DAVID LIMBAUGH is the author of the best selling books: "Absolute Power" and "Persecution". He is a frequent radio and television personality, and blogs at davidlimbaugh.com

June 15, 2010

Obama's Assaults on Liberty Proceed Unabated

By: David Limbaugh

I cannot be the only one who feels as if every new day brings a new assault on this nation and its people by this administration. Indeed, many people I know say they can't even watch the news anymore because it's so depressing. And it is.

Some of these assaults occur under the radar, and others are right out in the open. As an example of the former, last week, President Obama issued an executive order "Establishing the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council," which will focus on "lifestyle behavior modification (including smoking cessation, proper nutrition, appropriate exercise, mental health, behavioral health, substance-use disorder, and domestic violence screenings)." It will even recommend changes in federal policy to reduce "sedentary behavior."

The order also creates an advisory group within the Department of Health and Human Services that will answer to the surgeon general, who will serve as the chairwoman of the council.

In case you're wondering what authority the president launched this program under, he covers that in the first paragraph of the executive order: "By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 4001 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), it is hereby ordered..."

Continue reading "Obama's Assaults on Liberty Proceed Unabated"

Posted by redguy at 05:37 AM | TrackBack (0)

June 11, 2010

MSM Reveal Own Bias in Bias Allegations

By: David Limbaugh

I don't know which is more pathetic, President Barack Obama's TV threat to "kick ass" or Time magazine senior political analyst Mark Halperin's suggestion that Matt Drudge's provocative headline concerning the threat intentionally played to the alleged racism of his readers.

As much as I'd like to lampoon Obama for talking tough against oil spillers to compensate for his grossly negligent aloofness on the matter, I'll go with the sanctimonious Halperin, who needs to remove his blinding liberal filter.

Obama's exact words in explaining why he consults government experts concerning the oil spill were, "We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers so I know whose ass to kick."

Unfortunately, neither black nor white liberals will let Obama's comment or certain reactions to it pass without turning it into an incident with racial implications. The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart wrote, "African American men are taught at very young ages (or learn the hard way) to keep our emotions in check, to not lose our cool, lest we be perceived as dangerous or menacing."

Similarly, Halperin got exercised over Drudge's headline "Obama goes street: seeking 'ass to kick,'" which, according to Halperin, "includes this photo of an angry-looking Barack Obama. I think it's all pretty clear to all of us what's going on."

Continue reading "MSM Reveal Own Bias in Bias Allegations"

Posted by redguy at 06:25 AM | TrackBack (0)

May 25, 2010

They're All Obama Liberals Now

By: David Limbaugh

Liberals have a learning disability when it comes to the impracticability of socialism. They are so steeped in the seductive lies of false compassion that no amount of logic, history or everyday experience registers. Thus, they continue to burden the market system to an unsustainable level.

Liberals have always denied they intend to unduly shackle the free market. They say America is exceptionally prosperous -- though it never occurs to them why -- and can afford robust entitlement and redistributive schemes. But in no way would they favor anything extreme that would push the market to the tipping point.

Well, now that they are completely in charge, we've seen what they will do. Obama liberals believe not in America's promise (and Martin Luther King Jr.'s hope) of equality of opportunity, but in equality of outcomes. Truth be told, Obama probably believes in a wholesale reversal of wealth distribution: not just equalizing it, but making the wealthy poor and the poor wealthy. But I'll leave the psychoanalysis to others.

Largely because of their worldview differences, conservatives and liberals will never agree on the moral merits of capitalism versus socialism.

Conservatives believe, generally, that economic and political freedoms are interconnected and that socialism, beyond the obvious, constricts and eventually smothers political liberties. (Hat Tip: Friedrich Hayek.) They believe that our rights are a gift from God and that it is both immoral and counterproductive for a central government to confiscate a major portion of some people's work product and transfer it to others. Nor is any man entitled to moral bragging rights for presiding over government-coerced theft.

But we're not going to reach a consensus on these moral questions, and liberals will continue to demonize, bully and attempt to shame conservatives with their phony moral arguments and ignore the overwhelming empirical evidence contradicting their intractable views.

Continue reading "They're All Obama Liberals Now"

Posted by redguy at 05:59 AM | TrackBack (0)

May 21, 2010

Obama's (Axelrod's) Choreographed Media Blackout

By: David Limbaugh

The "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 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.

Continue reading "Obama's (Axelrod's) Choreographed Media Blackout"

Posted by redguy at 05:48 AM | TrackBack (0)

May 11, 2010

Exploring Kagan

By: David Limbaugh

President Barack Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, once wrote that Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court judicial nominees should explore a "nominee's set of constitutional views and commitments." By all means, let's accommodate her and begin exploring.

We could start with the presumption, given Obama's ideology and judicial philosophy, that any nominee he chooses will be troubling for advocates of judicial restraint and interpreting the Constitution according to its original understanding. But let's put that aside for this little exploration.

On my initial research, a number of problematic areas have surfaced. Consider, for starters:

--She has no judicial experience and hardly any experience practicing law. She's mainly been an academic. I confess this one bothers me less than others, for I believe an intellectually honest academic, with proper respect for the Constitution, could make a fine appellate judge.

--Kagan, as dean of Harvard Law School, joined an amicus brief in an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit and another brief to the Supreme Court challenging a congressional law that denied federal funding to universities that didn't allow military recruiters access to their campuses. Kagan was outraged at the military because of its "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which banned openly homosexual men and women from the service, once calling it "a profound wrong -- a moral injustice of the first order."

Continue reading "Exploring Kagan"

Posted by redguy at 06:49 AM | TrackBack (0)

May 04, 2010

Obama's Planned Remarks at Quincy Just as Telling

By: David Limbaugh

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.

Continue reading "Obama's Planned Remarks at Quincy Just as Telling"

Posted by redguy at 04:55 AM | TrackBack (0)

April 27, 2010

Obama(doesn't)care Taking Surprise Hits

By: David Limbaugh

As President Barack Obama is attempting to steamroll yet another enormous policy change through Congress against the best interests of Americans, we would be well-advised to keep abreast of the frauds that are already being exposed about Obamacare.

Last week, reality dealt Obamacare twin blows -- not that Obama will care. An analysis inside his own administration and a report from New York state shed the grim light of reality on this monstrosity before its Draconian provisions have even gone into effect.

Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department issued a report last week, conveniently after Obamacare was shoved through, finding that though more people will end up with health insurance (many of them against their will, of course), costs are going to increase. Shocker.

How could coverage not increase with the legal mandate forcing unwilling people to buy health insurance coverage? Today millions entitled to assistance don't avail themselves of it, but Obamacare will presumably be different because there will be a penalty for non-coverage -- an idea that Obama expediently mocked during the primary campaign.

But costs will also increase? I thought Obama promised to bend the cost curve down -- that he wouldn't add one dime to the deficit with Obamacare. But two dimes or a quarter are apparently a different matter.

The HHS analysis found Obamacare will raise projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years -- and this is without even considering the impact of numerous gimmicks and camouflaged items, such as the Medicare "doctor fix." There are presently scheduled 21 percent cuts in Medicare reimbursements to physicians, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has promised that they won't be implemented. What a sham!

Continue reading "Obama(doesn't)care Taking Surprise Hits"

Posted by redguy at 06:29 AM | TrackBack (0)

April 16, 2010

PARP: TARP On Steroids

By: David Limbaugh

There seems to be no limit to the Obamacrats' appetite for expanding federal power and for fabricating and exploiting crises, which must never be allowed "to go to waste."

They always have a rationale for plausibly denying their federal power grabs. But like Obama's other big agenda items, the financial overhaul bill currently in the Senate is exactly that..

Most Americans instinctively didn't like TARP -- the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program. Even those who believed it was a necessary evil to avert financial catastrophe regarded the use of government funds to bail out companies as distasteful. They considered the government's subsequent assumption of control over TARP companies as even more distasteful.

But at least they were told it would be "temporary." Just as Obama said, "I don't want to run auto companies," he said he didn't want to run banks. Right.

Apparently learning the wrong lesson from the public's outrage at their shoving through Obamacare against the people's will, Obamacrats have adopted the same model to push through their financial overhaul plan, which Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner boastfully describes as "the strongest financial reforms since those that followed the Great Depression." Have you noticed with these statists that everything has to be dramatic -- the "greatest crisis," the "most comprehensive health care plan," the "strongest financial reforms"? Believe me; we believe you. We get it. You don't like the America we like, and you want to radically change it.

Continue reading "PARP: TARP On Steroids"

Posted by redguy at 05:19 AM | TrackBack (0)

April 02, 2010

Sick Thinking From 'Mainstream' Leftists

By: David Limbaugh

The Obama left, realizing it has really stepped in it with the American people by cramming Obamacare down our throats, has decided to blunt the backlash against it by tarring, yet again, mainstream conservatives as racists, bigots, homophobes and violent. Its tactics are objectively despicable.

You know the drill. We conservatives, who happen to understand ourselves better than liberals do, know that we are largely a civil, respectable, peaceable bunch. Attendees to the Rush Limbaugh-inspired Dan's Bake Sale years ago can attest to the mature, wholesome behavior of Rush fans. Ditto Sean Hannity's Freedom Concert attendees and tea party protest attendees.

The leftists who actually believe the fraudulent bile they are spewing about conservatives as being violent are merely projecting. They know their own side often disrupts and shuts down debate and engages in hate speech and even anarchy. Witness the unruly leftist disruptions of Ann Coulter appearances or the sabotaging of Karl Rove's appearance by Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans, one of Obama's radical buddies. Look at the tea party violence from the SEIU left.

But the majority of leftists making these bogus claims about conservatives are either deeply warped or outright lying. There are some isolated acts of fringe violence from the right, but they are just that -- isolated and rare. With the many tea parties that have occurred, how much conservative-spawned violence have you heard about -- even with a liberal media champing at the bit to slander the entire movement? Hardly any -- beyond the fabrications.

Continue reading "Sick Thinking From 'Mainstream' Leftists"

Posted by redguy at 05:49 AM | TrackBack (0)

March 30, 2010

Obama's Gifts to the 'Outlier' Have Only Just Begun

By: David Limbaugh

Whatever you do, don't assume that Obamacare and the rest of Obama's statist agenda will be easy to reverse because the public is so outraged. Obama and his relentless leftist armies have only just begun to fight.

One might suspect that after strong-arming Obamacare through Congress over the objections of a substantial majority of Americans, the Obamunists would lie low for a while -- or that they would at least pretend to make conciliatory overtures to the other side to heal the rifts they've caused in this nation.

Hardly. The left wing is in full gloating mode. Liberal columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. wrote: "Yes, we did. Finally, President Obama can use those words. ... No longer will the United States be the outlier among wealthy nations in leaving so many of its citizens without basic health coverage." Yes, that evil old United States -- you know, the "outlier" who, up to now, has not forced millions of people who don't want to buy health insurance to buy it. And who will provide further insurance to millions more who already have access to federal health assistance but don't avail themselves of it.

There will be no mea culpas for the outrageous abuses they committed in passing this bill. There'll be no humility and no interest in reconciling. If anything, they're puffed up even more, as if they're entitled to kudos for thwarting the will of the people and prepared to give them more of the same -- which they are, with the likes of amnesty and cap and tax.

Continue reading "Obama's Gifts to the 'Outlier' Have Only Just Begun"

Posted by redguy at 05:56 AM | TrackBack (0)

March 23, 2010

The Beginning of the End or of Rebirth?

By: David Limbaugh

The Democrats' passage of socialized medicine Sunday night will spell either the beginning of the end of this great nation or the beginning of the rebirth of its freedom. The choice is still in the hands of Americans.

To borrow a phrase from President Barack Obama, "let's be clear" on a couple of things:

First, it's not an exaggeration to say Obamacare is socialized medicine; in fact, it doesn't go far enough simply to say it represents the government takeover of our entire health care system. It is also a major step (begun long ago) in the complete dismantling of the unique American constitutional experiment and of the social compact between Americans and their government. Obama's now-realized goal of fundamental change is to make the government the people's master instead of their servant.

Secondly, we should not suffer gladly those painfully naive people who will continue to say that Obama and his obedient congressional Democrats are not radical. It may make people feel better about themselves to promote congeniality and bipartisanship, but to fantasize about such quixotic goals under this type of radical assault on our nation is tantamount to enabling it.

Thirdly, Obama and the Democrats have been unconscionably deceptive about their aims, even though Obama couldn't help but reveal his extremism from time to time. He certainly promised "fundamental change" but was so vague that many assumed his idea of "hope and change" meant something consistent with American values. Others knew full well what grandiose plans he had in store to overthrow America's social compact. There was no mistaking his intent when you examined his radical background and radical relationships; his extremist position on human life, including supporting a form of infanticide; his promise to redistribute wealth; his obvious grudge against America; and his experience as a street agitator in Chicago.

If the Democrats' motives were honorable, they wouldn't be so deceptive in everything they do, particularly in their endless drive to impose Obamacare on this nation against the unmistakable and undeniable will of the people. I couldn't fully catalog the Democratic lies and abuses surrounding this bill with the space remaining in this column, but let's just touch on a few:

Continue reading "The Beginning of the End or of Rebirth?"

Posted by redguy at 06:09 AM | TrackBack (0)

March 19, 2010

Thank You, Bret

By: David Limbaugh

I pray that President Barack Obama's interview with Fox News' Bret Baier is replayed repeatedly on Fox News Channel and circulated widely on the Internet for all to see. The more who watch it the more people will realize just how drastically the unscripted Obama varies from his projected image as God's gift to bipartisanship, compromise, congeniality and democracy.

What came across most glaringly was that there is little he wouldn't do to force Obamacare on us, from lying to evading to concealing to abusing the legislative process to violating the Constitution to dividing the nation. Consider some highlights.

Baier asked Obama whether he would support the use of the "Slaughter Rule," which would deem the bill passed so as to avoid an actual up-or-down vote. Instead of answering the question, Obama mouthed his tired talking points about his plan, most of which were just outright propaganda. He said that his plan would reduce deficits and that costs would decrease for small businesses and families because they would be in the same type of pool congressmen have. But there's not a chance in Hades that any ordinary American would have such a Cadillac plan.

For starters, in counting costs, I'm sure he's not factoring in hidden costs, including taxes. In addition, care would be rationed. Is it for congressmen? People wouldn't have choices congressmen have and would be forced, eventually, out of their private plans. That's what would happen under the Senate bill; who cares what would happen under some fictionalized scenario Obama promises under his plan? He has none. This is maddening.

The closest he came to answering the question was, "I don't spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or the Senate." Neither did members of the Soviet Politburo when they promulgated their five-year plans. Those rules, Mr. President, are there for a purpose: to protect the interests and the will of the people.

Continue reading "Thank You, Bret"

Posted by redguy at 05:58 AM | TrackBack (0)

March 16, 2010

Without Firing a Shot?

By: David Limbaugh

During the height of the Cold War, some feared the communists would take over the United States without firing a shot. Could it be that nearly a half-century later, we're on the verge of that becoming a reality?

President Barack Obama and Democratic congressmen won their respective elections -- no shots were fired -- and they are feverishly attempting to dismantle this nation's institutions, brick by brick.

The American people are getting a bird's-eye view of what the left, which completely dominates the Democratic Party, thinks of the Constitution, freedom and the right of the people to self-governance.

The people now attempting to govern us with an iron fist are Marxist-leaning in terms of not only the policies they support but also the ruthless tactics they employ to enact those policies into law.

As long as it served Obama's Machiavellian purposes to maintain a semblance of unity for his ambitious agenda, he donned his bipartisan cap. But as soon as he encountered intractable opposition from Republicans, God bless them, he began to show his true political colors.

Barack Obama's congenial, compromising facade has disappeared. What remains, in plain view, is a narcissistic, arrogant and inflexibly ideological man who is determined to cram his socialist agenda down our throats by whatever means necessary -- irrespective of the legality of the procedures he utilizes, the truth of the words he speaks and the will of the people.

Obama doesn't care what we think -- and I'm not just talking about the majority of Americans who oppose Obamacare. Everyone who gets in his way is expendable, including principled Democrats who dare to oppose him.

Continue reading "Without Firing a Shot?"

Posted by redguy at 06:00 AM | TrackBack (0)

March 12, 2010

Heads Liberals Win, Tails We Lose

By: David Limbaugh

The left habitually distorts and exaggerates to demonize and discredit its opponents but squeals like a stuck pig when conservatives use colorful language to call the left out. Unfortunately, some on the right encourage the left's squealing.

As for the liberals, it's hard to take them seriously when they register their indignation at, say, Sarah Palin for her "death panels" comment, other conservatives for describing Obama as a socialist or liberals as "liberals," or, most recently, Liz Cheney for calling seven Justice Department appointees the "al-Qaida Seven."

Liberals are the ones who knowingly lied in saying that "Bush lied; people died," that supply-side tax cuts are "just for the rich" and that Bush left people on the rooftops in New Orleans after Katrina because they were black. These weren't just harmless rhetorical barbs; they had and continue to have serious, substantively damaging consequences.

Nor are the above descriptions by Palin, Cheney and other conservatives a matter of tit for tat or a case of the left's wrong mitigating the right's. The conservatives' statements above are different because they have a strong ring of truth, and they are not just gratuitous; they serve the purpose of calling attention to what is truly going on.

Continue reading "Heads Liberals Win, Tails We Lose"

Posted by redguy at 05:29 AM | TrackBack (0)

March 09, 2010

Obama vs. Insurers and the People, Part 2

By: David Limbaugh

President Barack Obama obviously has no qualms about slandering people or industries that interfere with his agenda. In the same creepy manner he defamed the Cambridge Police Department without benefit of the facts, he is scapegoating the insurance companies based on his distorted version of facts.

In the past week, he has ratcheted up his war on insurance companies, who, he apparently figures, must be destroyed if he is to accomplish his Utopian dream of socialized health care. He made them the focus of his wrath again, in his umpteenth health care speech, Monday in Philadelphia. Even the White House blog, in a post titled "Moving Forward to Put the American People Ahead of Insurance Companies," frames this debate as between insurance companies and the people.

Who is Obama to be smearing health insurance companies for allegedly bankrupting people to increase their profits when his policy agenda is already bankrupting America to increase government power? As the late Milton Friedman asked the clueless leftist Phil Donahue, "Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?"

It's not the insurance industry versus the American people; it is Obama's socialist leviathan versus the American people, with the insurance companies as necessary collateral damage.

Is it fair to accuse the insurance companies of arbitrariness when they refuse to cover what their contracts don't require them to cover? And isn't Obama implying that if the government were to take full control over health care, there would be no denial of coverage? We don't have to wait for his plan to take effect to know that's false. Everyone, including Obama, is aware of Medicare's denying or reducing reimbursements so drastically that an increasing number of doctors are refusing Medicare patients. Does he call that arbitrary?

In addition, whether or not you bristle at those suggesting Obamacare would usher in death panels, you are in fantasyland if you think Obamacare doesn't contemplate increased rationing -- by the government.

Continue reading "Obama vs. Insurers and the People, Part 2"

Posted by redguy at 05:58 AM | TrackBack (0)

March 05, 2010

Obama versus Insurers and the People

By: David Limbaugh

President Barack Obama's obsessive, opportunistic demonization of insurance companies in his quest to pass his not-yet-written health care proposal is growing tiresome. Aren't you getting sick of a president attacking American citizens and businesses as if they -- not Obama's beloved government -- were the enemy?

His repeated implication that insurance companies are the primary reason for rising health care costs is politically expedient, but it's still untrue. Government is the main culprit.

Throughout his yearlong push for Obamacare, he has called insurance companies every name in the book. He has blamed them for soaring costs, bludgeoned them for taking profits, condemned their executives' salaries and savaged them for denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

He even says insurers are the final arbiters of who gets care and who doesn't: "And insurance companies freely ration health care based on who's sick and who's healthy, who can pay and who can't."

Obama has framed the entire debate as if it were an insurance problem. In his theatrical speech Wednesday -- while flanked from all sides by white-coated props -- he said, "We began our push to reform health insurance last March," as if the thrust of his health care efforts has been to rein in insurers and little else.

Though Obama surely hates insurance companies, we all know he is up to much more than just punishing them. This is about a government takeover, even if it takes several incremental steps. Vilifying insurers sells better than glorifying government to a center-right nation generally suspicious of government.

Continue reading "Obama versus Insurers and the People"

Posted by redguy at 05:59 AM | TrackBack (0)

March 02, 2010

Health Care Summit Charade -- A Clinic in Obama Partisanship

By: David Limbaugh

For a guy who touts himself as bipartisan and demands bipartisanship from Republicans, President Barack Obama had a funny way of showing his bipartisanship during last week's health care summit.

Obama has repeatedly promised an open, honest and bipartisan process on health care reform, but from the beginning, he has quarterbacked a highly partisan, closed-door and dishonest campaign.

In his opening remarks at the "summit," he said he wanted to make sure the participants didn't just trade "talking points" or engage in "political theater." He said, "If we've got an open mind, if we're listening to each other, if we're not engaging in sort of the tit for tat trying to score political points during the next several hours ... we might be able to make some progress."

He then proceeded to a) open the curtains for his own political theater, with one anecdotal Democratic sob story after another about the horrors of American health care; b) deliver his own talking points throughout the day, including his obligatory "tit for tat" following almost every Republican speaker; and c) demonstrate his own partisanship through (i) patronizing dismissals of the Republicans' substantive contributions as "talking points"; (ii) volleying partisan barbs at Republicans; (iii) mischaracterizing his positions and those of the Republicans; and (iv) accusing Republicans of not showing a good-faith willingness to make any movement in his direction when he made no effort to compromise with them.

Continue reading "Health Care Summit Charade -- A Clinic in Obama Partisanship"

Posted by redguy at 05:37 AM | TrackBack (0)

February 23, 2010

Obama Doesn't Even Fake Bipartisanship Well

By: David Limbaugh

How long will it take for every last American to realize President Barack Obama is not about bipartisanship, reconciliation (other than as a process to cram his health care bill through Congress) and uniting Americans? As his latest gyrations on health care demonstrate, he will not be deterred in his quest to saddle Americans with socialized medicine, even if it greatly increases the likelihood he won't be re-elected.

Here we have Obama, frenetically busy with at least three of his hands, pushing different buttons and sending mixed signals. I guess being a self-perceived messiah means you don't have to worry about being flagrantly inconsistent, even on the same day or in the context of one speech.

He's invited Republicans to a bipartisan summit on health care, intending to create the illusion that he's interested in conservative ideas on the subject.

But at the same time -- he can't even pretend long enough to let this ruse play out -- he is threatening Republicans that if they filibuster current congressional health care proposals, he will urge Congress to pass Obamacare by bastardizing the reconciliation process.

But wait, just like a Ginsu knife infomercial, there's more. Obama has also unveiled the outlines of his own new health care proposal, but it is hardly a model of bipartisanship.

As for his "bipartisan" summit, why would anyone believe he is interested in the Republicans' ideas on health care? Has he given any indication he is through this nearly yearlong process? Has he not shut Republicans out of the entire process until tendering this counterfeit overture -- after wholesale repudiation of his plan by the American people?

Continue reading "Obama Doesn't Even Fake Bipartisanship Well"

Posted by redguy at 05:27 AM | TrackBack (0)

February 19, 2010

When the Facts Don't Help Pound the Table

By: David Limbaugh

When you're president of the United States and your primary claim to fame is your economic prowess but your economic record fails by all objective measures, what do you do? You call on your skills as a virtuoso propagandist.

With the perceived catastrophic economic crisis of 2008-09, President Barack Obama captured the presidency at the perfect time in America's modern history for him to unleash his grandiose socialist policies -- policies so ambitious that the American people would never have tolerated them under any other circumstances.

With the nation in near panic over the impending doom of the economy, Obama presented his now-infamous "stimulus plan" to artificially create government demand by spending more than $800 billion of borrowed money to "jump-start the economy."

Being a die-hard Keynesian, Obama probably believed his program would create jobs. But given his attitude about the wealthy being undeserving of their good fortune, he probably wasn't risking too much in the event it didn't work. The funds would redistribute wealth to those less fortunate and whom society, in Obama's view, has cheated. It would also force allocations of money to "green" enterprises that would never be pursued if left to the sanity of private-sector consumer demand, further expand the public sector in general and provide ample slush money to reward unions and other supporters to shore up his re-election efforts.

According to Keynesian theory, as I understand it, it doesn't matter much where the government spends other people's money -- just as long as it spends it. Once the money is injected into the economy (never mind that an equal amount is taken out of the economy from the private sector), a multiplier effect unfolds to stimulate economic growth and jobs.

Continue reading "When the Facts Don't Help Pound the Table"

Posted by redguy at 05:16 AM | TrackBack (0)

February 12, 2010

Bipartisanship Equals Single-Payer-ship

By: David Limbaugh

It's not a good idea for Republicans to accept President Barack Obama's invitation to a "bipartisan" health care summit, because it would not advance acceptable health care reform. The only thing it likely would advance would be Obama's propaganda message -- and, thus, his socialist agenda.

Everyone knows Obama wouldn't be considering such a move if the American people had not so resoundingly rejected Obamacare.

From the very beginning, he has approached this issue more as a dictator than one interested in hearing genuine input from the other side. Nor has he shown good faith, having broken his cynical promise to televise the debates on C-SPAN and having misrepresented his plan in a number of particulars.

When called on the C-SPAN pledge, he glibly replied that most of the process has been televised in regular sessions of Congress and committee hearings, knowing full well that's not what anyone understood him to mean when he made his promise.

He has been as highhanded and dishonest in dealing with this issue as he has been with any other, which is quite a mouthful. He has ridiculed Republicans for their alleged obstruction and for not offering ideas of their own, when it was Republicans who first called for bipartisan talks last May and who did offer alternative plans, which Obama summarily rejected.

He looked us straight in the eye and told us, disingenuously, that in his plan, there would be no federal funding for abortion, no rationing, no interference in the doctor-patient relationship, no forcing people out of their private plans, no bill that was not budget-neutral, no single-payer plan and no decrease in patient choice with his public option.

Continue reading "Bipartisanship Equals Single-Payer-ship"

Posted by redguy at 05:44 AM | TrackBack (0)

February 09, 2010

Lashing Out Beats Accountability

By: David Limbaugh

Conservatives understand that liberals often demonize their opponents rather than debate the merits of the issues because the tactic works. But you have to wonder whether another reason they lash out is that they are angry that reality doesn't cooperate with their ideologically driven solutions and it's easier to blame others than to face up to the unpleasant truth of their failed ideas.

It's not just the tirades of liberal talk show host Ed Schultz, who said he would cheat to keep Scott Brown from winning his Senate election, or Chris Matthews, who said Republicans indoctrinate their members in the same way Cambodian communists re-educated their subjects, or the nasty outbursts of presidential adviser Rahm Emanuel.

