits, but instead as authorization for the government to step in to superintend the orderly dissolution of firms that are “too big to fail” in order to prevent a cascading effect on the entire financial sector. It is enormously significant that on the stump, he spontaneously talked about profits in a bill that is supposed to have nothing to do with that subject. Obama just can’t help himself, whether on or off the teleprompter.

Examiner Columnist David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His book “Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today’s Democratic Party” was released recently in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his Web site at http://www.DavidLimbaugh.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Obama_s-planned-remarks-at-Quincy-just-as-telling-92807734.html#ixzz0n0py83NT

%d bloggers like this: