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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.