I was also reminded of this, on a subtler level, when reading a Washington Post piece on David Plouffe, Barack Obama's presidential campaign manager, who recently returned to the Obama camp to quarterback the Democrats' election efforts in 2010 and beyond.

Plouffe said: "Politics is a comparative exercise. This isn't just a referendum on Democrats. ... It's a choice. ... Republicans right now are just sitting back and slinging arrows. We need to ... shine some light over their side of the fence."

Plouffe said he would remind voters that Democrats have spent two years trying to fix problems, whereas Republicans want to wheel a "Trojan horse" into Washington and spill out bankers and health insurance executives. Sure, why not vilify bankers and insurers when it helps your guy avoid accountability for his policies?

It's shamelessly Machiavellian of Democrats to accuse the GOP of going negative, when Democrats use Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" (e.g., "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it") as an instruction manual. But hey, they're out of fresh ideas, so what other choice do they have?

Continue reading "Lashing Out Beats Accountability"

Posted by redguy at 05:53 AM | TrackBack (0)

February 05, 2010

This 'Messiah' Isn't Delivering Peace

By: David Limbaugh

President Barack Obama's delusional perspective on fiscal issues is only surpassed by his surreal approach to the war on terror, which he doesn't even consistently recognize as a war. The ideological extremism of his policies is only surpassed by his flailing incompetence in administering them.

During his presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly denounced President George W. Bush's "unilateralist" and "imperialistic" foreign policy.

Obama carefully cultivated an image as a domestic and global healer who could leverage his personal background to rise above internal and foreign bickering and address the root causes of this conflict en route to a peaceful resolution. Frighteningly enough, he obviously believed his own hype.

What about those root causes? Well, Obama's entire approach to the war (he seems to prefer "law enforcement issue") is driven by his belief that Muslim extremists didn't become terrorists because of their ideology but because we have mistreated them. He thinks we have goaded potential terrorists into becoming terrorists and given existing terrorists further cause to hate us. "Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al-Qaida recruit terrorists to its cause," he said. "Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained."

Well, he was going to turn all that around with euphemisms ("man-caused disaster," "overseas contingency operations"), a flurry of lofty rhetoric (his world apology tour), a few symbolic steps (closing Gitmo) and certain policy reversals (Mirandizing terrorists and trying enemy combatants in civilian courts).

The result -- his posture of relaxation and retreat -- has been an unmitigated disaster. He went out of his way to avoid identifying the Fort Hood jihadist as a terrorist; he admonished us not to jump to any conclusions about the Christmas underwear bomber; he promised to close Gitmo with no plan to relocate the prisoners; he moved the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to ground zero with utterly no consideration for the local or national security implications involved; and his Justice Department allowed the Christmas bomber to lawyer up after only 50 minutes of interrogation.

Continue reading "This 'Messiah' Isn't Delivering Peace"

Posted by redguy at 05:51 AM | TrackBack (0)

February 01, 2010

An Unusually Bad Prevaricator, Unusually Bad

By: David Limbaugh

Former Sen. Bob Kerrey famously said that Bill Clinton was "an unusually good liar. Unusually good." Well, then, President Barack Obama is an unusually bad liar. Unusually bad.

Obama said in his State of the Union speech (and similar statements several times since): "By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door."

Though it's true that the deficit for President George W. Bush's final year in office was close to $1.3 trillion, it must be noted that Obama and his fellow Democratic-controlled Congress members approved the TARP bailouts and are largely responsible for the other budget expenditures leading to that record deficit.

Plus, The Heritage Foundation's blog, "The Foundry," says that Obama's claims concerning the causes for that deficit are "clearly misleading." Despite those factors, "the budget deficit still stood at just $162 billion when the recession began in late 2007. The larger subsequent deficits have been driven by the recession (which Obama did acknowledge), the financial bailouts, the President's stimulus bill, and large discretionary spending hikes enacted by a Democratic Congress."

Also, there is major disagreement over Obama's assertion that Bush's projected deficits over the next 10 years were $8 trillion. But even if you let Obama slide on that claim, the more relevant comparison, as pointed out by Rep. Jeb Hensarling, is the annual average deficit for the 12 years that Republicans most recently controlled Congress -- $104 billion -- versus that of the past three years under the Democratic-controlled Congress -- $1.1 trillion.

Indeed, before the financial meltdown -- which was mostly caused by liberal mortgaging and housing policies -- Bush's deficits had been significantly reduced, even cut in half before he predicted they would be. In addition, Bill Clinton would never have been able to co-opt credit for those deficits or "his" surplus if not for the Republican Revolution and Contract with America.

Continue reading "An Unusually Bad Prevaricator, Unusually Bad"

Posted by redguy at 09:38 PM | TrackBack (0)

January 29, 2010

There Was the President's Speech, and There Is Reality

By: David Limbaugh

Watching President Barack Obama's State of the Union speech makes me wonder whether the reason he tells so many fibs is that he believes them himself. Either that or he is an even better actor than he is a teleprompter reader.

Obama not only wasn't contrite about his broken promises and disastrous record; he was on the attack, daring anyone to oppose his agenda -- even in the face of the Massachusetts rebuke. But let's see how some of his statements match up with reality.

On health care, he taunted congressmen to "let me know" if any of them have "a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses," as if his own plan would do those things.

Even the Congressional Budget Office has said most of the Democratic plans would increase the budget. Besides, you can't reduce overall costs when government forces an increase in demand, even if it caps insurance premiums and shifts costs elsewhere and/or imposes rationing. The CBO has also reported that with Obamacare, millions would remain uninsured. So under his plan, costs would rise, quality and choice would decrease, care would be rationed, millions would remain uninsured and, worst of all, the government would acquire an unprecedented level of control over all aspects of our lives.

Do conservatives have better ideas? Of course. Restore market forces through tort reform, strengthening health savings accounts, abolishing government coverage mandates, allowing consumers to purchase policies across state lines and eliminating the tax laws incentivizing employer-provided health care, which unnecessarily increase demand by making prices invisible to consumers.

A candid Obama would have said, "If any of you have a plan that does not involve restoring market forces and reducing government's role in the health care industry, I'll at least pretend to look at it." "Make no mistake," neither Obama nor his Democratic colleagues will support genuine health care reform, because to reduce costs, we must reduce government control, and they can't abide that. Period.

Continue reading "There Was the President's Speech, and There Is Reality"

Posted by redguy at 05:58 AM | TrackBack (0)

January 26, 2010

'It's Not About Me' -- Wink, Wink

By: David Limbaugh

The more painful exposure we have to Barack Obama -- and we're talking hyper-exposure at this point -- the more we realize how narcissistic he is. Indeed, we are treated to this overexposure precisely because of his narcissistic impulses. He can't keep himself out of the spotlight.

So it was that on the heels of his crushing personal defeat in the Massachusetts senatorial election last week, Obama's principal reaction was, "This isn't about me."

When someone says that one time or a few times, you might believe him. But when he says it repeatedly (see below), you have to conclude he is protesting too much and means just the opposite.

Given what we've learned about Obama's self-absorption, it's not a stretch to infer that when he says "it's not about me," he wants to project an air of humility while receiving personal credit for that which he denies seeking credit. What he really means is, "The causes I am working on are greater than self, but -- wink, wink -- I darn well expect you to applaud me anyway, not just for my transcendent accomplishments but also for my being humble and selfless about it."

The context of his "not about me" statement following the Massachusetts election bears this out. After the obligatory disclaimer, he added: "This isn't about politics. This is about a health care system that is breaking America's families, breaking America's businesses and breaking America's economy."

Forget the distortions for now. But notice that he is seeking plaudits for his important work, which he's willing to do even if it damages him in the polls. He also gets the added benefit here of deflecting blame for the defeat by implying the election results weren't about him.

Continue reading "'It's Not About Me' -- Wink, Wink"

Posted by redguy at 05:50 AM | TrackBack (0)

January 22, 2010

Obama's 180 Degrees Out of Phase With the People

By: David Limbaugh

Reading excerpts of President Barack Obama's interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos underscores how tone-deaf and self-absorbed Obama is -- and that his tone-deafness is a function of his self-absorption and rigid ideology.

Obama said: "One thing that I regret this year is that we were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values. And that I do think is a mistake of mine. I think the assumption was, if I just focus on policy, if I just focus on this provision or that law or are we making a good, rational decision here ... people will get it."

Let's unpack that mouthful. It's all about him; in almost every line, he is bragging or excusing himself. No wonder he can't see any farther than his navel.

Note in the opening sentence his umpteenth gratuitous reference to "crises" he inherited; he doesn't use the word "inherited" there, but his meaning is clear.

In the next sentence, he pretends to criticize himself (for not speaking directly to the American people) as a backdrop for patting himself on the back for "just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises." Even if he hadn't immediately turned the phony self-deprecation into a boast, we'd know he wasn't sincere because the substance of his statement is flat-out false.

Continue reading "Obama's 180 Degrees Out of Phase With the People"

Posted by redguy at 06:17 AM | TrackBack (0)

January 19, 2010

New Column: A Cadillac Exemption From a Cadillac Tax From an Edsel Administration

By: David Limbaugh

This past Sunday marked the first time President Barack Obama graced a Washington, D.C., church with his presence since Oct. 11, but apparently it was not to sit in a pew and worship. Instead, he was doing the sermonizing and politicking -- gloriously intermingling church and state as only liberals are allowed to do in this country.

Don't get me wrong; I'm no scold when it comes to the church-state separation mania, which I think has been grossly expanded by liberals not to preserve the constitutional protection of religious liberty, but to selectively suppress it. But here I am digressing before I've even gotten started on the main focus of today's rant.

Instead of quibbling over the propriety of Obama's turning the church service into a political rally for health care, let's focus on the outrageous substance of his message.

He told the congregants at Vermont Avenue Baptist Church that Obamacare would help more than 30 million Americans -- "men and women and children, mothers and fathers" -- to get health insurance. "This will be a victory not for Democrats," he said. (He's got that one right.) "This'll be a victory for the United States of America." (Yes, once he and his party get thrown out on their ears for this monstrosity.)

But it's another one of his statements that really sticks in the craw: "This'll be a victory for dignity and decency, for our common humanity."

Continue reading "New Column: A Cadillac Exemption From a Cadillac Tax From an Edsel Administration"

Posted by redguy at 06:48 AM | TrackBack (0)

January 12, 2010

Obama Must Know His Spending Yields Bankruptcy, Not Growth

By: David Limbaugh

Could we all agree that we are doomed as a nation if President Barack Obama continues his deficit spending at unprecedented levels? Can you think of any reason, then, to justify this spending? Oh, our president says it's to jump-start the economy? Sorry, that dog won't hunt. So what's his real motive?

Obama has been saying from the beginning that his stimulus plan was for the purpose of spurring economic growth -- though when we did have economic growth during the George W. Bush administration, the likes of which Democrats can only fantasize about during Obama's term, they trashed it as a "jobless recovery."

On Jan. 16, 2009 -- about a year ago -- Obama said: "The first job of my administration is to put people back to work and get our economy moving again. That's why I've moved quickly to work with my economic team and leaders of both parties on an 'American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan' that will immediately jump-start job creation and long-term growth." Obama made similar statements repeatedly.

Notice he said "immediately." Here we are a year later at 10 percent unemployment after Obama promised it wouldn't exceed 8 percent. Is anyone holding him accountable for this outrage? Is he humbled? No, he wants a second stimulus, on top of his nationally bankrupting health care and cap-and-trade plans. He has the audacity to demand $75 billion more to stimulate construction jobs. A bill approving the plan has already passed the House, and the Senate is expected to take it up later this month. Unbelievable!

Obama's top economic advisers also said at the time that his stimulus package would create mostly private-sector jobs. We know how that turned out: just the opposite.

Continue reading "Obama Must Know His Spending Yields Bankruptcy, Not Growth"

Posted by redguy at 05:58 AM | TrackBack (0)

January 08, 2010

His 'Highness' or His 'Highhandedness'?

By: David Limbaugh

The more we read about Obama's health care scheme and his handling of it the more obvious his arrogance and contempt for the people become.

This is stunning behavior, really, for any administration (and his party), but especially one that holds itself out as a servant of the people and a model of transparency.

Just consider headlines from the past few days: "Obama Reneges on Health Care Transparency: As a Candidate, President Obama Promised to Put Health Care Reform Negotiations on C-SPAN," "White House REFUSES To Discuss Broken C-Span Promise," "Dems Will Bypass Conference Committee To Get Health Care Passed," "Sources: Obama, Dems to sidestep GOP on health care," "Hatch: Healthcare bill 'rich' for challenges on constitutionality," "AP sources: Obama OKs taxing high-end health plans," "Obama Pushes for Quick Health Care Deal," "Conference Committee Bypassed," "House Will Vote on Pro-Abortion Senate Bill" and -- get this one -- "Pelosi: 'There Has Never Been a More Open Process.'"

Seriously, who do these people think they are? No wonder they always assumed the worst of former President George W. Bush and then accused him of sinister motives he never had and actions he never committed. As I've noted before, they were projecting. They knew how they would behave if in power. Now, once again, they're proving it.

Continue reading "His 'Highness' or His 'Highhandedness'?"

Posted by redguy at 06:13 AM | TrackBack (0)

January 04, 2010

War on Terror? What War?

By: David Limbaugh

Can you imagine an administration so arrogant that it will not reconsider its decision to return Yemeni terrorists now being held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility back to Yemen, much less its decision to close Gitmo in the first place?

President Barack Obama is obviously a man who won't permit any facts to penetrate his airtight ideological force field, from deficit spending to health care to global warming to his non-prosecution of the war on terror -- I mean "overseas contingency operations."

Last week, Sens. Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Joe Lieberman sent a letter to President Obama telling him his decision to transfer six Yemeni nationals back home is "highly unwise and ill-considered," especially in light of the attempted terrorist bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas Day. The senators pointed out that the terrorist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, revealed to interrogators that he had traveled to Yemen for training and to gather explosives for the mission.

Even Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, weighed in, saying "detainees should not be released to Yemen at this time. It is too unstable." But the White House is undeterred, and even the closing of the U.S. Embassy in terrorist-rich Yemen is not causing the smug Obama to reconsider.

Continue reading "War on Terror? What War?"

Posted by redguy at 08:03 PM | TrackBack (0)

December 29, 2009

It's Not the Economy, Stupid! It's National Survival!

By: David Limbaugh

The Washington Post's Dan Balz thinks that "with new priorities, Obama and Democrats can recover in 2010." Sorry, Dan; it's about more than priorities. It's a matter of their worldview.

Balz dutifully cites "the size of the problems President Obama inherited" and "the battles he chose to take on during his first year" as mitigating factors that may lead to the public's understanding and allow Obama an opportunity to hit "the reset button."

Balz says Obama's advisers believe he can "pivot" in the first few months of 2010 and restore his standing with the American people. Balz offers four "elements" that "might allow that to happen": refocus on the economy; move Congress offstage; get serious about the deficit and spending; and avoid overloading the circuits.

Let's briefly examine Balz's analysis -- an analysis that is doubtlessly typical for Beltway media elites.

First, Obama's free-falling approval ratings are not a result of problems he inherited. How long are he and his liberal media shills going to milk this "blame Bush" mantra like a bunch of reprobate school kids? Balz is onto something, however, in citing "the battles he chose to take on during his first year." But he's wrong that it is a mitigating factor.

Continue reading "It's Not the Economy, Stupid! It's National Survival!"

Posted by redguy at 06:31 AM | TrackBack (0)

December 22, 2009

Obamacare Hazardous to America's Health

By: David Limbaugh

At least common thieves don't destroy an entire health care system and socialize the American economy when they commit their felonies. Too bad we can't say the same for our illustrious Democratic senators who sold out the nation.

In exchange for criminally unconstitutional favors for their respective states, they voted to pass the Senate health care bill just 38 hours after it had been made available to the public for review.

Everyone knows about Sen. Mary Landrieu's negotiating $300 million for her state in non-guaranteed Medicaid payouts. She was even cocky about her institutionalized larceny.

Sen. Bernie Sanders finagled $10 billion worth of earmarked greenbacks for the funding of community health centers in his home state, Vermont, to support a bill he vehemently opposed just three days earlier.

Sanders and Sen. Patrick Leahy secured additional Medicaid funding for Vermont, while senators from Pennsylvania, New York and Florida achieved Medicare Advantage protections for their constituents even as benefits from this program are being cut nationwide.

And why not? The end always justifies the means for these liberals. And the end, in this case, is their long-held Utopian Marxist dream of socialized health care. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was not only unapologetic but also defiant about these bribes. "You'll find a number of states that are treated differently than other states. That's what legislating is all about. It's compromise," said Reid.

But this wasn't compromise. It was blackmail. And the payoff was at the expense of our bankrupt heirs.

Continue reading "Obamacare Hazardous to America's Health"

Posted by redguy at 05:52 AM | TrackBack (0)

December 15, 2009

If B's Were F's, Obama Still Wouldn't Deserve a B-Plus

By: David Limbaugh

It's bad enough for America that President Barack Obama is a committed far-left ideologue, but when you couple that with his narcissism, you've got a recipe for a major disaster.

He told Oprah Winfrey he deserves "a good solid B-plus" for his first year in office. The only things standing in his way for that coveted A are -- for the most part -- other people, such as evil Republicans who oppose socialized medicine.

It's obvious that Obama is as self-absorbed as he is delusional. While most Americans are worried about the financial destruction of our country and our resulting inability to bequeath our heirs a land of liberty, Obama is fretting over the stresses the job is placing on him.

"The biggest burden on me right now is that economic growth has happened, but job growth has not happened." Note the "burden on me." Similarly, he said his painfully belabored decision to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan hit him "in the gut."

Obama insists economic growth has returned and job recovery is just a matter of time, but many are not so sure of either. But all are sure that his unwavering debt path is unsustainable and suicidal.

When the George W. Bush economy was humming for almost eight years, Obama and his media friends gave Bush no credit because, they said, we were experiencing "jobless growth." These partisan charlatans characterized 4.5 percent unemployment as "joblessness." What does that make 10 percent -- especially in light of Obama's promise to keep it less than 8 percent?

Continue reading "If B's Were F's, Obama Still Wouldn't Deserve a B-Plus"

Posted by redguy at 01:53 AM | TrackBack (0)

December 11, 2009

Obama Reducing the Debt? Dream On

By: David Limbaugh

Two recent news stories illustrate, more clearly than ever, the Obama Democrats' contempt for the free market and individual economic liberty. If given the chance, they will expand government and spend as much of our money as they can get away with.

First we learn that Obama and his party simply will not agree to keep their grubby government hands off the estimated $200 billion the banks are going to repay under TARP. Just when we finally receive this glimmer of good news to ameliorate our reasonable panic over the ever-increasing national debt, Obama announces that he intends to intercept a good portion of the debt repayments and spend it on job creation and assistance to certain debtors.

I assume we're supposed to be too dense to remember that his stimulus spending to date hasn't created jobs and that most of it hasn't even been used for that purpose. So when this administration says its first priority is reducing debt, understand we are being played -- by consummate cynics.

Likewise, the Democrats' various health care plans contemplate $500 billion in Medicare savings between 2010 and 2019. But instead of using the savings to shore up this entitlement's solvency, they are charging forward with a new entitlement: major subsidies to the uninsured to buy health insurance.

They just can't help themselves, what with their firm control of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. They barely have to pretend to like capitalism anymore.

Continue reading "Obama Reducing the Debt? Dream On"

Posted by redguy at 06:57 AM | TrackBack (0)

December 09, 2009

Defenseless Enviro-thugs Go On Offense

By: David Limbaugh

At a time when leftist enviro-tyrants ought to be hanging their heads in shame, they are, instead, taking the offensive. They are not only dismissing the staggering ClimateGate scandal as insignificant but also redoubling and accelerating their push to enslave the world with their progress-swallowing treaties, laws and regulations.

It's the same old leftist playbook: Approach every desired major policy change as a crisis, and demand immediate action. If the public begins to wise up to the distortions and exaggerations, elevate the threat warning from dire to urgent.

We saw it in our domestic politics in the United States when President Barack Obama's leftist Democrats manufactured a simulated crisis over health insurance, deliberately overstating by multiples the number of uninsured as a predicate to Obama's demand that a comprehensive bill had to be passed before Congress' August recess.

Shortly thereafter, it came to light that Democrats had also grossly manipulated the projected costs of their proposals and flagrantly lied about such issues as rationing and government-funded abortions. All the while, these "progressives" concealed from the public the underlying facts and data and their ultimate aims, obliterating Obama's pledge for greater transparency in government.

Like-minded global and American leftists know the jig is almost up on the fabricated global warming "consensus," as the public is catching on to their deception (reflected by fresh polling data) and the ClimateGate scandal has lifted the veil on the leftist scientific community's global conspiratorial corruption. They tell us to pay no attention to the ClimateGate behind the curtain and to join with them in launching the reverse thrusters on modernity and progress in deference to the global warming hoax. Meanwhile, the Obama-leftist Environmental Protection Agency has hedged its bets (in the event Copenhagen is a bust) by declaring the air that we exhale an environmental hazard.

Continue reading "Defenseless Enviro-thugs Go On Offense"

Posted by redguy at 01:27 AM | TrackBack (0)

December 04, 2009

Gibbs: Don't Confuse Copenhagen-bound Obama With Global Warming Facts

By: David Limbaugh

Despite the unfolding international "climate change" scandal involving the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, President Barack Obama's ideological presuppositions on global warming remain unshaken, and he will still happily attend the Copenhagen global warming conference.

This unprecedented fraud by a "team" of politicized scientists whose research has generated some $20 million in research grants for the CRU hasn't deterred Obama from his energy- and economy-destroying agenda any more than double-digit unemployment figures have dissuaded him from his failed Keynesian policies. Nor is Obama bothered by the incestuous relationship among the CRU, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Copenhagen summit.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs sniffed that corruption at the highest levels of climate change intelligentsia -- corruption, mind you, that bears directly on the underlying science -- doesn't alter the president's firm opinion that "climate change is happening."

"I don't think that's anything that is, quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore," said Gibbs. "I think there's no real scientific basis for the dispute of this."

Oh? Is this administration so myopic as to be dangerously ignorant? So arrogant that it deems dissenting opinions unworthy of acknowledgment? Or just old-fashioned liars?

Continue reading "Gibbs: Don't Confuse Copenhagen-bound Obama With Global Warming Facts"

Posted by redguy at 06:20 AM | TrackBack (0)

November 30, 2009

They Call It Fiscal Responsibility; We Call It Socialism

By: David Limbaugh

As President Barack Obama and his party conspire to destroy -- not reform -- the greatest health care system in the world in their quest to remake America into a full-blown Eurosocialist state, it is instructive to remember the premise upon which Obama launched this disaster.

In July, Obama said that if we do not control our health care costs, "we will not be able to control our deficit." He continued: "I've also pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade, and I mean it. ... In addition ... the bill I sign must also slow the growth of health care costs in the long run." Just to be sure there was no misunderstanding, Obama said, "The entire cost of that has to be paid for, and it has got to be deficit-neutral."

Those who didn't know this was hogwash in the first place have no excuse not to see it now. There's nothing deficit-neutral about the plans currently under consideration. There's nothing fiscally prudent about them. Indeed, they would greatly exacerbate our existing fiscal crisis -- not to mention usher in the largest socialistic transformation we've yet seen in this nation.

With the information that has now come to light about the costs of "reform," there is no other rational explanation for Obama's obsession to enact Obamacare than his desire to increase government control over every aspect of our lives.

As others have noted, Obama and company have employed multiple gimmicks to conceal and misrepresent the true costs of Obamacare. Like other groups wanting to destroy America from the outside, liberals are patient. By backloading their spending, they hope to deceive Americans into thinking their plan is budget-neutral.

Continue reading "They Call It Fiscal Responsibility; We Call It Socialism"

Posted by redguy at 08:37 PM | TrackBack (0)

November 24, 2009

A National Nightmare, Indeed

By: David Limbaugh

In a Democratic fundraising speech in Iowa over the weekend, Vice President Joe Biden told party loyalists that opponents of the Obama administration's agenda "should be worried about us, for we are their worst nightmare." Duh.

Finally we can agree on something, Joe. Even the liberal New York Times reports that at the current level of federal spending, the annual interest on the national debt will exceed $700 billion by 2019 -- compared with $202 billion this year. Some forecasters predict it will be much higher. This additional half-trillion dollars a year in interest is more than our current combined expenditures on education, energy, homeland security and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Oh, and the Times isn't even factoring in the cap-and-trade nightmare you and Barack have in store for us, Joe -- you know, that urgent legislation to catapult the nation back into Third World status based on hysteria generated by fraudulent science and corrupt zealots and politicians.

Nor is the Times including in its calculations the additional debt that would result from Obamacare.

Joe, when The New York Times is sounding the warnings over the exploding national debt, you and Barack insist not only on not reversing your disastrous course but also on making it worse. How can reasonable people assume anything other than that you are trying to run this nation into the ground financially?

Continue reading "A National Nightmare, Indeed"

Posted by redguy at 05:42 AM | TrackBack (0)

November 19, 2009

Sally Quinn on Sarah Palin -- Versus Reality

By: David Limbaugh

It seems the mainstream media's favorite pastime is to ridicule Sarah Palin. Of all the screeds I've read, I don't think any are snarkier than The Washington Post's Sally Quinn's "On Faith" blog post "Sarah Palin's 'rogue' Christianity."

Do we need further proof of the secular orientation of our dominant media culture than the fact that Quinn, an avowed atheist, pens the Post's "On Faith" blog? That would be like featuring a column by Fidel Castro on free enterprise and individual liberties.

On her mini-bio, Quinn writes: "I announced to my parents when I was 13 that I was an atheist. And I was a committed atheist all of my life. My view was that more evil had been done in the name of religion than anything else in the world. I saw no redeeming value in it at all. Then I met Jon Meacham and we began talking. No, Jon didn't convert me, but he did convince me that religion was not a subject to be dismissed or disdained."

If that's true, why did Quinn devote her entire blog post to dismissing and disdaining Sarah Palin's profession of faith in her book, "Going Rogue"? I must admit, though, it's difficult to tell whether Quinn is motivated more by her disdain for Sarah Palin, whom she has a history of berating, or mainstream Christianity.

Quinn says: "Sarah Palin writes that one summer at Bible Camp she 'put my life in my creator's hands and trust Him as I sought my life's path.' For Palin, this grand divine plan was 'a natural progression.' She writes. And later, 'I don't believe in coincidences.'"

Continue reading "Sally Quinn on Sarah Palin -- Versus Reality"

Posted by redguy at 07:49 PM | TrackBack (0)

November 16, 2009

Civil Trial for Jihadists and Obama's Third World Vision for America

By: David Limbaugh

I can think of a number of motives President Barack Obama might have for his egregious decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other high-profile al-Qaida terrorists to New York for trial in our civil courts. Regardless of which motives apply, one thing is clear: Our enemy is at war against us while we are in a suicidal, 9/10 state of denial.

I've heard at least three possible reasons for his decision, which fall into the categories of political, ideological and strategic, respectively. These motives are by no means mutually exclusive and are overlapping.

My friend Andy McCarthy, at National Review Online, emphasizes: "The decision ... is one of the most irresponsible ever made by a presidential administration. That it is motivated by politics could not be more obvious." Andy surmises that these proceedings will put the Bush administration on trial, giving the anti-war left, Obama's base, "its promised feast." The left's "shock troops, such as the Center for Constitutional Rights," will add each new disclosure to "the purported war-crimes case they are urging foreign courts to bring against President Bush, his subordinates, and U.S. intelligence agents." Andy's analysis is difficult to refute.

Another bright friend of mine doesn't dispute Obama's political motivations but calculates that in the end, though appeasing the hard left, his strategy will end up costing him dearly because of the national security nightmare (and public backlash) it will generate -- a scenario Andy McCarthy himself thoroughly lays out with foreboding. Given the inevitable and foreseeable blowback awaiting Obama, my other friend reasons that Obama has decided to do it because he is a true believer. That is, it's not just a matter of feeding his base. He is his base. He is a hard-left anti-war ideologue. Again, I would be hard-pressed to poke holes in this assessment.

Then we also have to consider as a motivating factor Obama's stunningly naive belief that by being solicitous toward Islam and overly kind to terrorists, we can convince them that we are good people after all and not an enemy they should attack. That Obama harbors this belief is scarcely deniable. His various statements on American foreign and domestic policy reveal his conviction that America's past behavior and attitude, up until the precise nanosecond he was inaugurated, have contributed to our unpopularity in the world and served as a terrorist-recruiting impetus throughout the world.

Continue reading "Civil Trial for Jihadists and Obama's Third World Vision for America"

Posted by redguy at 07:01 PM | TrackBack (0)

November 13, 2009

More White House Economic Baloney

By: David Limbaugh

Of the many thoughts I had watching President Barack Obama's umpteenth speech on the economy Thursday morning, the most troubling was his refusal to accept responsibility for his disastrous policies.

With unemployment having soared to 10.2 percent, wouldn't it have been reasonable to expect that any Obama speech on the economy would at least acknowledge that his "stimulus" plan didn't come close to achieving the results he promised, starting with his claim that unemployment would peak at 8 percent?

Even a fallible leader would be humbled by this failed performance, but enjoying messianic stature, the expectations bar is rightfully much higher for Obama. Yet instead of showing contrition, he took to the microphone in a surreal, boastful mode, as if calculating that assuming an offensive posture would fool people into ignoring reality.

He bragged about the "bold steps" he had taken "to break the back of this recession." He said he'd prevented "responsible homeowners from losing their homes ... cut taxes for middle-class families ... and created and saved more than a million jobs." But, "We all know that there are limits to what government can and should do, even during such difficult times."

Let's examine his claims. Bold actions to end the recession and "created and saved more than a million jobs"? Well, he has engineered massive spending and debt explosions, but many weren't even calculated to stimulate the economy, especially in the short run.

Continue reading "More White House Economic Baloney"

Posted by redguy at 05:57 AM | TrackBack (0)

November 10, 2009

Suicidal Political Correctness

By: David Limbaugh

Even as more and more realize oppressive political correctness is damaging our nation and killing our people, we still hold ourselves hostage to it. We can't criticize Obama on his policy agenda without absurd accusations of racism, and now our authorities' first instinct after the mass murder at Fort Hood is to victimize the identified shooter -- Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan -- rather than to protect our soldiers.

The military is the last place we should expect political correctness to flourish. We recognize, after all, that our armed forces exist primarily to safeguard our national security, not as a laboratory for social experimentation. Or do we?

Forget "don't ask, don't tell" policy for now. I'm referring to the reaction of the Army's top brass to the Fort Hood slaughter in the news conference and television interviews following the shooting.

The first question to Army chief of staff Gen. George Casey (and Army Secretary John McHugh) was whether he believed "this was a wake-up call to the nation that the Army is simply too small to carry out the tasks that it's been given." "You've been having suicide rates that are off the charts," the reporter went on. "Your soldiers are under great stress from multiple deployments."

Our military manpower is a legitimate concern, but I think it would be more appropriate for this type of question to come up in the context of whether we have the troops necessary to perform our missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Instead, it surfaced in relation to whether an overly stretched Army might have contributed to causing this mass murder.

Continue reading "Suicidal Political Correctness"

Posted by redguy at 05:39 AM | TrackBack (0)

November 06, 2009

White House Postelection Arrogance

By: David Limbaugh

The White House arrogance on display in denying that Tuesday's election results were a repudiation of President Barack Obama's radical agenda is of a piece with its arrogance in attempting to advance this agenda against the people's will.

One of the great ironies of this administration is its promise of returning power to the people but governing with an iron fist and its back turned to the expressed wishes of the voters. The White House claims a mandate for its extreme blueprint to restructure America, but the voters had no idea Obama would go this far, even if many of us listening closely to his statements and studying his relationships and voting record did.

It's possible, given the relatively monolithic embryo in which Obama was politically incubated, that Obama believed the majority of Americans held the same contempt for America's political and economic system as he did. It should be clear to him now, though, that he's not on the same page with them -- perhaps not even in the same book. But if you're paying attention, you know that this cold, hard slap of reality hitting Obama in the face isn't slightly deterring him from pressing forward. If anything, it has strengthened his resolve to implement his agenda with increased urgency, before the public turns even more against him.

Obama's attitude in over-reading his mandate and dismissing the significance of Tuesday's elections is, I believe, consistent with the liberal mindset that liberals know better than the people what is in their best interests. Sen. Jim Webb, whose fellow Virginia Democrat was soundly defeated Tuesday, said the election results indicate that "people up here on our side need to get their message straighter."

Continue reading "White House Postelection Arrogance"

Posted by redguy at 05:59 AM | TrackBack (0)

November 03, 2009

Democratic Deficit Duplicity

By: David Limbaugh

I nearly fell out of my chair as I read this New York Times headline: "Democrats Push for Plan to Cut Deficit." From the headline alone, I couldn't tell whether this was before, during or after they supported President Barack Obama's intentional, exponential escalation of the deficit to $1.4 trillion.

That's simply immeasurable chutzpah. But just in case you're ready to be taken in yet again by these fair-weather deficit watchdogs, the first sentence of the Times article reveals their true -- and true to form -- motive.

"Faced with anxiety in financial markets about the huge federal deficit and the potential for it to become an electoral liability for Democrats, the White House and Congressional leaders are weighing options for narrowing the gap, including a bipartisan commission that could force tax increases and spending cuts."

Those elections have a stubborn habit of forcing even drunken sailor politicians to pretend to care about other people's money they otherwise have an unlimited appetite for squandering.

But wait; I thought concern about runaway federal spending was the concern only of those "tea party" protestors the administration has dubbed "potential domestic terrorists" who were carrying "political paraphernalia" -- copies of the U.S. Constitution -- and engaging in "right-wing extremist chatter" focused "on the economy."

Continue reading "Democratic Deficit Duplicity"

Posted by redguy at 05:50 AM | TrackBack (0)

October 30, 2009

The Public Option Is Not an Option

By: David Limbaugh

Can you imagine the brazenness of President Barack Obama and his cohorts in going so far as to ridicule opponents of Obamacare for rightly pointing out that its ultimate goal is single-payer socialized medicine?

These people are propaganda virtuosos of the highest order. You might expect grand artists of deception just to silently dismiss such claims from critics or, at most, to summarily deny them. But they go further and mock the critics, trying to reduce them to acutely paranoid, tinfoil-hat-wearing, black-helicopter-hallucinating Cuckoo's Nest inpatients.

What better way to distract attention from what is right in front of our faces? It's brilliant reverse jujitsu: using the outrageousness of your own plan to discredit as preposterous the allegations of your opponents about your truly outrageous plan. Shameless!

Obama and his minions are indeed conspiring to foist socialized medicine on this nation through whatever means necessary -- including outright deception over the nature and purpose of the so-called public option. But before presenting proof of that, let me pose a few questions bearing on the likelihood Obama would be involved in such a deception in pursuit of this goal.

Didn't Obama repeatedly threaten to "spread the wealth"? Isn't he deliberately indebting us through government expenditures of borrowed funds not remotely designed to appreciably increase employment? This "stimulus" monstrosity is a massive redistributive scheme not only in its direct transfer payments but also in the confiscatory tax increases it will necessitate to retire the debt it is generating.

Continue reading "The Public Option Is Not an Option"

Posted by redguy at 04:45 AM | TrackBack (0)

October 27, 2009

Obama's War on Fox Is Liberalism's War on Dissent

By: David Limbaugh

Can you imagine the outrage that would have ensued had former President George W. Bush declared off-limits those media outlets he thought (correctly) treated him unfairly?

Heck, the left declared him a dictator simply because he led a war on Iraq that Congress approved. He never tried to shut down his critics. He rarely even objected to their abuse.

But liberal politicians have been spoiled with mainstream media favoritism for so long that they believe anything other than sycophancy is mistreatment. Their selective outrage is as hollow as it is risible.

In fact, Fox News seems much more conservative than it is because no other television network over the past half-century has been anything but decidedly liberal. When the media norm is liberal, liberals equate liberalism with objectivity and deviations from it as bias, just as liberals preach tolerance toward all ideas -- except conservative ones. Their self-delusion is surreal.

Thus, Fox News Channel -- which has a number of liberal hosts, scores of liberal contributors, and nonstop liberal guests -- is painted as conservative because it is the only network that has more than one token conservative host.

Perhaps more of Fox's prominent hosts lean conservative than liberal, but unlike other networks, it scrupulously attempts to present both sides and to delineate its news from its editorializing.

Continue reading "Obama's War on Fox Is Liberalism's War on Dissent"

Posted by redguy at 04:51 AM | TrackBack (0)

October 20, 2009

Barack's Enemies List

By: David Limbaugh

Sorry to disillusion those of you who are still in denial about President Barack Obama's true socialistic and dictatorial nature, but this guy's militancy against his perceived enemies puts Richard Nixon's White House to shame. His war on Fox News is just his latest salvo.

Obama's perceived enemies are all those who have the temerity not to roll over for his extreme agenda. They all must be demonized, marginalized and silenced by a president who has turned the Oval Office into a glorified street organizing headquarters to attack his opponents. Indeed, this self-described uniter is the most divisive president in memory, and his uncontrollable ego can't countenance legitimate dissent.

Consider:

--He has smeared medical doctors with reckless charges that they administer unnecessary courses of treatment for profit, e.g., tonsillectomies and limb amputations.

--He publicly berated Chrysler's senior creditors as a "small group of speculators" who "endanger Chrysler's future by refusing to sacrifice like everyone else," merely because they wouldn't acquiesce to his demands and insisted on asserting their contractual rights.

Continue reading "Barack's Enemies List"

Posted by redguy at 05:43 AM | TrackBack (0)

October 15, 2009

This Isn't About Rush

By: David Limbaugh

There will be no voluntary mea culpas from Rush's race slanderers despite the irrefutable fact that they spread poisonous and damaging lies with actual malice. To the left, Rush is the most prominent face of conservatism and the most influential opponent of President Barack Obama's destructive agenda and so must be stopped -- irrespective of the despicable means employed.

The left systematically destroyed President George W. Bush with the most egregious lies, repeated to the point that people who knew better even began to believe them. The formerly respected CBS News anchor Dan Rather was so convinced by his liberal bias that Bush was evil that he refused to apologize for slandering him with a story later proved to be manufactured -- and that's giving Rather the benefit of the doubt that he was unaware the story was fabricated from the get-go. To Rather, it didn't matter because he was convinced Bush possessed the character of someone who would have engaged in the acts of which he was falsely accused.

And what was it about Bush that led Rather to the conclusion that he possessed such low character? In Rather's eyes -- though many conservatives would strongly dispute this -- he was a conservative and conservatives are evil.

The parallel with Rush's leftist slanderers is striking. It's one of the first things that occurred to me as I heard their sniveling responses, one by one refusing to utter a syllable of apology and instead using the occasion of being caught red-handed in malicious lies as a further opportunity to reiterate their libel.

"How dare you suggest that we have done anything wrong in attributing statements to Rush he never uttered? Even if he didn't say those words, you know he was thinking them or something much worse."

On what basis do they make such preposterous statements? Purely and simply for the reason that Rush is an unabashed conservative and unabashed conservatives are presumptively racist.

Continue reading "This Isn't About Rush"

Posted by redguy at 07:47 PM | TrackBack (0)

October 12, 2009

Wealth Redistribution on Steroids

By: David Limbaugh

Is there no problem Obama and his mesmerized Democrats think cannot be solved with money -- other people's money? Just when you think you've heard it all, more news stories about this bunch surface to shock you.

The Sunday Times reports that the administration is considering a novel approach to the war in Afghanistan: outbidding the Taliban to persuade Afghan villagers to lay down arms.

So much for a "war of necessity," which was just an opportunistic sound bite for Obama to demonize Bush while cynically pretending to be hawkish enough in the war on terror to appeal to Middle America. No, for Obama, Afghanistan must just be another "street" to organize, another constituency to schmooze in his permanent -- now global -- campaign.

Even when the Bush administration employed strategies to win over Sunnis, it was coupled with a redoubling of our military effort and a marked alteration in our strategy to "hold" territory once we had taken it. This idea that you can reduce this war to an auction, divorced from the required steps needed to strengthen the security there, is insane.

That's not merely my independent assessment. One general close to Gen. Stanley McChrystal told the Times he was taken aback by the administration's attitude. "It surprised a lot of us -- we thought the policy decision was made to come down on the counter-insurgency course of action." The general said the notion that "we can just cut deals with the Taliban without having to do anything" is a "crazy" idea.

Continue reading "Wealth Redistribution on Steroids"

Posted by redguy at 07:54 PM | TrackBack (0)

October 08, 2009

Cloistered Media Libs Don't Get It

By: David Limbaugh

CNN "senior political analyst" Gloria Borger doesn't get it. Like so many cloistered mainstream media liberals, she just can't imagine why anyone would oppose Barack Obama's agenda. To her, it's all politics.

Where was Borger when Democrats, purely for partisan purposes, pummeled President George W. Bush for eight years? But let's stay focused on the present, because Republican opposition isn't about paybacks or getting even.

Borger argues that "Republicans don't really want to work with Obama" because they stand to regain congressional control simply by opposing his agenda without offering any ideas of their own. Their opposition couldn't possibly be grounded in principle because, to narrow-minded liberals such as Borger, the only legitimate ideas are liberal ones.

"In my next life," she writes, "I'd like to be an opposition party leader. What fun to go to work every day knowing you will always be right, largely because your ideas will remain untested. ... If we were in charge, you sing, the people would have tax cuts! More money in their pockets! And no deficits! But more jobs!"

Sorry, Gloria, but our ideas have been tested -- since the beginning of this republic -- and the record is pretty solid, though you might not view America's history with similar pride, given the left's revisionist mindset about America's mythical "imperialism" and capitalistic "exploitation."

Continue reading "Cloistered Media Libs Don't Get It"

Posted by redguy at 03:47 PM | TrackBack (0)

October 06, 2009

Obama Administration Defiantly Defends Another Radical Appointee

By: David Limbaugh

I continue to be amazed at the naivete of people who keep giving President Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt concerning his radical appointments, saying his administration isn't doing its job in vetting the appointees. When will they wake up to the reality that Obama is deliberately picking people, such as Kevin Jennings, who share his radical values?

When prescient commentators were warning of Obama's radical friends and colleagues, such as Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, during the campaign, his apologists diverted proper scrutiny, saying it's absurd to judge Obama by association. Even flawed cliches can work wonders when you have the entire mainstream media flacking for you.

Then when the radicalism of "green czar" Van Jones came to light, the left's reflexive reaction was that Jones was being victimized by an extremist element on the right and that the Internet itself had now been exposed as "an open sewer of untreated, unfiltered information." It was only when Jones' own extremism became too obvious to deny that the left shifted its line of defense to: Obama's team let him down by failing to vet Jones.

As I wrote at the time, "It's not Obama who didn't vet Jones, but the MSM who have never vetted Obama. Had they vetted Obama, they would have realized that he is Van Jones."

It seems that if you wait long enough, the Obama administration will get around to vindicating its legitimate critics, such as those of us who warned that Obama was insincere when he pretended that the public option was not an indispensable component of his health care scheme. (We hear that he's recently conducted a series of secret meetings with members of Congress, trying to cobble together a majority on a bill that includes the public option.)

Indeed, with his appointment of Kevin Jennings to head the Education Department's Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Obama has vindicated those of us who said that the Jones selection wasn't a failure of vetting, but about Obama's appointing a like-minded radical.

Now that Jennings' radical homosexual activism has been exposed, the Obama administration hasn't said: "Oh, sorry, another one slipped through our relatively new vetting process. The president will fire him, and we'll pick someone who reflects the president's values."

Continue reading "Obama Administration Defiantly Defends Another Radical Appointee"

Posted by redguy at 06:09 AM | TrackBack (0)

September 24, 2009

Obama's Competing Waterloos

By: David Limbaugh

Sen. Jim DeMint predicted that Obamacare would be President Barack Obama's Waterloo. While that's certainly a strong possibility, Obama has other Waterloos in the wings competing for the prize, such as his monstrous deficits and his disastrous foreign policy.

The Heritage Foundation reports that Obama's budget would produce $13 trillion in deficits over the next decade, even more than the outrageous $9 trillion previously projected. This is nation-shattering stuff, folks, and Obama and his minions remain unflappable, intent on staying the bankrupting course, sporting Alfred E. Neuman, "What, me worry?" expressions. The fact that we know they can't be that oblivious is what makes us wonder whether something more sinister lurks in their motives.

But Obama's foreign policy is shaping up to be every bit as dangerous. Because he has lived in a relatively cloistered political world -- surrounded and shielded by mostly fellow leftist radicals -- he apparently doesn't realize just how repugnant his appeasement policies and mantralike derision of this nation are to most Americans.

When I first heard that he was Mirandizing al-Qaida on the battlefield, I thought it was political satire. But it wasn't, any more than his scrapping of long-range missile defense or his apparent plan to unilaterally disarm us of our nuclear weapons.

Then there's Afghanistan, which Obama and his fellow Bush-hating Democratic machine exploited merely to bludgeon Bush on his Iraq policy. It was transparently obvious that this appeasement bunch wasn't serious when they said they wanted to ramp up our efforts in Afghanistan and evacuate Iraq because the former was supposedly part of the war on terror and the latter was not. The political strategy was simple: Let's vent our anti-war spleen on Iraq under cover of beating the war drums on Afghanistan.

Continue reading "Obama's Competing Waterloos"

Posted by redguy at 09:40 PM | TrackBack (0)

September 22, 2009

Obama At Odds With Majority, but Undeterred

By: David Limbaugh

While I couldn't bring myself to watch President Barack Obama's 1,000th-1,004th health care propaganda spiels on the Sunday shows, I did read some transcripts and watch a few video highlights. What is it about this guy's personality that compels him to keep beating his head against the wall?

Why does he keep doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result?

The more Obama stumps for socialized medicine the less popular it becomes. Yet Obama keeps going back to the well, apparently believing that if he just explains it one more time -- or maybe 10 more times -- to the ignorant masses, his wards will finally come around to his way of thinking.

On the one hand, it seems that Obama truly believes that the majority of people are as sick as he is of America and reject many of its founding principles. After all, during his formative years and beyond, he was always surrounded by those -- family and mentors -- who had bones to pick with America and its "exploitive" capitalistic economy. To say that most of his role models were outright Marxists is hardly inflammatory hyperbole.

When it was time for him to make his own associational choices, he opted to continue the pattern in which he'd been raised, from the church he chose to the angry, activist, anti-establishment street agitation he embraced in Chicago.

Continue reading "Obama At Odds With Majority, but Undeterred"

Posted by redguy at 05:46 AM | TrackBack (0)

September 15, 2009

Memo to Dems: Spare Us the Phony Wilson Outrage

By: David Limbaugh

Memo to the Democratic leadership threatening to censure Rep. Joe Wilson if he doesn't publicly apologize on the House floor for calling President Barack Obama a liar on that floor: You don't have the moral authority to be demanding apologies.

Not only has their own decorum in that very chamber been abysmal at times, such as when they booed President George W. Bush during his 2005 State of the Union address; they do much worse damage every week to this nation and its institutions than Joe Wilson conceivably could have done with his temporary breach of decorum.

While Democratic leaders are wagging their fingers at the Republican Party's alleged descent into incivility over Joe Wilson's unplanned, indignant outburst, they have a very short memory about their own partywide monopoly on incivility, as they savaged President Bush throughout his presidency. I researched and wrote a 400-plus-page book documenting the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of these hypocritical scolds in 2006, in case you need a refresher course.

Unlike Rep. Wilson, these offending Democrats have never apologized for their outrages. Did Rep. John Murtha apologize for prejudging and slandering our battlefield Marines who were later vindicated? Did Sen. Harry Reid ever apologize for calling President Bush a liar? Al Gore? John Kerry? Has suspected tax evader Rep. Charles Rangel apologized for his conduct while devising new ways to confiscate even higher taxes from honest, hardworking Americans who actually pay their taxes?

Did Sen. Dick Durbin retract the substance of his remarks in comparing Gitmo to the gulag? Did House leader Nancy Pelosi repent for defaming the CIA?

While we're at it, is anyone calling Obama and his colleagues on their opportunistic attacks on the Bush administration for not capturing Osama bin Laden, just as bin Laden has reportedly issued another taped lecture against the United States from some undisclosed cave somewhere?

Continue reading "Memo to Dems: Spare Us the Phony Wilson Outrage"

Posted by redguy at 06:00 AM | TrackBack (0)

September 09, 2009

The Mainstream Media's Temper Tantrum

By: David Limbaugh

With the resignation of green czar Van Jones despite their efforts to protect him, the mainstream media have finally been reduced to sputtering incoherence, as they've observed the un-deification of their anointed messiah and experienced firsthand their own diminishing relevance.

The MSM are engaging in a colossal temper tantrum over their lost news monopoly -- a monopoly they forfeited through their bias, arrogance and self-imposed insulation. (Consider Rathergate and their shameless effort to "Swift boat" the Swift boaters, to name a few.)

This is an especially hard pill for them to swallow considering that during the past year, they've been stewing in the intoxicating delusion that they were again supreme, as they appeared to be getting away with their conspiratorial enthroning of King Barack Obama. And they're not handling rejection well.

On "Meet the Press'" round-table discussion, retired "NBC Nightly News" anchor Tom Brokaw and New York Times columnist Tom Friedman were protesting the grass roots' and alternative media's unmasking of Van Jones as a radical leftist.

Brokaw said: "A lot of people will repeat back to me and take it as face value something that they read on the Internet. And my line to them is you have to vet information. ... It is across-the-board ... and it's something that we all have to address, and it requires society and political and cultural leaders to stand up and say, 'This is crazy.' We just can't function that way."

As opposed to "functioning" what other way? Perhaps he means the old way of having his beloved mainstream media spoon-feed us ignorant masses only the information and slant they want us to hear. Does Brokaw believe his colleagues properly "vetted" Barack Obama and his mysterious past and dubious associations during the presidential campaign? Do they ask him any penetrating questions today? Have they ever pressed him to explain his voluminous inconsistencies and deceptions on health care alone?

Continue reading "The Mainstream Media's Temper Tantrum"

Posted by redguy at 09:15 PM | TrackBack (0)

September 03, 2009

No Compromise, No Retreat, No Surrender

By: David Limbaugh

The key to stopping Obama's far-left agenda is to understand where his heart is. If politicians let their guard down and compromise, the Obama steamroller will regain its momentum and forge ahead to gobble up our individual liberties.

Obama's heart is and always has been on the farthest reaches of the left wing of politics. His driving ambition is to force fundamental change on America. That should go without saying, but it must be repeated -- and repeated -- lest people's forgiving spirits and short memories generate just enough complacency to allow Obama to get back on track.

It is remarkable that Obama has lost public favor so quickly. But the other side of that coin is that he is receiving a wake-up call early enough in his first term to allow him to recover well in time for the crucial 2010 elections.

Some erroneously believe that Obama will continue to bash his stubborn leftist head into the wall against the wishes of the public. I don't believe the modern myth that Obama is an erudite political philosopher, but I do think he's savvy enough to understand that he must significantly repackage his message in order to win back popular support for his policy goals.

Continue reading "No Compromise, No Retreat, No Surrender"

Posted by redguy at 08:40 PM | TrackBack (0)

August 31, 2009

Obama's Shameless 'Torture' Prosecution Reversal

By: David Limbaugh

President Barack Obama is either extraordinarily politically tone-deaf or arrogant beyond bounds, as indicated by his relentless pursuit of policies strongly rejected by the American people. His decision or acquiescence in the Department of Justice's decision to reinvestigate CIA terrorist interrogators is the latest outrage.

Obama's approval ratings have cratered even further since my most recent column, and he's either Mr. Magoo, driving along in blissful oblivion, or Fearless Leader, who will do what he wants, American people be damned.

Based on Obama's oft-articulated mindset -- "I won, so the other side should just quit talking" -- I think it's safe to say he's closer to dictator than to Magoo. Besides, Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to begin a new investigation of the CIA interrogators has Obama's national security-emasculating fingerprints all over it.

Obama has been railing against alleged "torture" of terrorist detainees since early in the presidential campaign. He has endlessly apologized for American "imperialism," even going so far as to castigate our policy toward Iran of more than three decades ago, but giving that mullah-run state a pass for its egregiously hostile policies and behavior toward us.

On top of this, Obama is closing Gitmo with no plan to relocate the dangerous prisoners; he has directed that many of these terrorists be tried in civilian courts; he's abandoned the term "war on terror" in favor of "overseas contingency operations"; his administration has ordered that captured terrorists be Mirandized on the battlefield; and he's now going to further weaken the CIA by reassigning terrorist interrogation duties to an interagency entity operated out of the White House.

What more evidence do we need that this decision is Obama's handiwork?

"Heavens, no," say his defenders. "Obama is to be commended for distancing himself from the Department of Justice, which has finally achieved some independence, unlike during the Bush years." Eric Holder, they say, is being guided by the law, not politics, and Obama is choosing not to intervene, despite his earlier promise that he would "look forward and not backward" with regard to the CIA torture issues.

Continue reading "Obama's Shameless 'Torture' Prosecution Reversal"

Posted by redguy at 10:04 PM | TrackBack (0)

August 28, 2009

Reclaiming Popular Sovereignty

By: David Limbaugh

It's true that Barack Obama's approval ratings began at the North Pole and are already hovering around the equator. But given what he's said and done, it is quite remarkable, frankly, that they aren't firmly planted at the South Pole.

The deceptions and contradictions are astounding. His premises for policy change are consistently duplicitous. He's embarked on a course to deliberately bankrupt the nation; he is at war with mainstream American values; he is undermining our national security during wartime (prosecuting our protectors -- and otherwise); and he's pursuing unprecedented government control of the private sector.

Just look at his handling of Obamacare. His stated goals aren't arguably fraudulent, but verifiably so. He says he's motivated to cut costs, but the Congressional Budget Office, even using static economic analysis, says Obamacare would increase costs by $1 trillion. This is without factoring in the inevitable inflation that would occur from further dissociating health care demand from market prices.

Obama also continues to use the counterfeit figure of 47 million uninsured when he knows that only a fraction of those are American citizens who both can't afford insurance and are not eligible for government assistance.

Some experts have estimated this number to be less than 10 million, and yet Obama wants to wholly revamp the system to make sure they are covered. Note I said "covered," not "given access to health care." But the CBO has projected that millions would remain uninsured after Obamacare, and history shows that access to care would shrink drastically under the socialized system Obama envisions.

Continue reading "Reclaiming Popular Sovereignty"

Posted by redguy at 06:14 AM | TrackBack (0)

August 20, 2009

Obama's Brick Wall: The American People

By: David Limbaugh

President Barack Obama has run into a brick wall: the American people, who cherish their liberty and revere their nation and do not want it remade in Obama's socialist image.

Obama's free-falling poll numbers are not the result of a misinformation campaign from a small sliver of unruly conservative opponents, as the administration wants you to believe. They are a reflection of the public's reaction to Obama's policies and his own comprehensive misinformation campaign to dupe the people into believing America is unsalvageable without fundamental change.

When Obama promised to bring fundamental change to America, most Americans, fortunately for him, did not take him literally. He offered them "hope" at a time when the economy was going south; political partisanship had reached new levels of acrimony, and people were weary of a protracted, albeit successful, war in Iraq. But most voters had no idea just how much change Obama had in mind.

But Obama was dead serious. If it wasn't obvious to trusting people then, it is abundantly so now. He doesn't share the majority's vision of America as the most wonderful experiment in constitutional governance in history. He sees it as a land of plenty, all right -- plenteous inequities, with maldistribution of resources, oppression and imperialism.

Surely people can now see that it is no accident that he sat at the feet of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright for 20 years, that his mother was a leftist activist and cultural Marxist, that his main early mentor was radical Frank Marshall Davis, that he was a member of the far-left New Party in Chicago, that his main vocation in life has been street organizing and agitation and that he didn't think the revolutionarily, transformative Warren court was liberal enough.

Since assuming office, Obama has been on a mission to fundamentally alter the social compact between the government and a once powerfully sovereign people.

Continue reading "Obama's Brick Wall: The American People"

Posted by redguy at 08:34 PM | TrackBack (0)

August 18, 2009

Public Option Not Optional for Obama

By: David Limbaugh

As I write this, I don't know whether President Barack Obama and his Democrats will end up pretending to abandon the public option aspect of Obamacare, but I do know that if they do, it will only be a matter of time before they resurrect it because that's where their heart is.

That's why, among other reasons, neither Blue Dog Democrats who oppose socialized medicine nor Republicans should consider compromising with left-wing Democrats to pass a bill. If they do, Obama will eventually -- and probably sooner than you think -- achieve his goal of nationalized health care.

Don't think I'm advocating Republican obstructionism. I would like nothing more than for conservative congressmen to quarterback real market reforms to the health care system. But if you understand liberals at all, you know that they'll never agree to market-based solutions for ideological reasons and because an expanding dependency class is their most essential power source.

Just watch conservatives propose an expansion of health savings accounts or an eradication of coverage mandates, including those prohibiting crossing state lines to buy health insurance, or tort reform or changing the tax code to eliminate the incentive for employer-provided health insurance and see what happens.

Obama will be all over state-run TV telling Americans that uncompassionate conservatives are going "Katrina" on the poor again. Democrats are the true obstructionists because they'll stop, at any cost, the only reforms that could reduce health care costs without rationing, creating waiting lines, or decreasing choice and quality of care.

Continue reading "Public Option Not Optional for Obama"

Posted by redguy at 05:41 AM | TrackBack (0)

August 14, 2009

Obama's Forfeited Credibility Sabotaging Obamacare

By: David Limbaugh

President Barack Obama apparently came to believe the myth of his messiahship and has accordingly abused and squandered his good will and political capital and possibly self-sabotaged his socialized medicine scheme.

Of all the newsworthy aspects of this desperate "reform" effort, none is more so than the robust democratic processes it has reinvigorated in this nation. While Democrats insist the nationwide grass-roots movement against his Draconian measure is contrived and illusory, it is just the opposite.

Nothing could be so real as the American people, emboldened by their passion for liberty, standing up against a callous, dishonest government trolling for its freedoms in exchange for false promises.

All the proof we need that Obama and Democrats recognize the authenticity of this grass-roots protest is their hysterical reaction to it. They wouldn't be hyperventilating about it if they believed it to be fake, but would use their supermajorities to ram through this bill.

Indeed, that congressmen have not been able or courageous enough (against the threat of being removed from office in 2010) to pass this bill is the story of the year. Integral to that story is the unraveling of the Obama mystique, occasioned by Obama's ongoing arrogance and duplicity, most recently on the Obamacare issue.

Let's just look at some of the myriad ways Obama has betrayed the enormous trust bestowed upon him -- on the health care issue alone.

Continue reading "Obama's Forfeited Credibility Sabotaging Obamacare"

Posted by redguy at 06:17 AM | TrackBack (0)

August 11, 2009

"Conservatives, Shut Up and Step Aside"

By: David Limbaugh

The hubris, arrogance and deceit of President Barack Obama and the Democratic leadership are breathtaking. In their maniacal frenzy to assume control over every aspect of our lives through socialized medicine, they are behaving like the thuggish autocrats they have proved themselves to be.

The jig is up on their designs, evidenced by the very contents of the health bill they're promoting. As increasing public awareness has translated into increasing grass-roots opposition to the bill, the Democrats have ratcheted up their bullying tactics and deceit.

Our self-styled bipartisan president is telling his critics to shut up, while his partners in crime, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues, are calling them un-American and Nazis.

Understand this: The people who are showing up in droves with righteous anger befitting a body politic steeped in a unique liberty tradition are exercising the very type of bottom-up citizen protest and government watchdogging our Founding Fathers envisioned. They are not the artificially driven "AstroTurf" phonies the Democrats are depicting them to be. No, such activities are the province of Alinsky/Obama-type "street organizers" and union thugs enlisted by the administration to discredit these legitimate protests.

Continue reading ""Conservatives, Shut Up and Step Aside""

Posted by redguy at 05:22 AM | TrackBack (0)

August 04, 2009

Obama Can't Afford To Tell Truth on Health Care

By: David Limbaugh

President Barack Obama is spreading disinformation about health care almost as quickly as he's driving up the national debt, such as that 47 million Americans can't get health care and that a government takeover would be a panacea.

Democrats have constantly demagogued the 47 million uninsured figure to gin up public fear about the scarcity of health care access, especially for the poor. They follow up with the promise that under their plan, we would achieve universal access. But both are untrue.

In "The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care," Sally Pipes points out that while there are some Americans who simply can't afford health insurance, many millions who can afford insurance choose not to buy it and "very likely would not want to be 'rescued' by mandatory socialized medicine."

In the first place, the 47 million number is grossly inflated. The Congressional Budget Office survey generating it included those who were uninsured for any part of a year, despite the fact that almost half of these remain uninsured for an average of only four months.

Some 38 percent of this 47 million -- almost 18 million -- make more than $50,000 a year, and 10 million of them make more than $75,000. Of all the uninsured groups, this is the only one that is growing, because in a still-free country, they've made their own decision not to buy expensive insurance while (most of them) are young and healthy. The Census Bureau also reports that more than 10 million of the uninsured are not American citizens.

But how about the very poor? Well, it turns out that the Democrats are shedding crocodile tears here, as well. Pipes explains that "as many as 14 million of the 45.7 million uninsured -- poor and low-income Americans -- are fully eligible for generous government assistance programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP." But "they're just not enrolling in the programs."

Continue reading "Obama Can't Afford To Tell Truth on Health Care"

Posted by redguy at 05:21 AM | TrackBack (0)

July 30, 2009

Preparing for War: Boning Up on the Left's Health Care Myths

By: David Limbaugh

I am gratified that an awakened public has sent Congress an unequivocal message not to socialize our health care system, but note that this war is just beginning. Gen. Barack Obama is not the slightest bit deterred by the public's negative reaction, because he knows more than they do about what's best for them.

As we go forward, it's imperative we recognize that the current hiccup in Obama's momentum is a result of so-called Blue Dog Democrats' refusing to go along with his plan -- and this, largely because their constituents are raining down "tea party" speed bumps on their heads warning them against endorsing this disaster.

But if we're not careful, Obama will negotiate a path around this opposition, and it's important we anticipate it and prepare accordingly. The key lies in understanding the main reason for the Blue Dogs' resistance.

The Blue Dogs see themselves as being all about fiscal responsibility, even though most of them enthusiastically signed on to his budget-busting trillion-dollar porkulus scheme and his cap-and-tax debacle. Those little details aside, they have based their opposition to the bill thus far on their fear that the program wouldn't be able to pay for itself.

If that's true, then all Obama has to do to capture their support (he may already have) is to convince them it will be deficit-neutral -- or better. He can do that either by manipulating the numbers or by making adjustments to create the illusion it would pay for itself.

Continue reading "Preparing for War: Boning Up on the Left's Health Care Myths"

Posted by redguy at 07:58 PM | TrackBack (0)

July 27, 2009

A Teachable Moment Indeed

By: David Limbaugh

The Henry Louis Gates Jr./Cambridge police flap is most significant for what it tells us about President Barack Obama, his approach to the presidency, and his general attitude, including on matters of race.

In his July 22 news conference on health care, one member of the media asked Obama, "What does (the Gates arrest) incident say to you, and what does it say about race relations in America?"

Without hesitation, Obama launched into what appeared to be a pre-considered response. Had he been caught off guard by the question, we might assume he would hesitate -- at least briefly -- and then decline to inject himself into the matter.

We should expect Obama, of all people, given his reputation for coolness and sagacity, to act presidentially, not only in measuring his thoughts before speaking but also in declining to comment on local matters beyond his duties and about which he doesn't have all the facts.

But Obama's attitude toward the presidency is not particularly aligned with what our constitutional Framers had in mind. He obviously believes it is his prerogative to micromanage any and every aspect of American life, from the catastrophic to the mundane.

He's displayed this attitude in town hall meetings, where he has given advice to attendees concerning their specific problems, as if it were his place to make personal house calls on matters ranging from people's health care problems to their mortgages. All of this is consistent with Obama's perception of government's cradle-to-grave caretaker role and his effort to cultivate a dependency mindset in Americans.

But in this case, Obama decided to weigh in, even after admitting that "Skip" Gates is his "friend," that he "may be a little biased here," and that he didn't "know all the facts." We know he made this decision with premeditation, because White House press secretary Robert Gibbs admitted they had anticipated and prepared for the question.

Continue reading "A Teachable Moment Indeed"

Posted by redguy at 09:23 PM | TrackBack (0)

July 21, 2009

More Health Care Lies

By: David Limbaugh

It's no wonder the White House is delaying release of the latest dismal budget figures. It's not just that they are grossly more dismal than the projections. It's that they will undercut already-waning public support for Obama's socialized medicine scheme.

The White House was supposed to release the budget numbers this month but has delayed their release until mid-August, which even has The Associated Press raising questions about its motives.

But you don't have to be in journalism to realize that Obama is playing hide the ball with the facts in his desperate rush to ramrod this disaster through Congress before the public wakes up. The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that not only are Obama's disapproval ratings soaring but support for his health care debacle is now less than 49 percent -- a new low. And you can bet it will get much lower the more the public learns about his plan -- a plan whose promotion has been riddled with lies.

Why else would Obama, who was very tardy for his most recent news conference, arrogantly refuse to answer any questions following his terse, combative and defiant remarks about his plan? Is this the new transparency we can believe in?

Here are some inconvenient truths Obama must conceal from the American public:

--Despite White House-generated hysteria about the urgency of reform, the only urgency is in preventing this fiasco because it would destroy America's economy and liberty. Doing nothing -- even given the many problems that exist under the present system -- is far preferable to adopting this monster.

Continue reading "More Health Care Lies"

Posted by redguy at 05:52 AM | TrackBack (0)

July 16, 2009

Calling All Blue Dogs

By: David Limbaugh

The most important thing to understand about the Democrats' domestic agenda is that they care more about establishing government control over our lives than they do about the stated policy goals of their proposals.

It's true of their fraudulently named stimulus packages, their cap-and-tax scheme and especially their universal health care plans.

With all of these programs and more, their driving aim is not only to acquire power for the sake of acquiring it but also to use government to impose their values on us and, effectively, destroy our personal liberties. The subject of liberty -- the very impetus for the founding of this nation -- is rarely mentioned in the public debate.

That is why we'll never convince them with evidence, from the growing scientific skepticism about global warming to the proven failed track record of Keynesian economics to the universal failure rate of socialized medicine throughout the world.

But it is also why they'll never persuade the public to go along with their mischief if the facts get out, which explains their unilateral declaration of a consensus on global warming and their refusal to debate the issue, their historical revisionism on the failures of New Deal stimuli, and their perpetual urgency in rushing their entire agenda through simultaneously -- before the public can even digest their proposals, much less organize to oppose them.

Health care is this week's crisis. Here, it's imperative we recognize that they're more interested in imposing their values on abortion, end-stage medical care, and economic equality than in the quality of health care.

Continue reading "Calling All Blue Dogs"

Posted by redguy at 07:49 PM | TrackBack (0)

July 09, 2009

Cap and Tax: Government vs. America

By: David Limbaugh

There is still time to stop the legislative monstrosity known as the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill before the Senate approves it. But for that to happen, Americans must learn how bad it is.

Let's briefly review the basics: The bill is ostensibly designed to curb man-caused carbon emissions (presumably without outlawing breathing) to retard global warming.

Even if we accept, for purposes of argument, the assumptions of radical, hysterical leftist environmentalists that man-caused global warming will destroy the planet if evil, rich capitalists don't radically curtail their own contributions to the catastrophe, Waxman-Markey would not prevent this Armageddon.

Climate scientist Chip Knappenberger, of New Hope Environmental Services, calculates that the bill would only reduce Earth's temperature by 0.1 to 0.2 degree Celsius by 2100. The Heritage Foundation's Ben Lieberman says he's found no "decent refutation of the assertion that the temperature impact would be inconsequential."

Unfortunately, the bill's negative impact on the economy would not be inconsequential. Lieberman says the bill would cause estimated job losses averaging about 1.15 million from 2012-2030, and the cumulative projected loss in gross domestic product would be almost $10 trillion by 2035. The national debt from this bill alone, disregarding the multiple bailouts, stimulus packages and health care "reform," would increase by 2035 for a family of four by 26 percent, or $115,000.

Heritage is not alone in making these claims. The far more liberal Brookings Institution estimates the bill would cost 1.8 percent of GDP in 2035 and 2.5 percent by 2050. Heritage's "Foundry" blog concludes, "Economists from liberal think tanks, conservative think tanks, and industry associations agree that Waxman-Markey will reduce income by hundreds of billions of dollars per year."

Continue reading "Cap and Tax: Government vs. America"

Posted by redguy at 08:05 PM | TrackBack (0)

July 06, 2009

King Barack

By: David Limbaugh

Oh, how quickly times have changed. Just a few short years ago, Democrats were up in arms over King George III's (President George W. Bush's) "unconstitutional" executive power grabs. Where are these people now?

I'll tell you where they are: right in the thick of it, enabling President Barack Obama to consolidate and exercise unprecedented power.

Remember when Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy complained that the constitutional "checks and balances that have served to constrain abuses of power for more than two centuries in this country" were at risk because Republicans controlled the executive and legislative branches? How about Sen. Russ Feingold, who was looking at impeachment as a remedy to keep the president in check and prevent him from acquiring power "like King George III"?

Today these same senators are not just passively mute about Obama's power grabs; they are co-conspirators.

You might think the repeated conservative complaint about Obama's egregious lack of transparency is, by now, a tired talking point. But we're not just referring to minor procedural matters that are substantively inconsequential.

Continue reading "King Barack"

Posted by redguy at 06:51 PM | TrackBack (0)

July 02, 2009

None Dare Call It Marxism

By: David Limbaugh

All right already. I won't call Obama a Marxist in this column. Instead, I'll point to some signs that indicate that Barack and Karl might well be soul mates. At least, they have similar attitudes about capital, labor and profits, er, surplus value.

Liberals, even those of the Marxist variety, take umbrage when you point out their ideological kinship with Marxism.

I suppose this dates back to the days when being a communist was tantamount to being an enemy of the United States, in that there was a global communist movement intent on -- and coming darn close to -- world domination. Though global communism has been defeated, there remains a strong contingent among us, whose nerve center is the Democratic Party leadership under President Obama, committed to obliterating America's free market.

Without getting into the intricacies of Marxist theory, suffice it to say that at the core of this political and economic philosophy is a belief in the historical class struggle. The capitalist (bourgeois) exploits the industrial worker (proletarian) by underpaying him and adding on unnecessary charges to the prices of goods and services, driving up costs to the consumer, and pocketing the profits.

In "Basic Economics," Thomas Sowell puts it this way: "Profits may be the most misconceived subject in economics. Socialists have long regarded profits as simply 'overcharge,' as Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw called it, or a 'surplus value' as Karl Marx called it." The theory is that under socialism or Marxism, these surplus charges would be eliminated and goods and services would become more affordable.

Continue reading "None Dare Call It Marxism"

Posted by redguy at 10:15 PM | TrackBack (0)

June 29, 2009

The Censorious Left's Global Warming Denier Deniers

By: David Limbaugh

There is so much misinformation on the subject of global warming and so little consensus -- as to what environmental changes are occurring, whether human behavior is contributing to them, whether they are causing significant environmental damage, and whether the proposed cap and trade legislation would do anything to alleviate any of this -- it is no wonder our freedom-hating majority in the House insisted on cramming it through before they could even read, much less digest, what it contained.

It would be bad enough if they passed innocuous legislation to address an alleged problem (man-caused global warming) without first verifying there is a problem and then analyzing and assessing the extent of it, but it's outrageous that they would pass a measure that could have crippling effects on our economy and American taxpayers.

Who do these people think they are -- that they can claim a mandate to do anything they want to, that they can grab as much power as they want, that they can transform our government overnight into an enemy of the people, with no fear of accountability? Oh, I know; the government has already behaved like the people's enemy all too often, but never on the scale we're witnessing today -- from a party that had the audacity to accuse President George W. Bush of abusing his authority.

Just where is the journalistic skepticism in today's dominant media culture or the professed open-mindedness of Democrats?

What is their response when people have the temerity to challenge their assertions on catastrophic global warming? It is ridicule and abuse. Not only are the doubters flat-earth Neanderthals; they are darn near treasonous, according to the dogmatic left.

Continue reading "The Censorious Left's Global Warming Denier Deniers"

Posted by redguy at 08:06 PM | TrackBack (0)

June 25, 2009

Throw the Bums Out

By: David Limbaugh

Here they go again -- our faithful representatives in Washington, that is. They're about to pass, without reading its 1,200-plus pages, an incredibly expensive and destructive cap and trade bill, which has little prayer of accomplishing what it sets out to accomplish but satisfies their urgent need to pay homage to their liberal ideology and secular humanist worldview.

Do you remember when Barack Obama was forced to give an answer to justify his advocacy of a capital gains tax increase in view of such taxes' history of actually decreasing revenues? The revenue reductions are worth it because it's a matter of "fairness," he said. Spread the misery. Likewise, with cap and trade, Obama and his congressional cohorts will wreak untold destruction on the economy and get little benefit in return.

I'm not exaggerating here. Doesn't it make sense that before enacting legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the purpose of reducing man-made global warming, Congress would investigate whether significant man-made global warming is occurring (as opposed to watching Al Gore's propaganda film and simply declaring, by fiat, that scientists have reached a consensus on the issue when they clearly have not)?

And if, after a thorough and balanced inquiry, they determine that it is occurring, shouldn't they next examine whether their proposed legislative remedy is likely to significantly ameliorate the problem?

But they not only have not conducted a bona fide examination of the man-made warming issue but also have not attempted to examine, in any remotely scientific way, how much their proposed bill would reduce global warming (assuming it exists to the extent they contend) or whether any such reductions would make any difference at all to humanity's short- or long-term health or happiness or anything else.

Continue reading "Throw the Bums Out"

Posted by redguy at 09:48 PM | TrackBack (0)

June 22, 2009

Reasons for Cautious Optimism

By: David Limbaugh

American freedom lovers studying the reign of Obama have been in a constant state of anxiety over the administration's assault on capitalism and America's very solvency, its thuggish political style, its PR war against America's history, its radical social policies and its Carteresque foreign policy. But for the first time, there are signs that America is starting to wake up.

The latest daily Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll has Obama slipping into negative net approval territory, with more Americans strongly disapproving of his performance (34 percent) than strongly approving (33 percent). Just 54 percent of voters say they at least somewhat approve. Even the Gallup Poll reports a decline in his approval rating to a new low, albeit still at 58 percent. The decline results from a drop in support among independents, as well as Republicans -- but not Democrats.

Can you imagine what these numbers would be if the mainstream media weren't invested in Obama's success or, better yet, if moderate Democrats weren't still blinded by their lingering excitement over regaining the presidency and their vulnerability to Obama's cultish aura?

But it's not just the polling data that are encouraging. Obama's blame-it-on-Bush mantra is starting to wear thin. Another Rasmussen survey found that 39 percent of voters now think our economic problems are caused more by Obama's policies -- a 12-point jump from just a month ago.

Also, support for Obama's most dangerous agenda item, nationalized health care, is waning. A recent ABC News//Kaiser Family Foundation/USA Today survey indicates that 89 percent of Americans are satisfied with their health care. Worse (for Obama), congressional Democrats have warned that his plan is in jeopardy because its projected costs range between $1 trillion and $1.6 trillion, according to Congressional Budget Office scoring, and it would not even reduce by half the number of uninsured (the fraudulent impetus behind the administration's manufactured crisis). Just wait until further damaging truths come to light about the horrors awaiting America's health care system if it is nationalized, including government rationing and dramatically lower-quality care.

Continue reading "Reasons for Cautious Optimism"

Posted by redguy at 07:07 PM | TrackBack (0)

June 18, 2009

Obama Protects Cronies at Taxpayers' Expense

By: David Limbaugh

The more we learn about the White House's summary firing of AmeriCorps' inspector general, Gerald Walpin, the more it smells of lawlessness, cronyism and a flagrant disregard for transparency and government accountability.

Remember President Barack Obama's commitment to oversee the expenditure of taxpayer funds to avoid waste and inefficiency -- to the point that he deputized Vice President "Mean" Joe Biden as the executive enforcer?

That was then. This is now. As has proved customary with this administration, the walk has not matched the talk. Biden's casual admissions that the administration "guessed wrong" and that money has been wasted don't begin to describe the fiscal recklessness and corruption that define this White House.

Walpin -- in investigating the misuse of AmeriCorps funds by St. HOPE charity, which is under the direction of Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, a strong Obama supporter -- discovered that St. HOPE had failed to use the federal monies for the purposes specified in the grant and improperly had used AmeriCorps personnel to drive Johnson to personal appointments, run other errands for him and wash his car. On Walpin's recommendation, an official at the Corporation for National and Community Service, the organization that runs AmeriCorps, ordered Johnson's suspension.

Walpin also referred the matter to the local U.S. attorney's office for a criminal inquiry. Though no criminal charges were filed, St. HOPE agreed in a settlement to repay half its $850,000 of AmeriCorps grants.

Continue reading "Obama Protects Cronies at Taxpayers' Expense"

Posted by redguy at 07:41 PM | TrackBack (0)

June 16, 2009

America's Fatal Attraction

By: David Limbaugh

Excuse my mastery of the obvious, but I have to believe the greatest obstacle to America's return to policy sanity is the electorate's cultish adoration of Barack Obama.

If it weren't for this disturbing phenomenon -- not to discount a healthy dose of blind partisanship -- it is inconceivable that the majority of people would tolerate Obama's dismantling of America's free market system, his returning America to a pre-9/11 mindset against terrorists, his increasing usurpations of power, and his corrupt ties and practices, from the public funding of ACORN to the summary dismissal of the case against the Black Panthers to his firing of inspector general Gerald Walpin apparently for uncovering corruption by Obama's friends.

I don't quite understand how people, especially religious people, can place their trust for salvation in a fellow mortal, but history shows they do, and present-day America shows they are. From MSNBC's Chris Matthews' admitting Obama sends a thrill up his leg to audience members' fainting at his speeches to young girls' kissing his statue like brainless bookends, the trend continues unabated.

Even some not entranced by his supposed charisma are indirectly affected by it, evidenced by their unbounded willingness to give him the benefit of every doubt. They are impervious to his narcissism, indifferent to his megalomaniacal pursuit of power, ceaselessly forgiving of his childish scapegoating of the previous administration, and oblivious to his extremism.

The mainstream media are his biggest institutional enablers, drooling over his every utterance, irrespective of his many contradictions, his assaults on the Constitution and our liberties, and his spate of broken promises.

Continue reading "America's Fatal Attraction"

Posted by redguy at 08:53 PM | TrackBack (0)

June 12, 2009

From the Battlefield to the Courtroom

By: David Limbaugh

During the presidential campaign, when some warned against Barack Obama's soft approach to the war on terror, I doubt they had any idea he would greatly exceed their worst expectations. But he has.

A common refrain of the Bush administration and its defenders in the prosecution of the war was that prior to the 9/11 attacks, the American government had been treating Islamo-terrorism as a law enforcement problem. The 9/11 attacks forced us, kicking and screaming, into the realization that the Islamo-jihadists were indeed in a war with us and that we would have to wage war against them, as well.

This new approach seemed to have been accepted as a necessity by both parties, and the nation united -- temporarily, at least -- around our new policy to adopt a proactive and comprehensive military approach to fight terrorism. For a time, we achieved a degree of bipartisanship on such ideas as breaking down the forced walls of separation imposed by the Clinton administration that discouraged our intelligence agencies from sharing information on terrorist activities.

Before long, though, Democrats reverted to their perennial practice of politicizing every exploitable issue and began systematically attacking and undermining our newfound war-oriented approach. They began their specious assaults, in the name of protecting the privacy of U.S. citizens, against the various programs we were using to monitor terrorists and prevent future attacks.

Their war against the war included criticizing the National Security Agency's terrorist surveillance program, which they slandered as "domestic spying," the NSA's tracking "data mining" of terrorist calls to and from the United States, and the administration's Terrorist Finance Tracking Program. In all these cases, their claims were eventually shown to be overblown at best -- and trumped-up at worst.

Continue reading "From the Battlefield to the Courtroom"

Posted by redguy at 05:04 AM | TrackBack (0)

June 08, 2009

Tickling the World's Itching Ears

By: David Limbaugh

The apostle Paul said: "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from truth and turn aside to myths" (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

Indeed, this generation is loath to tolerate not only biblical doctrine but also other truths. President Barack Obama tickles the world's ears with promises of hope, change, peace, harmony, diversity, pluralism and "tolerance," but in too many cases, he has allowed truth to become a casualty -- and more than a harmless casualty. Nowhere was that more clearly demonstrated than in his speech in Cairo to the Muslim world.

Many judge Obama's speeches, not to mention his policies and actions, on his high-sounding rhetoric and professed good will. They ignore his obvious errors and contradictions, duping themselves into believing that supposedly good intentions alone will trump facts and reality and insulate us from the negative consequences that will flow from his distortions.

In his Cairo speech, Obama, as usual, served up a plentiful smorgasbord of platitudes sufficient to appeal to the appetites of almost everyone (except, notably, our steadfast ally Israel). His idolaters in the mainstream media obediently praised him for his "honesty" in trashing America and for his equal-opportunity softball scolding of the Muslim world.

Continue reading "Tickling the World's Itching Ears"

Posted by redguy at 10:42 PM | TrackBack (0)

June 04, 2009

Conservatives Aren't the Extremists

By: David Limbaugh

Mainstream conservatives are routinely mischaracterized as extreme by liberals and squishy Republicans, when it is America's liberals who are, by any fair measure, more extreme.

Conservatives are not the ones who sermonize about tolerance yet demonstrate intolerance toward conservative and Christian thought; support exterminating babies in the womb; apologize the world over for America; or gut the military and missile defense because of some dangerously egotistical notion that they have the magic to turn evil into goodness with their charisma and eloquence or, even worse, because they refuse to recognize evil in the world, except as emanating from the United States.

Conservatives aren't the ones who have so little faith in their fellow human beings that they diminish their dignity by expanding the welfare state and increasing man's learned dependency on government; judge people by the color of their skin instead of the content of their character; pit economic groups against one another, stoking the flames of envy and greed; punish success, reward failure and promote mediocrity; side with the world's tyrants and dictators; slavishly attach themselves to leftist propaganda about impending environmental catastrophes; promote a secular humanist worldview that considers government a quasi-deity that can perfect the human condition; or morally equate the practice of enhanced interrogation techniques to save innocent lives with that of beheading innocent people.

Continue reading "Conservatives Aren't the Extremists"

Posted by redguy at 09:21 PM | TrackBack (0)

June 02, 2009

Obama Knew What He Was Getting With Sotomayor

By: David Limbaugh

It amazes me that for all the attention Judge Sonia Sotomayor has attracted for a racially charged statement in a 2001 speech, few are tying her attitude to President Barack Obama's. Just as he knew precisely what his 20-year pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was about and approved, he knew, prior to nominating her, what Sonia Sotomayor is about and approved. In both cases, he just didn't want us to know.

In her 2001 speech at Berkeley, Sotomayor said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Obama's apologists claim Sotomayor's statement was taken out of context. But the context of her prepared remarks makes the statement more -- not less -- incriminating.

The sentences preceding the statement were: "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge (Miriam) Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice (Sandra Day) O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am ... not so sure that I agree with the statement."

First, it's important to note that she's not talking about trial judges, for example, who might be more or less lenient in their sentencing within the prescribed sentencing guidelines, but about appellate judges applying the law.

Continue reading "Obama Knew What He Was Getting With Sotomayor"

Posted by redguy at 07:25 AM | TrackBack (0)

May 19, 2009

Abortion Doublespeak Part of Pattern

By: David Limbaugh

With due respect to the millions who adore President Barack Obama, I just don't understand what causes people to hear only his lofty rhetoric and appeals for unity while turning a deaf ear to his polarizing language and actions, for example, on the subject of abortion.

In his book "The Audacity of Hope," he seemed determined to address every issue from the perspective of achieving some kind of common ground. We'll give a little bit of this to liberals and a little bit of that to conservatives and all live happily ever after.

I'm sorry, but I believe Obama calculatingly employs this approach mainly as a smoke screen to hide his real agenda, which resides anywhere but on common ground. He specializes in paying superficial respect to his opponents' arguments while proceeding to bury them. The examples are endless.

He calls forced union membership "free choice." He masquerades as a fiscal disciplinarian while authoring nationally bankrupting budgets in perpetuity.

He endorses capitalism as a superior economic system while undermining it with other words and actions. He condemns it as "unfair" and decries achievers as "selfish" and "greedy." He's set on restructuring our economy away from the free market and toward government control, from taking over private businesses to setting executive salaries to subsidizing mortgages to nationalizing health care. But he knows better than to condemn capitalism outright, because if he did, the American people finally would wise up to his endgame.

Continue reading "Abortion Doublespeak Part of Pattern"

Posted by redguy at 06:04 AM | TrackBack (0)

May 15, 2009

Next on the Statists' Menu: Health Care

By: David Limbaugh

Since Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign, proponents of socialized medicine have bombarded us with nonstop demagoguery about the 40 million-plus uninsured to create a crisis mentality sufficient to catalyze sweeping "reforms." Their efforts didn't stand much of a chance until the advent of the pseudocrisis-exploiting administration of President Barack Obama, which never met a "crisis" it couldn't leverage.

The number of uninsured people is grossly misleading. Just because you are uninsured doesn't mean you have no access to medical care. And just because you are insured under universal systems doesn't mean you will receive care.

If you don't think the administration is parlaying the crisis angle, then you must have missed the feigned urgency in Obama's declarations that "reform" must be completed this year.

Obama wasn't kidding when he promised fundamental change. With him, many big things must happen, and they must happen yesterday, for he knows he has a finite window of time available to effectuate his mischief before people finally awaken to the horrors of the Obama hurricane.

What about this 47 million uninsured figure we've heard so much about -- thanks to the Clintons, Michael Moore and armies of George Soros disciples?

With the left, which forever complains about the religious right's moralizing, it's always a moral issue. Hillary Clinton said, "It's really indefensible that we now have more than 45 million uninsured Americans, 9 million of whom are children, and the vast majority of whom are from working families."

Continue reading "Next on the Statists' Menu: Health Care"

Posted by redguy at 06:02 AM | TrackBack (0)

May 11, 2009

Fearing Our Government

By: David Limbaugh

Of the dozens of reasons to be concerned about the ever-growing and unchecked power of the federal government under President Barack Obama, the upcoming assault against conservative talk radio may surpass them all.

It's not enough that liberals dominate the executive and legislative branches, liberals are poised to control the judiciary, and, at liberals' direction, government is absorbing ownership and control of large chunks of the private sector. They must also shut up the opposition.

We have genuine cause for alarm on multiple fronts -- and actual alarm indeed exists among increasing numbers of people, not all of whom are predisposed to excitability.

The government has declared war on innocent life in the womb in the name of "free choice." It is spending unconscionable amounts of money it doesn't have and can't possibly acquire without taxing the primary producers in this nation into abject servitude. It's set to impose "cap and trade" taxes in the name of protecting an environmental threat that exists mostly in the data-resistant prisons of their ideological minds, which will yield no environmental benefit but will cause irreparable economic harm.

It has passed constitutionally repugnant and morally odious legislation, carving out new crimes for violent acts motivated by "hate" against certain protected groups. Neither military veterans nor conservative males are among the protected groups, but pedophiles very well may be. The proscribed "hate" under the statute may not be "hate" at all, but mere political or theological disagreement with the view of the dominant media culture and the ruling class on, for example, the normalcy of homosexual behavior. Meanwhile this same ruling class and its enablers, who are so selectively indignant about certain majority opinions they mischaracterize as "hate," openly bask in the kind of behavior no one can rationally dispute as hateful at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner.

Continue reading "Fearing Our Government"

Posted by redguy at 10:02 PM | TrackBack (0)

May 04, 2009

Obama's Propaganda Campaign To Mainstream Extreme Liberalism

By: David Limbaugh

A fellow conservative I highly respect told me last week that he doesn't see how Republicans can ever regain the majority without reaching out to moderates, because, he said, only 30 percent of Americans are conservative. Let me try to clear up this growing misconception.

The issue is quite timely, considering that GOP-defecting Sen. Arlen Specter is rationalizing his self-serving move as necessitated by an increasingly intransigent conservatism in the Republican Party. He echoes the David Frum Republicans that the party is too conservative, backward-looking, stale and out of fresh ideas.

It's true that a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that only 21 percent of Americans now identify themselves as Republicans, compared with 35 percent as Democrats and 38 percent as independents. But there's a huge difference between party identification and ideological identification.

The bipartisan Battleground Poll, as recently as Aug. 20, 2008, revealed that 60 percent of Americans identify themselves as conservative and only 36 percent as liberal.

So it's the Republican Party that's in trouble, not conservatism. The GOP's shrinkage can't be because it's too conservative. George W. Bush, our most recent Republican president, was hardly an extreme conservative. His most outspoken critics today include wide swaths of conservatives who decried his failure to rein in federal spending and control illegal immigration, among other things.

Continue reading "Obama's Propaganda Campaign To Mainstream Extreme Liberalism"

Posted by redguy at 09:14 PM | TrackBack (0)

May 01, 2009

Gay Tail Wags Hetero Dog

By: David Limbaugh

Ordinarily, we would probably be wise just to move on from last week's flap over Miss USA contestant Carrie Prejean's truthful pageant answer on same-sex marriage, but subsequent news reports reveal we are drawing the wrong lessons from the brouhaha.

Prejean -- in response to the trick question from gay activist blogger Perez Hilton, one of the pageant's judges -- refused to endorse same-sex marriage, which probably resulted in her losing the crown she was favored to win.

Not satisfied with unilaterally disqualifying Prejean and possibly damaging her career, Hilton publicly excoriated her, saying she "gave the worst answer in pageant history" and calling her a dumb B-word and worse.

Prejean, in stark contrast, said that as a Christian, she loved Hilton and was praying for him, a graciousness met with further ungraciousness from Hilton.

Hilton told the "Today" show's Matt Lauer: "I personally would have appreciated it had she left her politics and her religion out, because Miss USA represents all Americans. ... The answer she gave alienated myself (and) millions of gays and lesbians. ... Miss USA is not a person that's politically incorrect. Miss USA ... represents ... all America and is inclusive and give(s) the right answers. ... I want someone who is going to (say) things that will make everyone feel welcome. ... For example ... she's a Christian, but I don't want her talking about Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, because that's offensive to all of the Jewish Americans, to all of the Muslim Americans, to all of the atheist Americans."

But it was Hilton, not Prejean, who injected politics. Hilton's clear message, denounced by no one from the gay activist community or secular left, is that Prejean should have lied or ducked the question because her honest answer offended some. Had she high-fived same-sex marriage, you can bet Hilton wouldn't be decrying her lack of inclusiveness toward the majority and not making them "feel welcome." So if Prejean had agreed with Hilton's minority position -- or pretended to -- she would have represented "all of America"; if she had agreed with the majority, she wouldn't have. Go figure.

Continue reading "Gay Tail Wags Hetero Dog"

Posted by redguy at 06:17 AM | TrackBack (0)

April 28, 2009

Beware Abhorrent Hate Crime Legislation

By: David Limbaugh

Homosexual activists aren't easily deterred. Unable to persuade even the people of California to change the definition of marriage to legitimize their lifestyle, they're resorting to a backdoor approach to accomplish the same thing: pushing federal hate crime legislation while few are paying attention.

Well, people better wake up, because the House Judiciary Committee has already approved Barney Frank's bill, H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The full House is expected to vote on the bill April 29, and various liberal groups, from gay activists to liberal religious organizations, are engaged in a full-court press to get this bill passed.

The bill would make it a federal crime to willfully cause bodily injury to someone (or to attempt to do so with firearms or explosives) because of his or her actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

If states want to pass their own hate crime legislation, they are free to exercise such poor judgment. But they don't need the long arm of the federal government cramming it down their throats.

Not only is there little constitutional justification for the federal government to legislate in this area but also the bill further impinges on state sovereignty by subjecting people to criminal liability for acts for which they've already been acquitted under state criminal systems.

Continue reading "Beware Abhorrent Hate Crime Legislation"

Posted by redguy at 06:05 AM | TrackBack (0)

April 24, 2009

Lifesaving Memos

By: David Limbaugh

I sincerely hope our justifiable anxiety over government spending and taxes will not obscure our vision in regard to other alarming threats to our liberties resulting from radical policy changes from the Obama administration, including those concerning our national security.

The administration's endless multi-continent America-bashing expeditions, its hostility to strategic missile defense, its look-the-other-way approach to the ongoing nuclear and ballistic missile advancements of rogue nations while flirting with dismantling our own, and its reported termination of assembly line production of F-22 fighters -- while China and Russia are engaged in the full-tilt manufacturing of fifth-generation fighter jets -- are representative of its new approach.

But in my view, the second-biggest outrage unfolded this week, with the administration's gratuitous decision to release internal CIA memos broadcasting our enhanced interrogation techniques against enemy combatant prisoners following the 9/11 attacks. The ultimate outrage is the administration's green light to Congress to prosecute Bush administration officials for these policies, which manifestly prevented terrorist attacks and saved American lives. If these efforts make it past the partisan fantasies of such congressional charlatans as Sen. Pat Leahy of Vermont, the slumbering public might finally awaken to the totalitarian thuggery of the leftists currently in charge of the government.

Here are just a few things to consider as we contemplate these outrages:

--The administration voluntarily surrendered and published these memos instead of objecting to their discovery by the American Civil Liberties Union, assuring us, quite unconvincingly, that President Obama wrestled deeply with the issue.

Continue reading "Lifesaving Memos"

Posted by redguy at 06:20 AM | TrackBack (0)

April 21, 2009

Peace Through Weakness

By: David Limbaugh

Observing the Obama administration's approach so far to the war on terror is somewhat reminiscent, if you'll accept the crude analogy, of watching Panamanian boxing legend Roberto Duran's rematch against American boxing legend Sugar Ray Leonard. Duran was within his rights to say "no mas" and quit, but it didn't keep him from losing.

But here the analogy breaks down. While Duran could avoid further Leonard blows by quitting, a nation under attack by a warring force cannot prevent further attacks against itself simply by declaring an end to hostilities. Yet that's precisely what the Obama administration appears to be doing in the war on terror, most recently with its outrageously reckless public release of classified Justice Department memos on the legality of CIA interrogation techniques used on enemy prisoners.

Democrats ceaselessly complained about the Bush administration's allegedly misguided approach to the war, contending it was too broad (Bush should have focused almost exclusively on al-Qaida in Afghanistan), that he engaged in cowboy diplomacy, and his treatment of enemy prisoners was inhumane.

Deny it if you choose, but the gravamen of these complaints was that the United States, in many ways, was the bad guy, the aggressor nation that attacked Iraq without provocation or justification, was inflicting gratuitous "collateral damage" on Iraq and its people, and routinely -- and as a matter of policy -- was brutalizing and torturing enemy prisoners in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and everywhere else our heartless authorities could get their hands on them.

Continue reading "Peace Through Weakness"

Posted by redguy at 05:50 AM | TrackBack (0)

April 17, 2009

Homeland Security Slanders

By: David Limbaugh

There has been a lot of outrage over the Department of Homeland Security's leaked summary report on "Rightwing Extremism," but by far its most odious aspects are its implications that military veterans are fertile targets for radical, violent groups and that right-wingers are inclined toward racism.

Information from this April 7 report was provided to law enforcement officials to help them prevent terrorist attacks against the United States.

The "Key Findings" are way light on objective facts but heavy on subjective opinion -- opinion clearly colored by the worldviews and biases of those issuing the report. Right off the bat, DHS admits it "has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment."

There's more. "The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

At the risk of incurring the scrutiny of the DHS, I must say that these gratuitous sentences are outrageous. In the first place, I don't know anyone playing on "fears about several emergent issues" more than the current administration, of which the DHS is a part. Even when President Barack Obama is delivering a speech on the economy purportedly geared toward reassuring Americans that things will be all right, he has to stoke their fears and anxieties about other financial shoes he expects to drop in the near future. He and his aides are the ones who have signaled they have something to gain from keeping the public in crisis mode, that "something" being the opportunity to make foundational changes to our economy and the relationship between government and the private sector.

Continue reading "Homeland Security Slanders"

Posted by redguy at 06:27 AM | TrackBack (0)

April 14, 2009

Radicalizing Even the Faith-Based Program

By: David Limbaugh

President Barack Obama's recent appointment of Harry Knox to his Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships adds another redundant nail to the coffin of the irresponsible myth that he is a bipartisan unifier.

In light of the daily outpouring of evidence, one wonders whether our "moderate" Republican Obama apologists will ever admit their error in willingly suspending their disbelief in Obama's radical leftism all because of what Michael Gerson refers to as "his moderate instincts and conciliatory temperament."

Perhaps Obama's appointment of Harold Koh as legal adviser to the State Department despite Koh's unapologetic belief that American courts should sometimes refer to foreign law in interpreting our Constitution doesn't bother you. Or even his selection of Indiana law professor Dawn Johnsen to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel despite her taking such positions (in a Supreme Court brief, no less) that pregnancy can be comparable to involuntary servitude.

How many in-your-face radical leftist appointments must Obama make before some realize this apparently conciliatory man is indeed a polarizing radical?

Let's just look at the Knox appointment. Former President George W. Bush originally established the faith-based program, wisely or not, to help faith-based groups participate in the public square.

Many were delighted when Obama decided to continue with the program. But with the Knox appointment and other similar ones, we have to question whether Obama is shifting the focus of the group while retaining its innocuous-sounding name. Obama has been stacking the 25-member board with like-minded leftists inclined to allocate its funds to liberal, secular causes.

Continue reading "Radicalizing Even the Faith-Based Program"

Posted by redguy at 06:28 AM | TrackBack (0)

April 10, 2009

A Christian Nation?

By: David Limbaugh

President Barack Obama said in Turkey: "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

Well, I don't know what "we" consider "ourselves," but I do think we ought to examine that statement and why Obama felt compelled to make it a part of his world apology tour.

Can you imagine the Saudi king coming to America and bragging that his nation is not Muslim? I assure you that he's not ashamed of the Islamic character of his nation, even though his nation is demonstrably less tolerant of other religions.

So is (or was) America a Christian nation? If by that we mean that America is a Christian theocracy, that our government should give Christians preferential treatment, or that members of other faiths aren't welcome, the answer is an emphatic "no."

But if we are talking about the ideals that led to the very colonization of this land, our declaration of independence from Britain, and the formulation of our Constitution, then the answer is certainly "yes."

In the words of professor John Eidsmoe, "If by the term Christian nation one means a nation that was founded on biblical values that were brought to the nation by mostly professing Christians, then in that sense the United States may truly be called a Christian nation."

Why does this matter? Simply because our dominant secular culture delights in demonizing Christianity, distorting its character, conflating it with less tolerant faiths, and associating it with all our societal woes. History revisionists have convinced many that we mainly owe our liberties to secular humanist ideals and those borrowed from the Greeks, Romans and the French Enlightenment.

Continue reading "A Christian Nation?"

Posted by redguy at 06:17 AM | TrackBack (0)

April 07, 2009

Somewhere Under the Rainbow

By: David Limbaugh

Alfred Hitchcock dedicated his 1940 film "Foreign Correspondent" to "those intrepid ones who went across the sea to be the eyes and ears of America ... who early saw the clouds of war while many of us at home were seeing rainbows."

Kind of brings into focus the old saw that history repeats itself. Only this time, it's our commander in chief who is seeing rainbows -- everywhere except, apparently, in America.

It's bad enough when the George Soros brigades continually disparage America, but it's almost unbearable for the president to do it -- and even worse when he's on foreign soil.

At a town hall meeting with French and German citizens in Strasbourg, France, President Barack Obama proved he hadn't just been posturing on the campaign trail when he castigated then-President George W. Bush for his "unilateralist" foreign policies. It's now clear that Obama wanted not only the American electorate to understand his disdain for his predecessor and the country he led but also the rest of the world to know it.

He told his European audience: "It's always harder to forge true partnerships and sturdy alliances than to act alone. ... In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of ... seeking to partner with you ... there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive."

Continue reading "Somewhere Under the Rainbow"

Posted by redguy at 06:29 AM | TrackBack (0)

April 03, 2009

Holder's Injustice

By: David Limbaugh

Remember the cacophonous wailing of the left over the Bush administration's alleged politicization of the Justice Department? We always knew they were just projecting, but now we have even more proof.

I first learned from my friend Andy McCarthy's blog post on National Review Online that Attorney General Eric Holder had rejected the legal opinion of his own Justice Department lawyers that the D.C. voting rights bill, which would give the District of Columbia a voting member in the House of Representatives, is unconstitutional.

Why would Holder reject the legal opinion of his own deputies? Dumb question. Because he doesn't like the answer and neither does his boss, President Obama. They both strongly support passage of the bill and do not believe a little trifle, such as an express constitutional provision forbidding it, should be permitted to get in their way. How many times do leftists have to demonstrate that they are an ends-justify-the-means bunch before it sinks in?

The Washington Post confirms that the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, "an elite unit that gives legal and constitutional advice to the executive branch," did issue an unpublished opinion earlier this year that the voting rights bill is unconstitutional. Holder couldn't let that stand, so he went back to the well, hoping for a different opinion.

Lo and behold, the solicitor general's office dutifully served up that opinion and said it could defend the legislation in court should the bill be challenged on constitutional grounds. Hmm.

Now, those of you who don't like it when lawyers muddle up the plain meaning of language should follow me into the next paragraph, where I'll recite to you the pertinent constitutional provision. Please excuse me while I reach up to the shelf to retrieve my pocket Constitution.

Continue reading "Holder's Injustice"

Posted by redguy at 05:40 AM | TrackBack (0)

March 31, 2009

Another Day, Another Scary Nomination

By: David Limbaugh

As usual, President Barack Obama is multi-tasking the dismantling of the American system on so many fronts that not all of the outrages can be properly monitored. So while you should be mortified by his dictatorial power grab with General Motors, please don't miss his recent nomination of former Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh as legal adviser for the State Department.

In his new position, Koh not only would represent the United States before international bodies, such as the U.N. and the International Court of Justice, but also would influence the degree to which laws of other countries should influence American jurisprudence.

After reading an alarming piece by Meghan Clyne in the New York Post concerning the Koh nomination and the degree to which Koh believes it's appropriate for courts to consider other nations' laws in interpreting our Constitution, I read a number of Koh's legal writings and speeches.

Clyne reported that New York lawyer Steven Stein said that Koh, in addressing the Yale Club of Greenwich in 2007, claimed that "in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States."

It turns out that on March 21, 2007, Carol Iannone, on Phi Beta Cons blog, published a letter from Stein to Dean Koh about his Yale Club remarks. Stein wrote, in part, "In your discussion of 'global law' I recall at least one favorable reference to 'Sharia', among other foreign laws that could, in an appropriate instance (according to you) govern a controversy in a federal or state court in the US."

Whether or not Koh ever responded to Stein's letter, Stein's representations of Koh's remarks are certainly consistent with Koh's writings that I reviewed.

In Fordham Law Review, Koh asserted that the U.S. "Supreme Court is divided between two judicial camps: the transnationalists and the nationalists." Koh considers himself a transnationalist and justices Roberts, Scalia and Alito nationalists.

Koh explained the differences between these two judicial philosophies. According to Koh, transnationalist judges look to U.S. interdependence, whereas nationalists tend to look to U.S. autonomy. Transnationalists think about how U.S. law fits into a framework of transnational law, while nationalists see a rigid foreign and domestic divide. Transnationalists think that courts can "domesticate" international law (make it part of our law), whereas nationalists think that only the political branches can. Transnationalists favor the development of a global legal system, while nationalists prefer a national legal system.

Continue reading "Another Day, Another Scary Nomination"

Posted by redguy at 05:08 AM | TrackBack (0)

March 24, 2009

Beltway Arrogance and Blind Faith

By: David Limbaugh

Rep. Charles Rangel's recent comments about President Barack Obama's budget exemplify the liberal ruling class's Beltway arrogance and blind faith in an ideology that compels it to press on the accelerator as we head for the cliff toward the nation's financial ruin.

How else do you explain the administration's and Congress' seeming indifference to the inevitably bankrupting consequences of their profligacy; their disguising a $1 trillion political patronage bill as an economic stimulus package when only 23 percent of it is arguably stimulative in the short term; and their audacity in forcing (and rewarding) banks to make uncreditworthy loans, pressuring Freddie and Fannie to "securitize" them, encouraging AIG and others to traffic in "derivatives," and then punishing all of them instead of taking the blame themselves? They are the ones who created this havoc and then refused to take corrective regulatory action when warned of the impending financial disaster.

Chris Wallace, the host of "Fox News Sunday," asked Rangel whether he was troubled by Congressional Budget Office estimates that Obama's deficits will be $2.3 trillion higher than the already-astronomical White House projections.

"I am more impressed," said Rangel, "with the fact that Obama is looking for a better-educated and a healthy -- a stronger work force, going into a new green economy, that this has to show that America can get off the ground with the deficit and move to where we were under the Clinton administration -- drawing a strong surplus. The only way for us to get out of this is to change our way of living in this country, and that's the direction in which the Obama budget is going, and I strongly support it."

When Rangel says we need to "change our way of living in this country," he does not mean that the solution to our unsustainable budgets is to tighten our federal belt and curtail government intervention in the market.

Continue reading "Beltway Arrogance and Blind Faith"

Posted by redguy at 05:47 AM | TrackBack (0)

March 20, 2009

Mark Levin's 'Liberty and Tyranny'

By: David Limbaugh

Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto" couldn't be more relevant or important. It is a masterful restatement of conservative principles that is succinct (205 pages) and yet comprehensive. It is thoughtful and deep but highly readable. It is timely yet timeless.

Conservatism is under attack from puffed-up liberals, feeling their oats with the ascendancy of President Barack Obama and the huge Democratic congressional majorities, and from a disgruntled group of conservatives who believe that conservatism, to remain politically effective, needs a face-lift.

Liberal columnists are writing with unrestrained glee about conservatism's internecine wars, and conservatives are engaged in intramural debates about which principles and policies conservatives should be promoting. Levin's book will go a long way toward muting the liberals' premature gloating and refuting the arguments of those who, perhaps with good intentions, would hijack conservatism from within and transform it into liberalism lite, all in the name of political pragmatism. "An 'effective' government that operates outside its constitutional limitations is a dangerous government," Levin writes. "By abandoning principle for efficiency, the neo-Statist, it seems, is no more bound to the Constitution than the Statist. He marches more slowly … but he marches with him nonetheless."

There has not been a widely read conservative manifesto as such since Barry Goldwater's "The Conscience of a Conservative" in 1960. Given the unbridled assault on conservatism today, not to mention the personal attacks on its leading proponents, we must celebrate the release of "Liberty and Tyranny" as the modern road map back to our conservative roots.

Having eaten, breathed, slept and studied conservatism, politics, law and history his entire life, Levin, who is my friend and client, is uniquely qualified and situated to have written this book. In undertaking this formidable task, he stands on the shoulders of the giants who have preceded him but has made those giants very proud with this work.

Continue reading "Mark Levin's 'Liberty and Tyranny'"

Posted by redguy at 05:44 AM | TrackBack (0)

March 17, 2009

Calling on Democratic Capitalists

By: David Limbaugh

I don't use the term "Marxist," in connection with President Barack Obama's policies, lightly or even to inflame, but to express my genuine fear that if we don't put the brakes on his agenda to remake America in his image, we'll end up both enslaving and bankrupting America by the end of his tenure.

Perhaps conservatives used the term "Marxist," "socialist" or even "Commie" too loosely on some occasions to describe the liberals' political sympathies, but that debatable question now seems moot, given our new president's overt contempt for capitalism.

This guy makes Bill Clinton look like John Birch, and yet to this day, few Democrats have dissociated from him. So where are the Democrats who have always professed their conservatism? How can they sit by idly as we witness this administration's ongoing assault on capitalism?

Where are those liberals who have always insisted that on economic issues, they differ with conservatives only in degree, not in kind -- that they are actually committed capitalists who just believe in somewhat greater government control, a somewhat larger safety net and marginally higher taxation? Where are those Democrats who, for the past 20 years, have been condemning soaring deficits and an exploding national debt? Is there anything Obama could say or do that would cause them to break ranks in defense of the capitalistic system to which they claim allegiance? With a few exceptions, it does not appear so.

When President Clinton initiated his class warfare rhetoric against Reaganomics and "trickledown economics," when he described a slightly slowed-down economy as "the worst economy in 50 years," he was mostly trying to get elected, and it worked. Remember "it's the economy, stupid"? True, he did raise taxes when elected, and he and his wife tried to nationalize health care. But in the end, he was more about himself than permanently transforming the country.

While President Obama may also be narcissistic, as some have noted -- consider his utter lack of discomfort at being deified -- he is truly devoted to changing this nation structurally and has inherited an ideal "crisis" climate in which to actualize his ambitions.

Continue reading "Calling on Democratic Capitalists"

Posted by redguy at 05:28 AM | TrackBack (0)

March 13, 2009

Obama's Relentless War on the American Dream

By: David Limbaugh

It's probably poor form to piggyback onto another columnist's work, but Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger's disturbing discoveries about President Barack Obama's budget summary justify an exception. Those not blinded by the Obama cult fog have produced abundant evidence of Obama's grudge against capitalism, but Henninger's revelations are hard to top.

Despite Obama's later denials, he was most serious when he cavalierly told Joe the Plumber he wanted to "spread the wealth around." We've seen it born out in his policies so far and in the promises of those to come.

He will restore the Clinton tax hikes on higher-income earners, but there is so much more. He'll reduce the effective charitable gift deduction, thus reducing charitable giving. This is no surprise, though, because he believes "charity" is the province of government -- not the private sector.

He'll impose a cap and trade tax on corporations under the pretense of making them "greener," raise the tax rates on capital gains and dividends, reverse welfare reform, and nationalize health care.

He'll eliminate the ceiling on payroll tax contributions, which is presently about $110,000. This will be a major hit to those earning more than $110,000, not that Obama cultists will have any sympathy for those greedy beneficiaries of life's lottery, to borrow from the Al Gore vernacular.

Some might argue that this is only fair because the entire income of lower-income earners is subject to that tax. But to make that argument surrenders any illusion that this tax funds Social Security. If you eliminate the ceiling, higher-income earners will pay exorbitant amounts into a mythical fund (it's never been segregated from general revenue) with no expectation of getting appreciably more back on retirement. Fairness? Only if you believe the wealthy should be punished.

Funny you should mention that, because it's precisely what our president appears to believe, which brings me back to Henninger, who took the trouble to read the president's budget summary for lay readers, "A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America's Promise."

Continue reading "Obama's Relentless War on the American Dream"

Posted by redguy at 05:24 AM | TrackBack (0)

March 10, 2009

The Orwellian Presidential Bully Pulpit

By: David Limbaugh

Does the following statement from Melody C. Barnes, director of President Barack Obama's Domestic Policy Council, strike you as a) patronizing or b) Orwellian? "The president believes that it's particularly important to sign this (presidential memorandum authorizing federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research) so that we can put science and technology back at the heart of pursuing a broad range of national goals."

Your answer should be both a and b, especially when considered in conjunction with another presidential memorandum "aimed at insulating scientific decisions across the federal government from political influence."

The president brazenly sermonizes against scientifically challenged conservatives while triggering federal funding of research that is scientifically controversial and preparing to impose cap and trade penalties on corporate America in deference to global warming junk science.

While you won't hear much about this in the mainstream media, there is a meeting currently taking place in New York City that serves as an ironic backdrop for Obama's embryonic stem cell order.

OneNewsNow.com reports that more than 70 scientists -- representing the views of tens of thousands more scientists -- are meeting at The Heartland Institute's second annual International Conference on Climate Change to make the case that politically motivated alarmism, not science, is driving climate change activism, which potentially threatens the sovereignty of the United States.

At the conference, European Union and Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus likened those pushing global warming hysteria to the communists of Old Europe, who refused to listen to opposing views. Their goal, Klaus warned, is to control the public.

Continue reading "The Orwellian Presidential Bully Pulpit"

Posted by redguy at 05:26 AM | TrackBack (0)

March 06, 2009

There'll Be No Debate

By: David Limbaugh

While the erudite, urbane left demonstrates its sophistication and collegiality by personally attacking Rush Limbaugh, the nation is going down in financial flames, largely because of the unchecked policy insanity being unleashed by our new president. Yet his flacks in the media continue to shield him from even rudimentary questions that any other president would receive.

That's why you don't have to wait in suspense to see whether the president will accept Rush's offer to debate the issues. It would not be in Obama's personal interests to shift the public's attention from childish insults about Rush to substantive policy.

Do you honestly think President Obama wants public scrutiny of his policies? Do you think he'd feel comfortable being challenged on his inconsistencies, misrepresentations and astonishingly early breaches of his campaign promises?

You've surely seen his reactions on those rare occasions he's been challenged. Take his response to the Republicans' appeal that he fulfill his promise of bipartisanship on the stimulus package: "I won."

I suppose that if the president were in a debate, he could continue to dodge and obfuscate, but at least someone would be putting questions to him instead of giving him free rein to wreak havoc on our capitalistic system with the undisciplined destruction of a juvenile delinquent playing with his new chemistry set.

I'm just wildly speculating, of course, but I suspect that Mr. Obama would not be too keen on having to answer the following questions, among many others:

How could you sign a bill to spend more than a trillion dollars this nation does not have, purportedly to stimulate the economy, and then immediately convene a fiscal responsibility summit?

Why did you promise to end earmarks and then preside over a bill in your first month in office that includes some 8,500 earmarks?

Continue reading "There'll Be No Debate"

Posted by redguy at 06:19 AM | TrackBack (0)

March 02, 2009

This Is Way Bigger Than Rush

By: David Limbaugh

The Democrats, along with those on the right who seem more worried about incurring the disdain of the wrongheaded left than of their fellow patriots, are feverishly promoting their Saul Alinsky-inspired scheme to demonize and divide their most effective political opponents.

What would be amusing, were matters not so gravely serious today, is the utter juvenile transparency in the liberals' efforts to vilify Rush Limbaugh.

They've been doing it for 20 years, but this time, they're better-organized and have a broader purpose. So those who haven't had the courage to stand by him should understand that Rush is not the ultimate target here. We all are -- those, that is, who oppose their Marxist agenda and Stalinist tactics.

Have you noticed their coordinated effort to label Rush the leader of the Republican Party? Do you think it's accidental that James Carville so describes him? Do you think it's just coincidental that Obama called Rush out personally and that the entire flock of mainstream media sheep followed suit? Is it just serendipitous that liberal Chris Matthews baits his guests nightly to castigate Rush? Is it fortuitous that Obama's, er, ABC's George Stephanopoulos demands his guests, such as Republican Rep. Eric Cantor, to either defend or denounce Rush?

But again, they're not just after Rush. They want to destroy the Republican brand -- as if they need any help doing that.

Continue reading "This Is Way Bigger Than Rush"

Posted by redguy at 08:36 PM | TrackBack (0)

February 24, 2009

The Usurpers

By: David Limbaugh

America's Founders believed that federal power was a necessary evil that would swallow the liberties their ancestors left Europe to obtain unless it was severely limited. But today we seem to have forgotten that freedom cannot survive the unrestrained governmental encroachments that are raining down daily from our nation's capital.

You need not have written a doctoral thesis on the political theories espoused in the Federalist Papers to understand that socialism impoverishes nations despite the professed good intentions of its benefactors. You needn't have a master's in history to realize that America is the freest and most prosperous nation in the history of the world because its prescient Framers devised a constitution that would maximize liberty by imposing restraints on government. And you don't need to be a rocket scientist to grasp that unless we put the brakes on our out-of-control federal government soon, we will go the way of all other great nations before us.

While there has long existed a tension between liberty's usurpers and watchdogs, rarely have the usurpers been in such ascendance. They are in firm control of the executive and legislative branches and are using the full force of the federal government to stack the deck in their favor in perpetuity. Just look at the taxpayer-funded payoffs of defaulting mortgagors, unions, governors, big-city mayors, liberal "public interest" groups, and ever-expanding dependency constituencies, including illegal immigrants.

But why can't they be honest about what they're doing? Have they even tried to dispute the charge that an untold amount of this so-called stimulus money will not be spent in the near future and that much of it, even when spent, will not stimulate? No, because they cannot explain away their subterfuge in such shenanigans as allocating billions of taxpayer dollars to community organizing groups, such as ACORN, whose real function is to secure elections for like-minded "progressives."

Continue reading "The Usurpers"

Posted by redguy at 06:39 AM | TrackBack (0)

February 18, 2009

Uncanny, Disturbing Historical Parallels

By: David Limbaugh

Recently, I reread the chapters on the New Deal in Larry Schweikart's superb "A Patriot's History of the United States" to review parallels with Barack Obama's radical economic agenda. Here is an eye-opening, side-by-side sampling, with Schweikart's observations on FDR and the New Deal, along with mine on President Obama and his policies.

Schweikart wrote, "During the campaign, FDR, a man whose presidency would feature by far the largest expansion of the federal government ever, called for a balanced budget and accused Hoover of heading the 'greatest spending Administration in ... all our history.'"

Obama's stimulus bill sets frightening new records for federal spending. But while campaigning, he said, "I'm running for president because I believe we can choose our own economic destiny ... to go another four years with the same reckless fiscal policies that have busted our budget, wreaked havoc in our economy, and mortgaged our children's future on a mountain of debt; or we can restore fiscal responsibility in Washington."

Schweikart wrote, "Roosevelt heaped dishonor on the defeated Hoover, denying him even a Secret Service guard out of town."

At Obama's inauguration, his supporters booed, heckled and chanted tauntingly at President George W. Bush. Obama went to dinner during President Bush's farewell speech and repudiated the Bush era in his inaugural address and on his new White House Web site.

Continue reading "Uncanny, Disturbing Historical Parallels"

Posted by redguy at 06:42 AM | TrackBack (0)

February 12, 2009

The Worst of All Worlds

By: David Limbaugh

At the risk of beating a very live horse, the worst of all the horrible things about President Barack Obama's "stimulus" bill is that even if it worked to stimulate the economy beyond the president's wildest expectations, it would cause a further explosion of the national debt, which would become a worse "catastrophe" than the one this bill promises to alleviate.

Yet the president is so eager to start spending the people's money he can barely be trifled to acknowledge the growing debt as a concern. When backed into a corner, all he can do is attack the credibility of his critics on the issue, as if pointing fingers at the other kid in the schoolyard either exculpates him or addresses the problem.

Twice during his tightly controlled prime-time marketing infomercial, billed as his first presidential news conference, he aimed partisan fire at Republicans for daring to raise the issue.

He said: "When it comes to how we approach the issue of fiscal responsibility ... it's a little hard for me to take criticism from folks about this recovery package after they've presided over a doubling of the national debt. I'm not sure they have a lot of credibility when it comes to fiscal responsibility."

He used the same specious argument to deflect another objection to the bill: that it's long on pork and short on stimulus. He said, "First of all, when I hear that from folks who presided over a doubling of the national debt ... I just want them to not engage in some revisionist history. I inherited the deficit ... and the economic crisis that we have right now."

Continue reading "The Worst of All Worlds"

Posted by redguy at 08:30 PM | TrackBack (0)

February 09, 2009

No Consensus on 'Stimulus' Bill

By: David Limbaugh

President Barack Obama has done more in the first three weeks of his presidency to validate the suspicions of his critics than I thought possible. But of all his objectionable actions, nothing compares to his falsely labeled "stimulus" bill, which he is trying to force upon us with fear and deception.

Just consider his smug assertion that "there is no disagreement that we need action by our government to jump-start the economy."

Maybe Mr. Obama has been cooped up in the White House too long and hasn't seen the dissent, such as that expressed in a strong protest letter signed by umpteen respected economists: "With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true. Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance." The letter cites the failed record of "stimulus" spending in the Depression era and in Japan in the 1990s and recommends lower tax rates and reduced government as the best remedies.

But even if you accept Obama's disputed premise that spending is the panacea, his bill fails his own criteria. It's just smoke and mirrors aimed at blurring his larger goal of radically restructuring the economy. But he pleads urgency anyway, as if he were trying to set speed records for breaking faith with the electorate.

The blogger Calafia Beach Pundit trenchantly observed: "Very little of the bill involves immediate stimulus or anything that might be actually stimulative; only a little over 10 percent of the money gets spent this fiscal year, and about 30 percent gets spent next fiscal year. ... About 30 percent of the money goes to transfer payments. ... Only $20 billion would be spent over the next 18 months on highway construction; and about 20 percent of the bill doesn't get spent until 2012-19."

Continue reading "No Consensus on 'Stimulus' Bill"

Posted by redguy at 08:30 PM | TrackBack (0)

February 05, 2009

Liberalism on Full Display

By: David Limbaugh

Perhaps the silver lining to the new Obama administration's frenetic flurry of executive orders, proposed legislation, "diplomatic" rhetoric and autocratic commands is that people are getting a bird's-eye view into the misguided perspectives of liberals.

By deifying Obama, his cult followers in the media and grass roots stoked his already exaggerated sense of self-confidence and encouraged him to unmask his true liberalism and unleash, full-bore, his paternalistic mischief. Let's hope that with all the hype, people are focusing and will wake up to the dangers of a hyper-energetic, intermeddling federal government and the unbridled arrogance of those who believe they are better-suited to run our lives than we are.

In just these first few weeks, we have seen alarming shifts in our approach to national defense, the war on terror, international relations, ethics in government, social issues and domestic policy.

First, there was his in-your-face executive fiat reinstituting America's support for foreign agencies performing abortion and then his proactive endorsement of the militant homosexual agenda. Then his edict on automobile emissions standards. Next, his stunningly hypocritical support for nominees manifestly guilty of wrongdoing and his self-serving exemptions for appointees from rules he has promulgated.

These were followed by the outrageously inappropriate programs Obama and his congressional colleagues tried to sneak through under cover of the sheer volume and complexity of their budget-busting pseudo-stimulus package. Then there was Obama's autocratic dictate to corporate-CEO recipients of "bailout" money to reduce their salaries to what he deems appropriate.

Continue reading "Liberalism on Full Display"

Posted by redguy at 08:34 PM | TrackBack (0)

February 03, 2009

Senate Must Reject Faux Stimulus

By: David Limbaugh

Americans should contact their congressmen before it's too late about their instinctive concerns over efforts to convert the world's greatest engine of free market prosperity into a socialistic leviathan under the euphemistic cover of possibly successive rescue "stimulus" bills.

The stated rationale for the original Troubled Asset Relief Program "bailout" wasn't to stimulate the economy to get it moving again, but to toss it a liquidity life raft to loosen credit markets and keep it from drowning. That is, the idea was to prevent a catastrophe, not to empower little Napoleons in government to play God with the economy.

Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's scare tactics -- heartfelt or not -- panicked the country into action, and TARP became a reality. Yet not much seemed to change. Politicians will always be able to say that if we hadn't implemented TARP, America's economy would have tanked beyond our wildest nightmares. And being without the supernatural power to prove a negative, we'll never be able to disprove their claims.

Of all the concerns we had concerning TARP, our greatest should have been that once we opened the door to this magnitude of governmental intervention -- especially under a Republican administration -- we'd have even greater difficulty in resisting efforts by politicians to reopen it in the future anytime they pronounced there was a crisis.

Sure enough, Mr. Obama and his confidants view this "crisis" with eager anticipation as an opportunity to actualize their dreams for government to assume its rightful place as Master of the Universe and choreograph the economy on a super-macro level.

Continue reading "Senate Must Reject Faux Stimulus"

Posted by redguy at 06:46 AM | TrackBack (0)

January 29, 2009

Targeting Rush: Saul Alinsky Would Be Proud

By: David Limbaugh

In his eight full years as the recipient of endless vile, often-delusional slander, President George W. Bush rarely grumbled, much less counterattacked his tormentors. Yet before he completed his first week in office, President Barack Obama -- a dedicated disciple of Saul Alinsky, who is to left-wing radicalism and social agitation what Karl Marx is to communism -- declared war on Rush Limbaugh.

This was a calculated move by a man who professes to be open to all ideas but apparently brooks no dissent. He not only does not tolerate dissent well but also really doesn't even like to be questioned, as we saw during the campaign, when he accused the normally fawning press of grilling him for merely asking a follow-up question. We caught another glimpse of this last week, when he showed irritation at the White House press corps for daring to ask him a policy question after he had decreed that the sole purpose of his visit was to press the flesh.

But Obama's effort to target Rush is not just his ego at work. He has begun a full-court press to advance his extreme left-wing agenda and was angling both to garner enough Republican support to insulate himself against future accountability for failure and to validate his self-styled image as a bipartisan uniter.

That's why he invited a group of Beltway conservatives for dinner, in a move reminiscent of Hillary Clinton's "listening tour" -- as if discerning observers believe that listening, as opposed to projecting an image of openness, was either Clinton's or Obama's purpose. That's why he surrounded himself with big-business CEOs as he unveiled his misnamed "stimulus" package. That's why he often throws meaningless, abstract bones to conservatives in his speeches while having no intention of diluting his specific concrete liberal policies.

Obama is savvy enough to realize he can't eliminate all dissent. But he's enough of an Alinskyite to know that marginalizing and demonizing his strongest opponents could intimidate the fainthearted into supporting or withholding criticism of his policies and increase his chances for success.

Continue reading "Targeting Rush: Saul Alinsky Would Be Proud"

Posted by redguy at 08:20 PM | TrackBack (0)

January 27, 2009

Gitmo Questions for Press Secretary Robert Gibbs

By: David Limbaugh

During his first week in office, President Barack Obama signed an executive order requiring that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility be closed within a year. Later communications from his office disclose that he hasn't yet fully explored the potentially negative consequences of closing the facility. The problem, he said, is more complicated than it first appeared. This raises a number of questions, Mr. Gibbs:

--How can President Obama credibly maintain that the issue is more complicated than he thought, when people have been raising these problems for years? Is he just now discovering that there are serious consequences involved, or did he already know and finesse the issue during the campaign for political purposes? If he didn't know (and even more so if he did know), doesn't he owe former President George W. Bush an apology for his unfair criticisms? Doesn't he owe the American people an explanation as to how he could possibly have been unaware of such rudimentary aspects of this fundamentally important national security issue?

--Given that he now concedes there are unexplored complications, wasn't it precipitous and imprudent of him to issue the closure order? What if further research indicates there are no reasonable alternatives other than to bring these prisoners to the U.S. mainland and grant them the full panoply of constitutional rights? Or does he actually favor full-blown constitutional rights for terrorists? If so, will he not be leading America back to its pre-Sept. 11, 2001, mindset, which treated terrorism as a law enforcement matter rather than a military one?

Continue reading "Gitmo Questions for Press Secretary Robert Gibbs"

Posted by redguy at 06:20 AM | TrackBack (0)

January 23, 2009

They're Poor Winners Too

By: David Limbaugh

Leftists are always lecturing Republicans and conservatives on the importance of civility and bipartisanship yet revealing, whether winner or losing, that they are the ones who need lessons in manners and collegiality.

If you aren't convinced of the left's nonpareil arrogance and nastiness from observing their behavior toward President Bush and Vice President Cheney for the past eight years, then contrast the behavior of Mr. Bush's staff leaving office and that of Mr. Clinton's, who literally trashed the White House like juvenile delinquents.

Fast-forwarding to this week, did you see Obama supporters booing President Bush at the inauguration, singing, "Na, na, na, na, hey, hey, hey, goodbye"? Pure class.

The Washington Times reported that these same Obama supporters mocked Mr. Cheney "with derisive laughter when he appeared on huge TV screens by the Capitol grounds, rolling down a ramp in a wheelchair after suffering a back injury moving out of his Naval Observatory home. 'Good riddance!' one man yelled."

Nor was it just rude mobs at the parade. "Hardball" host Chris Matthews wasn't content to bask in his euphoria over Obama's assumption of office. Like many of his colleagues, he needed to kick Bush as he was going out the door. "There'll be no more bullying of the world, no more acting like one of the bad guys on occasion. We're going to try again to be the good guy of the world and to get along with our fellow democracies. It is a dramatic change that's to come." Dramatic, indeed, Chris.

Continue reading "They're Poor Winners Too"

Posted by redguy at 06:20 AM | TrackBack (0)

January 19, 2009

Republicans Must Turn Down the Kool-Aid

By: David Limbaugh

It's going to take real courage the next four years for Republicans to swim against the tide and oppose Barack Obama -- in whom so many have placed their hopes, almost to the point of idolatry. But if Obama governs in a way that's consistent with his promises, the country's future security and prosperity will depend on spirited opposition.

It's bad enough for the liberal media to deify Obama, but it's almost unbearable for right-wing commentators and politicians to jump on this bandwagon, as well, as if Obama's personal attributes have blinded them to the policy dangers he represents.

During the Bush years, the left blamed Bush for the absence of bipartisanship, when, by any rational measure, they were the ones whose relentless vitriol made bipartisanship impossible.

Forgive the analogy, but their reversal of blame is reminiscent of a memorable scene in the movie "Animal House," when fraternity hotshot "Otter" pressured the hapless legacy pledge, "Flounder," into lending him his brother's car. When Otter returned the car after having demolished it, Otter chastised Flounder for entrusting the car to him. "You (screwed) up. You trusted me."

Now, after eight years of this poison, the same specious theme from the Bush bashers has found a new application: "Republicans must work with Barack Obama and restore a spirit of collegiality to Washington," as if they have any moral authority to be lecturing, but even more importantly, as if a spirit of collegiality will solve America's problems.

To be clear, I am not advocating that Republicans return the same mean-spirited partisanship with which the left pummeled Bush. But conservatives must not abandon their principles in pursuit of the seductive, illusory goal of bipartisanship.

You'd think this principle too sophomoric to articulate, and so do I -- almost. But have you been listening to Republican politicians and "conservative" commentators lately behaving as if their eternal salvation depends on jumping aboard a train headed in the opposite direction from everything in which they profess to believe?

Continue reading "Republicans Must Turn Down the Kool-Aid"

Posted by redguy at 07:44 PM | TrackBack (0)

January 12, 2009

Obama's Conflicting Goals

By: David Limbaugh

President-elect Barack Obama's enormous stimulus package would be scary enough without learning the details. To inject the same staggering amount of government-created or borrowed money into the economy as has already been spent or set aside for the government bailout when there's no proof it will jump-start our economy and no thought given to how we're going to recoup this money is madness. But when you hear some of the uses he has for this money, it is way beyond madness.

Let's put aside for a moment our valid objections to the Keynesian idea that the government can create prosperity simply by printing and distributing money as if it were "Monopoly" money. If that were true, the only limit to our sustained prosperity would be the amounts of paper and ink we could produce.

Let's also put aside the enormity of the liberal hypocrisy of railing against deficit spending for the past eight years, as Obama stands blissfully poised to dwarf those records.

Instead, let's just examine Obama's inflexible commitment to two conflicting goals, as evidenced in his interview on "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos: 1) spending the "Monopoly" money in a way most likely to stimulate the economy (assuming here the validity of Keynesian theory) and 2) spending the money in a way most likely to satisfy liberal social planners.

Obama said: "Here are a few things we're going to do. We are going to double alternative energy production. We are going to weatherize 2 million homes. We are going to create a much more efficient energy system."

Continue reading "Obama's Conflicting Goals"

Posted by redguy at 09:49 PM | TrackBack (0)

January 09, 2009

To Your Battle Stations, Conservatives

By: David Limbaugh

The best long-term solutions for our ailing economy are to restore market forces in every possible sector, reduce the crippling tax burden, and restore responsible fiscal practices to the federal government. Sadly, the incoming Obama administration plans on moving in the opposite direction in all these areas and believes it has a mandate to do so. Are conservatives asleep or just worn down?

Too many Americans have succumbed to the propaganda that the market is inherently evil and fraught with excesses fueled by "capitalistic greed" and that such systemic corruption has led to our economic woes. Only large-scale government intervention can rescue us from this pernicious system.

Under Democratic and Republican administrations alike, we have advanced ever more rapidly away from a free market environment and toward a command and control economy. Steadily we have accepted the notion that politicians should pick winners and losers based on their ideas of fairness rather than having market forces be the ultimate arbiter.

We have swallowed the fearmongering admonitions of public officials who insist that even apart from the moral question of picking winners and losers, our government must bail out "essential" segments of the economy, such as the automobile industry, lest the entire economy be doomed for extinction. Indeed, this word "essential" has proved to be an essential tool for the left in these difficult times.

Continue reading "To Your Battle Stations, Conservatives"

Posted by redguy at 05:33 AM | TrackBack (0)

January 05, 2009

Are They All Democrats Now?

By: David Limbaugh

Barack Obama, itching to implement his gigantic stimulus package as soon as possible, is dangling the idea of combining his spending package with a tax cut in hopes of securing another kind of stimulus: Republican support for his package. Republicans should remember that when you polish manure, you still have manure.

Obama went to Capitol Hill Monday to promote his stimulus plan of between $675 billion and $775 billion. An estimated 40 percent of the package (between $270 billion and $310 billion) would consist of tax cuts.

Obama strategists say the proposed tax cuts are based on historical and empirical evidence of what works, not ideology. But despite his denials, Obama's intention to target the cuts to the "middle class" and exclude higher-income earners, whose stimulated activity has been shown to have the greatest economic impact, betrays his crippling bondage to ideology.

The lion's share of the relief would involve $500 tax cuts per individual or $1,000 per family for income earners and an equal amount in credits for those who qualify for the "earned-income" credit. But he would phase out those cuts and credits for households with incomes of $200,000 or more, which is inexplicable apart from ideology and class-warfare populism.

Also demonstrating his ideological motivations, Obama's plan envisions short-term relief via one-time tax credits or refunds rather than long-term changes to the tax code. As others have noted, long-term changes are far more effective at stimulating growth because producers and consumers look to the long term in making their investment, hiring and spending decisions.

Continue reading "Are They All Democrats Now?"

Posted by redguy at 09:09 PM | TrackBack (0)

December 29, 2008

Biden's Bogus Feud with Cheney

By: David Limbaugh

If Vice President-elect Joe Biden were slightly less enamored with his own voice he might not confuse himself so often on issues that matter so much, such as his views of presidential and vice presidential authority.

We've all heard about Biden's feud with Vice President Dick Cheney over Cheney's supposed view of executive authority relative to the other branches of government and Cheney's view of the vice president's role.

These happen to be two separate issues. Whether the president encroaches on the constitutional authority of the other branches is a different issue from whether the vice president oversteps his bounds inside the executive branch, or in his limited role in the legislative branch.

The problem is that Biden conflates these issues. He can't seem to keep straight whether he's exercised about an overreaching executive branch or an overreaching vice president mostly inside that branch.

My guess is that he confuses the two issues because, like other Democrats and liberals, he sees Cheney as the real villain in both cases. He blames Cheney, Bush's presumed puppet master, for Bush's alleged executive power grabs and he blames Cheney for overstepping his bounds as vice president.

Let's try to look at these issues separately, even though the players, in this case, overlap.

Reasonable people can disagree whether President Bush acted outside his scope of executive authority in various aspects of prosecuting the war on terror, such as in his handling of the NSA terrorist surveillance program. I believe history will soundly vindicate him, showing that he did consult and obtain the tacit approval of Congress on most of these matters. Moreover, the Constitution designates the president as commander in chief, never intending that wars be prosecuted by congressional committee.

Continue reading "Biden's Bogus Feud with Cheney"

Posted by redguy at 08:46 PM | TrackBack (0)

December 22, 2008

Beware of Obama's Middle-Class Task Force

By: David Limbaugh

When you read reports that President-elect Obama is going to establish a "task force to assist middle-class families" and that incoming VP Joe Biden will be its point man, keep a very sharp eye on what's going on here. It's an appeal to form over substance designed to convince voters he cares so much that even if he fails, he should be lauded and, of course, re-elected.

Modern Democrats have perfected the art of political propaganda, as seen in their demonization of "the Bush economy" for most of Bush's two terms despite the mostly positive economic numbers during that period. My guess is that under President Obama, they'll seek to do the reverse, if necessary: wooing the public with constant overtures to "the middle class" designed to mollify it irrespective of actual economic conditions.

Analogous to a teacher "teaching to the test," when a teacher imparts information to students to help them score higher on college entrance exams as opposed to increasing their actual knowledge of the material, President Clinton mastered the art of governing to the polls.

He had an entire team working 24/7 on enhancing his image and eulogizing his policy agenda. It's true that their task was aided by a robust economy, but the Clinton "war room" was still undeniably powerful well beyond the elections.

How much more shocking it was, then, for the young neophyte to take the Clintons to school, especially in the organizational and grass-roots aspects of the campaign. It would have been no less amazing if one of Muhammad Ali's sparring partners, such as Jimmy Ellis, had knocked Ali out instead of being knocked out himself.

Continue reading "Beware of Obama's Middle-Class Task Force"

Posted by redguy at 09:44 PM | TrackBack (0)

December 18, 2008

Recapturing Supply-Side Coherence

By: David Limbaugh

It is widely assumed in conservative circles that Republicans, even under President Bush, pretty much had tax policy right but failed on the spending side. Unfortunately, there's more to it. If conservatives plan to recapture ascendancy on economic issues, they better come to a clearer understanding of supply-side theory. Then perhaps they can articulate it and recapture it as a powerful electoral weapon.

Even when history is on their side, Republicans seem to find a way not to capitalize on it and routinely forfeit the narrative to Democrats, who dwarf them in the communications department from sheer repetition, if nothing else.

The Reagan tax cuts were so phenomenally successful that it's amazing Democrats were able to recover politically as quickly as they did. Despite historical revision to the contrary, all income groups did much better under the Reagan cuts. Remarkably, a Treasury Department study showed that 86 percent of people in the lowest 20 percent of income earners in 1979 graduated into higher categories during the '80s.

The tax cuts skewered then prevailing Keynesian economic theory, producing sustained peacetime economic growth without inflation. The reductions in marginal-income- and capital-gains tax rates even increased revenues.

It doesn't matter how much we repeat this truism or how blue our faces become in the process; the relative deficit explosion during the Reagan years was not caused by the tax cuts but by increases in government spending. Yet Democrats succeeded in establishing the narrative that the tax cuts were at the expense of essential government services and that the cuts increased the deficit and the national debt, thus dubbing the '80s the decade of greed.

Continue reading "Recapturing Supply-Side Coherence"

Posted by redguy at 06:33 PM | TrackBack (0)

December 16, 2008

What's in a Middle Name?

By: David Limbaugh

When I first heard that Barack Obama said he had decided to include his middle name, "Hussein," in his swearing-in ceremony, I wondered whether the satirical Web site ScrappleFace had tricked the mainstream media.

Surely, after Obama's acolytes scolded commentators for using Barack's Muslim-sounding middle name during the campaign, the president-elect himself wouldn't so quickly reverse course. But, in fact, he did.

In an exclusive interview with the Chicago Tribune, Obama said he'll use his full name in the ceremony like every other president.

I have no problem with that, as far as it goes. But Obama went further. He's not using his middle name simply because it's his middle name, but as part of a deliberate strategy to "reboot America's image" among the world's Muslims. He also plans to deliver a major speech in an Islamic capital, possibly within the first 100 days of his presidency.

Why, you might ask, is all this necessary?

Simple: because of President Bush's myriad sins against Muslims since 9/11. The Associated Press reports, as if imparting objective fact, "The U.S. image globally has taken a deep hit during President George W. Bush's two terms in office, primarily because of opposition to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, harsh interrogation of prisoners, the indefinite detention of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and mistreatment of inmates at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq."

Continue reading "What's in a Middle Name?"

Posted by redguy at 05:32 AM

December 11, 2008

No More Bailouts

By: David Limbaugh

If our government's economic experts really knew what they were doing, they wouldn't be frenetically experimenting with the people's money, treating billions like nickels. They wouldn't be so hellbent on dampening expectations and instilling fear as if oblivious to the real impact of public psychology on the economy.

I'm just not buying their doomsaying anymore. Even if they're right and we do end up in a full-scale financial meltdown, at least it will be finite and America's best days will still be ahead of us. But if we don't stop this panic-driven government intervention madness now, the chances are we'll still face a major meltdown and pass the point of no return into the bottomless pit of socialism.

The auto bailout and future proposed gargantuan government interventions must be rejected.

Government bailout architects ominously warned that unless we adopted their original "$700 billion" bailout proposal to purchase distressed mortgage assets, we'd face catastrophic economic consequences rivaling or exceeding the Great Depression.

Just weeks later, these same architects betrayed their own warnings and said their do-or-die plan would not work after all. Buying the troubled assets wouldn't inject capital into the banks quickly enough, so instead the government would have to distribute the money directly to major financial institutions.

Continue reading "No More Bailouts"

Posted by redguy at 09:03 PM | TrackBack (0)

December 09, 2008

Responding to the Relentless Liberal Tide

By: David Limbaugh

If there's one thing I've learned in my 55 years, it's that liberals are relentless and will win through sheer persistence if conservatives abandon the fight.

The incoming U.S. government stands poised to forever alter the balance between governmental power and individual liberties and to replace the free market economy with socialist planning.

And what do we hear from many conservatives? That we should be encouraged that President-elect Obama has announced certain key centrist appointees and that we should convince ourselves this means he will not pursue the agenda he plainly tells us he will pursue. Savvy liberals must be laughing themselves silly.

Pro-life forces have made inroads into the collective consciousness and against the abominable practice of abortion, and they've been gratified by the appointments of two strict constructionist justices in Roberts and Alito. That said, Americans have just elected the most life-hostile president in our history, who got a complete pass on social issues during the campaign and who might be in a position to appoint three or more liberal activist judges.

But what are many conservatives saying? That Republicans got trounced because of the Christian right's uncompromising positions on social issues. That analysis doesn't square in theory (the majority of Americans are not pro-choice) or in reality (social issues were on the backburner in the national election, and social conservatism triumphed in state ballot initiatives, even in the liberal California).
Liberal secularists tell us Christians are insinuating themselves into government and thereby are threatening our liberties by intruding on the sacred prohibition against church-state interaction. They say our liberty tradition is grounded in secularism.

Continue reading "Responding to the Relentless Liberal Tide"

Posted by redguy at 05:43 AM | TrackBack (0)

December 04, 2008

What the Obama Cult Factor Portends

By David Limbaugh

The cult mystique of Barack Obama continues while his fawning supporters blindly accept every move he makes, proving their support for him in the general election was not based as much on policy as personality. This could play right into Obama's hands if, as I believe, he does have major change on his mind.

From a policy standpoint, Obama's campaign was fueled -- initially, at least -- by his unequivocal stance against the Iraq war. He was the only credible candidate (excluding such buffoons as Dennis Kucinich) who maintained from the outset that he opposed the war.

Apart from his charisma and superior organizational operation, especially in the caucus states, his opposition to the war might have been the single most important factor contributing to his defeat of Hillary Clinton. Clinton, thinking she was the inevitable nominee, presumably believed she could sporadically assume the role of hawk with impunity looking to the general election. By the time Hillary was done posturing back and forth on the war, no one could be sure what her position really was, other than that she would say what she needed to say, consistency be damned, to best preserve her presidential viability.

Obama shrewdly capitalized on Hillary's ambivalence, parlaying his opposition to the war to his maximum advantage. Given the nation's Bush fatigue -- no matter how unjustified from a broad historical perspective -- and Bush's very low approval ratings, it only made sense for Democratic presidential aspirants to make themselves the anti-Bush.

Because the Iraq war was perceived as Bush's greatest sin and almost all other sins flowed from Iraq or were somehow conflated with it -- Abu Ghraib, rendition, waterboarding, "unilateralism," NSA surveillance, Halliburton, Gitmo, etc. -- Obama was uniquely positioned to be the anti-Bush.

Continue reading "What the Obama Cult Factor Portends"

Posted by redguy at 08:43 PM | TrackBack (0)

December 01, 2008

Obama a Centrist? Like I'm a Liberal

By: David Limbaugh

I am far less convinced than many that Barack Obama will be a centrist in office. Despite his announced future Cabinet appointees, I find it amazing that people are so willing to believe he'll change his stripes that fast.

Just what about Obama's very liberal voting record to date causes one to believe he'll be any different as president? I could see an aspiring presidential candidate establishing a centrist legislative record in the state and federal senates to make himself more electable as president, but not the other way around.

There's another red flag that should give pause to those hoping against hope -- pun intended -- that Obama will indeed govern as a centrist. The very liberal mainstream media are giving Obama nothing but plaudits for his presumed centrist appointments. If they truly believed he had changed his governing philosophy, they would be anything but sanguine.

Even the far-left blogosphere has not thrown in the towel yet. They're not ecstatic, but I think deep down, they know they have a fellow traveler about to take the oath of office. As one writer for the liberal Huffington Post put it, "He will be the president we want him to be."

Also, just because this or that appointee was in the Clinton administration does not mean Obama is a centrist. The media have whitewashed any liberalism associated with the Clintons and portrayed them as committed moderates.

Continue reading "Obama a Centrist? Like I'm a Liberal"

Posted by redguy at 09:01 PM | TrackBack (0)

November 24, 2008

Bipartisanship: For the Common Good?

By: David Limbaugh

Many say that now that Barack Obama has been elected, we should all work together for the common good. That sounds wonderful until you realize that we don't all agree on what is the common good.

Notice I don't take the position that Republicans should refuse to cooperate with Mr. Obama because Democrats have been indescribably partisan, cruel and unfair to President Bush for the past eight years. Those are certainly grounds to call them hypocrites, but we must always put the best interests of the nation above petty partisanship -- obviously.

So we must ask: Would it be in the best interest of the nation for Republicans to work with Barack Obama?

The only sensible answer is: It depends on what policies Obama pursues. As much as people want to believe that getting along is the highest good, there are many more important things.

If Democrats were being honest, they would agree with that statement. Otherwise, they owe us an explanation as to why they opposed President Bush at every turn. Could it be they think their ideas on Iraq, the war on terror, education, stem cell research, judges, the environment, immigration and the rest are more important to them than simply getting along? I thought so.

And while certain conservative "intellectuals" have anesthetized or deluded themselves with feel-good platitudes, I daresay that camaraderie in furtherance of policies that could permanently erode our liberties is hardly for the common good.

Continue reading "Bipartisanship: For the Common Good?"

Posted by redguy at 08:37 PM | TrackBack (0)

November 20, 2008

Evangelicals -- A Drag on or Essential to the GOP?

By: David Limbaugh

A good friend of mine (let's call him Bob) is convinced that unless the GOP puts abortion "aside as its focal point, it simply cannot win and regain power." That's especially interesting in light of Kathleen Parker's latest column, which disses the evangelical wing of the GOP.

Bob's point is that "we've lost a majority of women over this issue as they have become one-issue voters." It's not only liberal women but also others who believe it's simply not the government's business.

Kathleen Parker broadens the point considerably beyond abortion: "The evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh." Since the 1980s or so, says Parker, the GOP "has become increasingly beholden to an element that used to be relegated to wooden crates on street corners. ... The GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows. In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents."

I'll resist the temptation to respond specifically to Kathleen's uncharitable indictment of us knuckle draggers because I like Kathleen personally and because I want to respond to her and Bob's overlapping contention that certain social conservatives are dragging the party down.

Bob's opinion is largely based on his personal conversations with women, and Kathleen writes, "If one were to eavesdrop on private conservations among the party intelligentsia, one would hear precisely that ... armband religion is killing the Republican Party." But do their anecdotal reports justify their conclusions?

2004 exit poll data reveal that President Bush got 55 percent of the male vote and 48 percent of the female vote, while 2008 data show that McCain got 48 percent of the male vote and 43 percent of the female vote. McCain's percentage of the male vote dropped more than his percentage of the female vote, so it's hard to see how alienated women made the difference.

Continue reading "Evangelicals -- A Drag on or Essential to the GOP?"

Posted by redguy at 08:58 PM | TrackBack (0)

November 17, 2008

Toward the Tipping Point

By: David Limbaugh

In the aftermath of the 2008 Republican electoral bloodbath, many are discussing what direction the party should take to recapture its vitality and viability. Liberals -- as if they have the best interests of the GOP at heart -- and so-called elitist, Northeastern Republicans seem to agree the party should tack center. I disagree.

Traditional conservatism and its advocates invariably get bad raps. They're painted as uncompromising, uncompassionate extremists who won't adjust to the realities of the 21st century.

But those familiar with modern history understand that these intramural debates have been going on for decades. I remember my father complaining about Rockefeller Republicans in the early '60s, so the schism had to have begun much earlier than that.

From what I can gather, the David Brooks and David Frum wing of the conservative movement wants conservatism to grow, sort of like liberals want the Constitution to be a "living document." Big government -- at least, an active, energetic government -- is here to stay, and we better get on board. Our debate with liberals must be one of minor degree rather than kind. We should accept, rather than resist or attempt to roll back, the leviathan and instead address how best to direct it, lest we relegate ourselves to political irrelevance.

We traditionalists should acknowledge that in one sense, the Davids have a point. After all, it was no less a traditionalist than Mark Steyn, if I may categorize him as such, who recently lamented that "settled democratic societies rarely vote to 'go left.' Yet oddly enough that's where they've all gone."

Continue reading "Toward the Tipping Point"

Posted by redguy at 10:14 PM | TrackBack (0)

November 14, 2008

Sanctimonious Stone Throwers

By: David Limbaugh

God bless Sarah Palin, and shame on elitists from both sides of the aisle who have denigrated, demonized and dissed her. I don't care how many "smartest people in the room" types offer pseudo-sophisticated analyses to prove she was a drag on the GOP presidential ticket. They are all manifestly and embarrassingly wrong -- and woefully out of touch -- which is par for the course for elitists.

Speaking of elitists, it's time to address their contempt for rural and southern America, particularly their ongoing smear of the South (and, truth be told, rank-and-file conservative Republicans) as racist.

For all the accolades Barack Obama is receiving, he should acknowledge a bit of egg on his face for invoking race with his failed prediction that his opponents would play the race card. "They're going to try to ... make you scared of me," he said. "You know, 'He's not patriotic enough; he's got a funny name.' You know, 'He doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills."

Then there was Newsweek's poster boy for liberal smugness, Jonathan Alter, hypothecating a scenario in which Obama could lose because of racism. Alter said the following factors would have contributed:

Continue reading "Sanctimonious Stone Throwers"

Posted by redguy at 05:35 AM | TrackBack (0)

November 10, 2008

Liberal Censorship and Its Roots

By: David Limbaugh

The most unnerving aspects about the Democrats' sweeping victory Nov. 4 are their intolerance for dissent and their willingness to censor and otherwise suppress their opponents. Consider:

We keep hearing that Sarah Palin's criticism of Obama for "palling around with terrorists" increased death threats against him, which is bogus in the extreme but consistent with the inveterate liberal tactic of chilling conservative speech by saying it incites violence.

Ohio state employee Vanessa Niekamp said she was ordered to run a child-support check on Joe the Plumber, the man who asked Barack Obama an innocuous question about redistributing taxpayer income. Niekamp doesn't remember ever having checked into anyone else without having a legitimate reason to do so, such as discovering that someone recently came into money.

Democratic prosecutors in St. Louis threatened criminal prosecution against candidate Obama's critics. In Pennsylvania, lawyers for Obama wrote intimidating letters to TV and radio stations that aired unflattering ads documenting Obama's anti-gun record. The Obama campaign complained to the Department of Justice about the American Issues Project's ad tying Obama to William Ayers. Obama supporters flooded Chicago radio station WGN with harassing calls during its interviews of conservative writers investigating Obama.

Continue reading "Liberal Censorship and Its Roots"

Posted by redguy at 09:05 PM | TrackBack (0)

November 04, 2008

Sorry, but Obama Scares Me

By: David Limbaugh

The prospect of a Barack Obama presidency makes me very nervous.

Obama's entire campaign has been based on the need for radical, transformational change, which implies there is something very wrong with America.

It's hardly surprising, then, that he has painted the bleakest picture of America instead of acknowledging, as a starting point, that we are still the greatest nation in the world.

For the past eight years, Democrats have slandered America as an imperialistic country that always prefers force to diplomacy; that attacks nations without provocation to enrich itself and to project its power; that intentionally targets civilian lives; that encourages sadistic torture of enemy prisoners, as opposed to tough interrogation techniques to extract information to save the lives of its people; that eavesdrops on private conversations among its citizens rather than monitoring terrorist communications into its borders; and that abuses rather than goes out of its way to accommodate the savages in Guantanamo's prison. None of it is true.

For eight years, Democrats have poor-mouthed the mostly growing economy. They've lied that Bush's tax cuts for all income groups were only for the wealthy and that the cuts reduced revenues. They pretend to be deficit hawks, when Obama's new spending plans alone will make Bush look like Scrooge. They said Bush wanted to destroy Social Security, when he's the only one in the past 20 years who had the courage to try to reform it. All lies.

They've preached bipartisanship while exhibiting the nastiest partisanship in my lifetime, calling Bush "King George III," "Hitler," a "murderer," a "war criminal," a "reckless cowboy," a "moron" and a "Christian throwback." They've caricatured Bush as an unbending partisan who wouldn't reach across the aisle, in the face of his countless and mostly rebuffed bipartisan overtures and legislation. More disinformation.

Continue reading "Sorry, but Obama Scares Me"

Posted by redguy at 05:33 AM | TrackBack (0)

October 30, 2008

From Being Watchdogs to Needing Watchdogs

By: David Limbaugh

The mainstream media, who forgot Felix Frankfurter's admonition that "freedom of the press is not an end in itself but a means to the end of a free society," long ago abdicated their role as government watchdog and now require a watchdog themselves. Never has that been clearer than in the 2008 presidential election, during which they are covering up rather than covering Barack Obama's shady past and alliances, his knee-deep involvement in corrupt practices threatening the very core of our democratic system, and his many policy misrepresentations.

Consider some items the MSM would have explored if they were guardians of liberty instead of the Obama campaign.

--When Democrats insist every vote must count, do they also mean multiple votes from individuals and votes from dead and nonexistent people? If not, why aren't the MSM demanding answers about Obama's incestuous relationship with the criminal enterprise ACORN, whose serial crimes could alter the outcome of this election?

--How can the MSM allow ACORN's dissemblers to deflect the charge that they are seeking illegal votes with "these are registrations, not ballots," as if there is any purpose in procuring illegal registrations apart from maximizing illegal votes?

--The MSM preach that money in politics necessarily corrupts, so why do they ignore Obama's broken promise to accept public financing, his record-breaking campaign receipts, and the large number of untraceable contributions?

Continue reading "From Being Watchdogs to Needing Watchdogs"

Posted by redguy at 09:10 PM | TrackBack (0)

October 27, 2008

Obama: Fundamental Change? Count on It

By: David Limbaugh

I am sincerely worried that if Obama wins, the checks and balances incorporated into our Constitution may not be enough to prevent a radical and irreversible diminution of our individual liberties because a confluence of factors has emerged to create a climate conducive to fundamental change.

These factors are: a shockingly unknown candidate, whose mysterious past and numerous shady alliances are deliberately left unexplored by a corrupt, supportive media; the candidate's charismatic qualities that inspire a cultish loyalty; his intellectual trappings that create a fascination and allure among the intellectual elite, including some hypnotized conservatives; a major financial crisis that exacerbates the people's fears and uncertainties; a largely manufactured cloud of negativity placed over America by the media and a grossly partisan Democratic Party that places its self-interest above the national interest; and an apparently discredited Republican Party and conservative movement that have been blamed for our actual and perceived problems.

All of these could lead to entrusting this man with unprecedented power, giving him a license to operate with minimum scrutiny and an opposition party effectively impotent to oppose his radical blueprint for America.

More than ever, perception is trumping reality. An unprincipled Democratic Party, aided by a morally decadent media, has demonized President Bush, the Republican Party and America itself with distortions and polarizing propaganda designed to dispirit and divide Americans on the bases of race, class and gender. Just look at the domestic and foreign policy picture they have painted the past eight years.

While we are having serious financial problems now, we had a strong economy for most of President Bush's two terms, but the media pushed the Democrats' critique that it was in perpetual recession. As for our real financial crisis, objective observers understand Democratic programs and policies primarily caused it, but Democrats have successfully blamed Republicans for it.

Continue reading "Obama: Fundamental Change? Count on It"

Posted by redguy at 07:35 PM | TrackBack (0)

October 20, 2008

OK, Let's Skip the Liberal Label

By: David Limbaugh

There's little doubt America is a center-right nation, which is why Barack Obama denies and conceals his liberalism and packages himself as a harbinger of hope and change.

Obama's policies represent change all right: change from almost everything our Founding Fathers considered sacred and vital to the preservation of individual liberty in America.

He also offers hope: hope for those who share his shame in what America has become, what it stands for, and what makes it unique in world history. Hope that an unenlightened America can be remade by this "transformational" man in an image pleasing to George Soros, the Hollywood elite, MoveOn.org, the Daily Kos and Michael Moore.

But if labels bother you, let's look at Obama's alliances and policies and let them speak for themselves.

If you are so intoxicated with "hope" that you believe Obama wasn't aware of and not in sync with the Rev. Wright's militantly racist and anti-American views or his black liberation theology, then it's probably too much to ask for you to be objective about his links to Bill Ayers and ACORN.

Continue reading "OK, Let's Skip the Liberal Label"

Posted by redguy at 09:12 PM | TrackBack (0)

October 16, 2008

Socialism! There, I've Said It

By: David Limbaugh

In certain unscripted moments, Barack Obama has given us a glimpse of his socialist inclinations, but I wonder what percentage would vote for him if they truly understood the extent of his radicalism.

Yet the financial crisis has created a climate of fear and uncertainty and unleashed an unprecedented tolerance for large-scale government intervention, which is playing perfectly into Obama's hands. People are blaming this largely Democratic-spawned mess on Republicans because Bush is still president.

Maybe I'm being too much of an alarmist, but I'm worried for the first time in my life that the election of a presidential candidate could lead to a fundamental change in our system of government. Just listen to the comments of post-debate focus group members expressing a knowing willingness to accept Obama's socialism, such is their angst at the subprime mortgage mess.

Already some 38 percent of Americans do not pay income taxes, and Barack Obama wants to increase that percentage dramatically. How ironic that he and other Democrats pretend to be targeting their message to "working-class" people when many of their constituents aren't working. But such is class warfare that the upper-middle class and wealthy are demonized as not earning an honest living.

Continue reading "Socialism! There, I've Said It"

Posted by redguy at 06:46 PM | TrackBack (0)

October 13, 2008

Still Time for Voters To Wake Up

By: David Limbaugh

Strapped to a polygraph on national TV, I would assert quite confidently that I would strongly condemn thuggish and criminal tactics by a candidate I supported. The ends do not justify the means for me and most other conservatives I know. I wish I believed the same were true for liberals, far too many of whom are deliberately turning their backs on the corruption defining Obama's campaign.

It would be bad enough if the Stalinesque stench engulfing the messiah's campaign were limited merely to its efforts to elect him. But what we fear is that these campaign tactics are of a piece with his policy agenda and his vision for America.

Sincerely intending no melodrama here, it's hard not to conclude that Obama aims to change America in fundamental ways, the common denominator of which would be to diminish individual liberties, the most distinguishing feature of the unique American system. Sadly, most Obama supporters have no clue what Obama is ultimately about or how his innocuous-sounding ideas could permanently destroy our freedoms.

It's inconceivable that even a low-level Republican candidate could have Obama's associations and employ his campaign tactics without being driven from the race. And yet we've got a man running for the highest office in the land surrounded with anti-American allies and covert election burglars, all protected by an unprecedented mainstream-media cover-up.

Democrats tell us they place the highest possible value on the integrity of the election process, yet their uniform response to ACORN's systematic assault on the voter registration process is unmitigated indifference and denial.

Continue reading "Still Time for Voters To Wake Up"

Posted by redguy at 09:02 PM | TrackBack (0)

October 09, 2008

The Stealth Candidate

By: David Limbaugh

Democrats assume Republicans are raising Obama's many questionable relationships in a desperation effort to salvage the election. You might think this is splitting hairs, but I believe the reason is that these relationships scare the daylights out of us.

Conservatives were very much opposed to Bill Clinton for myriad reasons, but with decades in elective office in Arkansas, at least he wasn't a stealth candidate. Though rumors and mysteries abounded, Clinton was hardly a blank slate who emerged out of nowhere.

Obama is different. He burst onto the political scene and has risen with such alacrity that even many of his supporters don't have a clue what he's about or where he would take America.

It's no wonder the conspiracy types are whispering that he's the Manchurian candidate. It's not as if he's embracing his past; it's more as if he's concealing it, and for good reason. People have a right to know just how radical this man is because America's destiny is in the balance.

I've always been extremely confident that no matter which party is in power, it can only do so much damage in four years because of the ingenious safeguards our Constitution contains to preserve the essential structure of government that maximizes individual liberty. But I admit I'm more concerned today.

Continue reading "The Stealth Candidate"

Posted by redguy at 07:05 PM | TrackBack (0)

October 06, 2008

Don't Go Wobbly; Follow Sarah

By: David Limbaugh

There are many reasons that Sarah Palin is energizing the conservative base. It's not just her authenticity, freshness, noble defense of traditional values, and vivaciousness. This lady is finally giving red-state conservatives a voice, and she's taking it to the other side without apologies.

Democrats are crying foul because she's confronting Barack Obama for his worrisome attitudes about America and his way-more-than-casual association with unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers. Some squeamish conservatives are counseling that we ignore this issue either because it is unpleasant and unfair or that it's a distraction from the "substantive" issues.

Nonsense. This issue is neither unfair nor a diversion. It is imperative that we learn the extent of Obama's intimacy with this man. It's vital that we examine whether this relationship is part of a pattern of Barack Obama associating himself with people and causes that are hostile to the foundational principles of this nation.

We must reject the Democrats' convenient talking point that McCain and Palin can't walk and chew gum at the same time. That if they focus on Ayers, they can't explore Wright, Rezko, Raines, ACORN, the Democrats' primary culpability for the financial crisis, the evils of socialized medicine, the danger to America in Obama's retreat-and-defeat foreign policy, or his hostility to the free market.

Indeed, we must applaud Sarah Palin for standing up to her opponents and returning hostile fire. We're ready for her to lead the charge, not only on Obama's sordid relationships but also in articulating the monumental differences between the liberal and conservative approaches to governance.

Continue reading "Don't Go Wobbly; Follow Sarah"

Posted by redguy at 08:33 PM | TrackBack (0)

October 02, 2008

Election-Altering Media Bias

By: David Limbaugh

It would be foolish of me to deny the obvious truth in a recent e-mail message I received pointing out how different the presidential polls would be today if the mainstream media were not so liberal.

Quit complaining, you say; there's an alternative media led by your brother, you whiner. Quit calling me a whiner, especially about the current plight of Republicans. It's my party, and I'll whine if I want to.

Unlike the MSM, the alternative media are honest that they are in the opinion business and freely admit their ideological leanings. They don't pretend to exemplify objective journalism. But unlike the MSM, their ethical commitment to truth is not routinely compromised by their mind-altering bias, as with that disgraceful episode known as Rathergate.

The MSM are a case study in psychological anomalies. They don't just deny their biases to us; they deny them to themselves, all while conspiring to affect the outcome of the election.

How do you reconcile their sincere self-denial of bias with their simultaneous demonstrations of bias? An epidemic of liberal insanity, with one side of the liberal brain forgetting to inform the other of what it's up to?

Continue reading "Election-Altering Media Bias"

Posted by redguy at 09:56 PM | TrackBack (0)

September 29, 2008

Pinning the Tail on the Donkey

By: David Limbaugh

I believe John McCain won the foreign policy debate hands down, but he was unimpressive on economic issues, which, in fairness, were not supposed to be the subject of the first debate. But he can redeem himself in the next debate. Thankfully, Obama is exceedingly vulnerable here, even more so than on foreign policy, which is a mouthful.

McCain must attack Obama's class-warfare assertion that every economic problem we face, including, preposterously, the financial crisis, is a result of the Bush tax cuts. If McCain's going to be a supply-sider, he must begin talking like one. He must also steer far away from the silly populist line that the free market is somehow to blame for the crisis. Leave such blasphemy to the Obama Democrats.

But McCain's first order of business must be to address the financial crisis head-on -- instead of in generalities, as both he and Obama did in round one.

McCain should not consider this a problem but a softball served up by recent history and the comparative behavior of the two political parties and the two presidential candidates that he must knock out of the park. If McCain is willing to hit Obama in the gut with the full truth about the genesis of the crisis, he could emerge from the next debate as the clear favorite.

McCain's opportunity here is even richer when you consider that on this matter, despite his scant political record, Obama has very dirty hands. He cannot be allowed to pretend to have been a bystander when it's incontrovertible that the policies leading to this crisis were vintage Obama. The people who caused it are Obama's political allies and close friends.

Continue reading "Pinning the Tail on the Donkey"

Posted by redguy at 09:08 PM | TrackBack (0)

September 25, 2008

Hiding the Ball

By: David Limbaugh

Why does Barack Obama play hide the ball with his personal resume, concealing his extreme leftist ideology and denying his damning associations? Question kind of answers itself, wouldn't you say? Be concerned, very concerned.

Obama hides his liberalism for the same reason every other liberal presidential candidate has: The electorate tilts center-right. This isn't just my gut speaking or some self-serving theory I'm propounding.

The Battleground poll -- a well-respected bipartisan affair conducted by the Terrance Group, a Republican polling organization -- and Lake Research Partners, a Democratic organization, tells us 60 percent of Americans identify themselves as conservatives.

But the specifics are even more telling. Twenty percent consider themselves very conservative, 40 percent somewhat conservative, 2 percent moderate, 27 percent liberal, 9 percent very liberal, and 3 percent don't know or didn't answer.

So John Kerry in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008 didn't deny they were the most liberal senators because liberalism has become a dirty word through a clever conservative propaganda campaign. They denied it because liberalism is a minority position in reality, albeit an extraordinarily effective vocal minority.

Obama will only come clean about his liberalism when he thinks he is in safe territory, as he did at the San Francisco fundraiser where he trashed small-town Americans, thinking his words wouldn't reach those he was belittling. Nor is Obama upfront about the liberal nature of his policy proposals, choosing instead to mask their liberalism and even disguise them as conservative.

Continue reading "Hiding the Ball"

Posted by redguy at 08:30 PM | TrackBack (0)

September 22, 2008

The Hair of the Dog

By: David Limbaugh

The private sector got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it," said Barney Frank, which illustrates why conservatives often say liberals have a socialist bent.

Free market conservatives understand that many problems have been caused by government's officious intermeddling in the private sector. The subprime mortgage crisis is no exception.

History has shown that liberal prescriptions don't work, but when they fail, liberals invariably not only deny responsibility for their do-gooder manipulation but also insist on even more government intrusion. Think of it as "the hair of the dog" remedy on steroids.

For example, many of our health care problems can be traced to increased government control and the reduction of market forces. Yet the liberal solution is full-blown nationalized health care. Never mind that it doesn't work anywhere in the world and always leads to waiting lines and inferior health care. Never mind that the United States has the best health care in the history of the world, notwithstanding admittedly serious problems.

Another example is Social Security. Instead of creating a trust fund segregated from general revenues, congressional liberals with an insatiable appetite for spending raided Social Security revenues from day one. The system has been one big Ponzi scheme funded by IOUs from one arm of government to another. Bill Clinton and Al Gore had the audacity to propose a "lockbox" to secure Social Security, when their ideological predecessors happily breached their promise for the original lockbox.

Continue reading "The Hair of the Dog"

Posted by redguy at 07:50 PM | TrackBack (0)

September 18, 2008

Scapegoating Tax Cuts

By: David Limbaugh

One has to wonder just how much more Democrats will milk class-warfare politics before people wake up to their deception.

No matter what economic problems we face, Democrats always find a way to blame them on the "rich" and the Bush tax cuts. Why? Because it rallies their base and -- they hope -- will alienate enough others against evil Bush Republicans to give Democrats a prohibitive advantage on domestic issues.

Joe Biden even blamed the current mortgage crisis on the Bush tax cuts. He said: "We should try to correct the problems that caused this ... (which are) the profligate tax cuts to the very, very wealthy that John (McCain) wants to continue."

Never mind that low- and middle-income earners received greater tax rate reductions than the highest-income earners; that doesn't fit within the Democrats' class-envy template. Forget the reckless legislation forcing financial institutions to lend money to people who probably couldn't pay it back -- to satisfy the liberals' obsession with looking compassionate and pandering to minorities. Forget that Obama was the second-highest recipient of campaign cash from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (according to the Center for Responsive Politics), cash aimed at keeping congressional regulators off their backs. Forget that big fat cat Democrats served in executive positions at these quasi-governmental entities and milked them at taxpayers' expense. Forget that Obama chose one of those fat cats, Jim Johnson, to serve on his vice presidential search committee.

Despite the Democrats' destructive practice of blaming every economic woe -- from Enron to rising oil prices -- on the Bush tax cuts, the tax cuts had nothing to do with those problems, including the mortgage crisis.

Continue reading "Scapegoating Tax Cuts"

Posted by redguy at 08:18 PM | TrackBack (0)

September 15, 2008

On Theocracy and Double Standards

By: David Limbaugh

In the next few weeks, we're going to hear a lot of hot air from Joe Biden as he tries to recapture the spotlight from Sarah Palin. One thing I doubt we'll hear from him is that rare sensible gem he uttered a few years ago about Democrats and people of faith. But he would do well to remember his fleeting words.

Biden said: "We have too many elites in our party who look down their nose on people of faith. ... That's the big problem with my party."

You can say that again, Joe. But next time, you ought to try listening to your own words instead of just talking to hear your head rattle.

If Biden was sincere, why won't he take issue with liberals in the media and elsewhere who routinely demonstrate their contempt for Christians?

Whether it's Whoopi Goldberg hyperventilating about the separation of church and state, Charlie Gibson distorting Sarah Palin's views on the intersection of faith and governance, or Obama himself disparaging small-town Christians for their unashamed reliance on the Bible, liberals just don't get it. For them to occasionally pretend they do just adds insult to injury.

Continue reading "On Theocracy and Double Standards"

Posted by redguy at 09:47 PM | TrackBack (0)

September 08, 2008

Palin's a Tough, Smart Conservative Woman: Deal With It!

By: David Limbaugh

Liberals excel in blinding themselves to their own biases and hypocrisy and blaming conservatives for their own sins, all of which they are showcasing in their frantic reaction to the Sarah Palin nomination.

Not only are they trying to destroy Palin. They are straight-facedly denying it and accusing Republicans of manufacturing this charge to exhibit phony sympathy for women.

Conservatives, after all, couldn't possibly be supportive of female Palin based on merit; it's just a political ploy to purloin Hillary voters. Liberal captives of identity politics just can't comprehend that neither gender nor race matters to conservatives. It's all about the candidate's political philosophy, approach to governance and qualifications to serve -- not those artificial constructs that liberals have exploited through the years.

Don't get me wrong. Palin's beauty and tough-as-nails femininity are refreshing icing on a delicious cake for conservatives, but if she were not demonstrably conservative, they'd be depressed -- not energized.

But you'll never convince the liberal press, which sees everything through the lens of gender and race consciousness and indiscriminately projects that propensity onto conservatives.

Continue reading "Palin's a Tough, Smart Conservative Woman: Deal With It!"

Posted by redguy at 10:26 PM | TrackBack (0)

September 02, 2008

Who's Being Hypocritical?

By: David Limbaugh

Liberals are outraged at the supposed hypocrisy of Sarah Palin (and conservatives) for supporting abstinence-only education and family values generally in light of revelations concerning the pregnancy of her teenage daughter. It's only fair, then, that they should be called upon to explain their own hypocrisy in the compassion, privacy, gender and race departments.

Liberals are sick and tired of conservatives lecturing them about family values. Yet it is liberals who do most of the moralizing and sermonizing, seeming to derive their entire sense of superior self-worth in favorably comparing themselves with heartless, bigoted conservatives.

Liberals claim a monopoly on compassion for the poor, minorities, women and homosexuals. Yet when they get the chance to score political points, they abandon their allegiance to these groups as quickly as Barack Obama threw the Rev. Jeremiah Wright under the bus. Just ask Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice or Michael Steele.

Liberals are fed up with conservatives for trying to regulate their "private" behavior. Yet it is they who want to regulate every minute aspect of our lives, from smoking to eating to weapons to energy consumption to confiscatory taxation to health care to retirement security.

Liberals insist that what a public official does in his private life is irrelevant to his public fitness or conduct. Yet they're now telling us that the private conduct even of a relative of a conservative candidate is fair game.

Continue reading "Who's Being Hypocritical?"

Posted by redguy at 08:03 PM | TrackBack (0)

August 26, 2008

Party Unity, My, er, Eye

By: David Limbaugh

In one sense, it's incomprehensible that Barack Obama would forgo an opportunity to reunite his party by picking Hillary Clinton as his running mate. But in his place, wouldn't you be willing to sacrifice a little if it guaranteed you'd never have to view and smell Bill Clinton's sock feet propped up on the Oval Office desk?

But whatever will this messianic emissary of change do to unite his party? That is a legitimate question, is it not, since unity, harmony, love and bliss have been Obama's main campaign themes since his entry onto the presidential campaign stage?

How, inquiring minds wonder, can Obama join us all together -- bitter clingers and all -- in one big communal bond of sentimental good will if he can't even inspire unity in his own party?

That's unfair, you say? It's not his fault? It's those grudge-holding Clintons and their die-hard supporters who won't bury the hatchet?

Oh? I thought it was George W. Bush's fault that the countries of Old Europe wouldn't support the American efforts against Iraq. I thought it was Dubya's fault -- that evil, unilateralist, go-it-alone cowboy -- that the United Nations wouldn't do the right thing and enforce its own resolutions that Saddam Hussein had violated at will.

Continue reading "Party Unity, My, er, Eye"

Posted by redguy at 06:06 AM | TrackBack (0)

August 18, 2008

Pro-Choice McCain Veep Equals Political Suicide

By: David Limbaugh

I hate to rain on John McCain's parade right after he trounced Barack Obama at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church forum, for which I heartily applaud him, but McCain's trial balloon consideration of a pro-choice running mate demands a response.

The prospect of an Obama presidency is so horrifying that many conservatives have temporarily put aside their misgivings about McCain to focus on defeating Obama.

They hold their noses on McCain's immigration record, his campaign finance reform zealotry and his newfound acquiescence to the propaganda narrative of environmental extremists. But they are profoundly appreciative of his tougher stance against tax increases and mindful of his undeniable superiority over Obama on foreign policy and national defense. Recent world events, including Russia's naked aggression against Georgia, magnify this already-glaring contrast.

But while national defense necessarily occupies the front burner, McCain would make a fatal mistake to assume that social issues, especially abortion, are ever off an equally blazing front burner for an inestimable number of social conservatives, the Republicans' most reliable voting bloc over the past three decades.

Last Wednesday, McCain "floated the prospect" of picking a pro-choice running mate and said that former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge would be an acceptable -- and possible -- selection.

Continue reading "Pro-Choice McCain Veep Equals Political Suicide"

Posted by redguy at 09:35 PM | TrackBack (0)

August 14, 2008

Relentless Race Narrative

By: David Limbaugh

Sadly, there isn't the slightest chance liberals will forgo the race narrative in this presidential race because painting the other side as racist is essential to their need to feel morally superior.

They can't accept Obama's candidacy as evidence of progress toward racial equality. They can't permit the advancement of colorblindness because they sense it is detrimental both to their political interests and their self-esteem. After all, if liberals lost their self-anointment as moral paragons, they'd have nothing left because their policy agenda has the track record of an Edsel, with the exception that it won't ever be taken off the market.

A mainstream media favorite, MSNBC's Howard Fineman, in a piece criticizing McCain for allegedly painting Barack Obama as less American and patriotic than McCain, couldn't help but throw in a pointed reference to race.

In describing the attendees at a Pennsylvania event for McCain that McCain surrogate Joe Lieberman headlined, Fineman wrote: "The crowd comprised a slice of America that McCain needs if he intends to win Pennsylvania and the election. And that slice is: white (I did not spot a single African American in the crowd), rural, 'exurban,' and mostly Protestant, with local roots stretching back centuries."

See who always brings up this subject? What conservative would spend his time obsessing on skin color to the point of surveying the crowd for evidence of racial diversity? And what conservative would refer to American Caucasians as a "slice" of America, as if whites were some monolithic voting bloc?

Continue reading "Relentless Race Narrative"

Posted by redguy at 07:52 PM | TrackBack (0)

August 11, 2008

The 'Making Abortion Rare' Hoax

By: David Limbaugh

ABC reports that the group "Democrats for Life," whose title gives new meaning to "oxymoronic," decided last week not to press the Democratic Party to restore a life-tolerant "conscience clause" to its party platform. Isn't it time the party quit this charade that it wants to make abortion "rare"?

The "conscience clause," which appeared in the 1996 and 2000 platforms, at least paid lip service to tempering the platform's express support of a woman's "right to choose," stating: The "Democratic Party is a party of inclusion. We respect the individual conscience of each American on this difficult issue, and we welcome all our members to participate at every level of our party."

But the party ended all pretense of inclusion in 2004 by replacing the "conscience clause" with a statement that Democrats "stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine" abortion rights. And despite the obviously halfhearted efforts of Democrats for Life, the clause will also be absent from the 2008 platform.

As Democrats for Life's Director Kristen Day asked during the 2004 platform debate: "So what are they saying, that because we want to protect the rights of the unborn, our own party says we're automatically Republicans? This has to be one reason that our party is having trouble appealing to many people in churches."

Amen, Kristen. But perhaps instead you ought to be asking yourself why you are still a Democrat and why you gave up in 2008 with barely a whimper. Just how committed can you and your organization possibly be to protecting the lives of the unborn when you shamelessly roll over on the issue that presumably matters the most to you?

Continue reading "The 'Making Abortion Rare' Hoax"

Posted by redguy at 08:10 PM | TrackBack (0)

August 07, 2008

It's Obama's Viability, Not McCain's, That Should Surprise Us

By: David Limbaugh

The press is shocked that Barack Obama has "yet to close the sale," given the "political logic" that favors Democrats in this election. They must not have been paying attention during the final segment of the primary season, when Hillary Clinton consistently thrashed the hollow superstar.

That said, Obama's handlers betray not the slightest concern because they believe that despite the statistical tie in the polls, Obama's supporters are much more intense than McCain supporters. "That is going to mean more favorable turnout patterns; it is going to help us register voters; it is going to help us organizationally," said Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe.

Indeed, political analysts have been speculating for months now that Obama could transform presidential politics by energizing a whole new class of voters.

If that's true, McCain has his work cut out for him because the voters Obama is inspiring seem more enamored with his image than who he really is and what he stands for. Being largely apolitical and emotionally driven, they won't be as receptive to the ever-unfolding, troubling revelations about Obama.

While the media are stunned that Obama is not resonating in line with their expectations, others wonder how he can resonate at all, given his McGovernesque, leftist agenda and his damning associations with America-hating preachers (Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger), terrorists and radicals (William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn) and a mentor (Frank Davis) who was a member of the Moscow-controlled Communist Party USA and who, according to Investor's Business Daily, "fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his 'subversive,' 'un-American activities.'"

Continue reading "It's Obama's Viability, Not McCain's, That Should Surprise Us"

Posted by redguy at 05:59 PM | TrackBack (0)

August 04, 2008

Liberal Press Circles Wagons Around Obama

By: David Limbaugh

The liberal media are unhinged over John McCain's recent ad campaign against Barack Obama, which erased Obama's 9-point lead in the polls and tied the race. How dare McCain challenge their anointed one?

Obama is not the only one convinced he is "the one we've been waiting for." The media are also annoyed they have to endure this irritating uprising from McCain, who is officiously intermeddling with the inexorable flow of history.

Sunday show hosts, editorial pages, and both print and TV news stories this past weekend were pregnant with outrage over McCain's "negative" campaigning -- "negative" being defined as anything, truthful or not, that places Obama in a less favorable light than they require.

Their attitude toward Obama is not unlike their approach to the global warming issue: They accept the environmentalists' edict that man-made, apocalyptic warming is occurring, and no one is allowed to dissent.

So if McCain exposes Obama's policy inconsistencies, questions his character, highlights his presumptuousness, inexperience or superficiality, lampoons the media's crush on him, criticizes his injection of race into the campaign, or responds to Obama's attacks, the media yell "foul."

Continue reading "Liberal Press Circles Wagons Around Obama"

Posted by redguy at 09:11 PM | TrackBack (0)

July 29, 2008

Obama's Ongoing Foreign Policy Implosion

By: David Limbaugh

There is one unexpected gift that John McCain's presumptive nomination brings to the GOP. McCain was certainly not my choice, but if any other Republican candidate were running, it's unlikely we'd be seeing as much emphasis in the campaign on foreign policy, and Obama's unfolding incompetence in this area might have escaped essential scrutiny.

Democrats were no doubt looking to capitalize on the Iraq issue before it became apparent that the success of the surge had exceeded all but our most optimistic expectations. Because McCain is perceived as one of the most ardent proponents of the surge and Obama fiercely opposed it, Obama finds himself caught in a trap over the entire issue.

Obama's arguments, echoing the perennial anti-Iraq-war line Democrats have been peddling for years now, that we shouldn't have attacked Iraq in the first place are falling flat, given the radical reduction in violence levels the surge has produced. He is reduced to him-hawing, sputtering, spinning and misrepresenting his unequivocal opposition, which he was earlier showcasing -- during the Democratic primary season -- to contrast himself with chief rival Hillary Clinton.

In the process, Obama's worst attributes are coming to the fore: his pride and arrogance, which paralyze him from admitting any real weaknesses, such as his egregious foreign policy judgments, and his astounding shortcomings as a would-be commander in chief, starting with a profound naivete, inexperience and either ignorance or fundamental dishonesty.

Although liberals generally confer a presumption of sophistication and erudition on fellow left-wingers, they have to be shaking their heads in disbelief, wondering just what their nomination contest has wrought. They can't help but realize that Obama is proving himself daily to be woefully unprepared for the presidency.

Continue reading "Obama's Ongoing Foreign Policy Implosion"

Posted by redguy at 06:22 AM | TrackBack (0)

July 24, 2008

The New York Times and Liberal Fairness

By: David Limbaugh

I don't know which troubles me more: the liberal media's fawning over Barack Obama or the great number of people who are buying into his mystique so uncritically. But what bothers me more than either of these is the arrogance of the liberal press, which sadly is typical of so many liberals.

The media's deification of Obama is largely responsible for the perception that Obama is superhuman. Their coverage of his European tour -- the most breathtakingly presumptuous junket we've witnessed in American politics in ages -- is but the latest example.

How anyone can fall for the media's Obama rock star charade, given his repeated demonstrations of unfitness for the presidency, is a subject better suited for psychoanalysts.

But we can chalk up the media's irrational exuberance to their eagerness to have someone of like mind -- someone sufficiently socialistic and appeasement-oriented -- back in the Oval Office. With their insane aversion for President Bush and their craving for undefined change, it's hardly surprising they're blind to Obama's increasingly obvious flaws.

What's more difficult to stomach is their reckless obliviousness to their own close-mindedness, intolerance, unreasonableness and conceit -- and their mistaken projection of these attributes onto their conservative opponents.

Continue reading "The New York Times and Liberal Fairness"

Posted by redguy at 06:55 PM | TrackBack (0)

July 22, 2008

Obama: Milking His Failures

By: David Limbaugh

Isn't it enormously ironic that Barack Obama now finds himself the unintended beneficiary of the Iraq surge that he so vocally -- and wrongly -- opposed?

It seems that Obama's untimely calls for a withdrawal timetable have lingered long enough to have some merit in the eyes of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Al-Maliki told Der Spiegel, a German magazine, that U.S. troops should withdraw from Iraq "as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

Assuming al-Maliki said it, and there has been some dispute, it doesn't make Obama right -- even now. But it's hard to imagine al-Maliki would be saying anything helpful to Obama's campaign today if the United States had followed Obama's disgraceful surrender policy instead of implementing the surge in 2007 -- over his strenuous objections.

Obama Democrats have been adamantly opposed to our intervention in Iraq from the beginning, including when they voted for it for political expediency and then later claimed they were duped into it.

Continue reading "Obama: Milking His Failures"

Posted by redguy at 05:48 AM | TrackBack (0)

July 17, 2008

The Liberal Establishment's Race Race

By: David Limbaugh

One would have hoped that Barack Obama's presumptive capturing of the Democratic presidential nomination would have dampened the mainstream media's obsession with race, but instead, they've figured out a way to obsess even further about it since Obama's putative victory.

You almost can't read election headlines in a major newspaper without some reference to race issues. Earlier this week, Google News featured three back-to-back stories in its "Elections" section highlighting race:

"McCain looks to make gains among black voters," "Race, Foreign-Policy Plant Doubts for Obama" and "Poll Finds Obama Isn't Closing Divide on Race."

The last one is a New York Times article analyzing results from the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. It proves the Times just can't let race go, whether it's because of the liberal guilt of its reporters and editors or because they want to keep the racial pot stirred for purposes of newspaper sales or because they deem racial polarization advantageous to Obama.

The story's lead paragraph reads: "Americans are sharply divided by race heading into the first election in which an African-American will be a major-party presidential nominee, with blacks and whites holding vastly different views of Senator Barack Obama, the state of race relations and how black Americans are treated by society, according to the ... poll."

Continue reading "The Liberal Establishment's Race Race"

Posted by redguy at 11:33 PM | TrackBack (0)

July 14, 2008

Tony Snow

By: David Limbaugh

I can't pinpoint the precise date I met Tony Snow, but I remember it was over the telephone. We talked about one of his passions: radio. And we became fast friends. From that point on, we talked every few months, until about three or four months ago when I could only get his voice mail.

I knew something was up because he was always good about returning calls. Still, I probably would have chalked it up to his busy schedule, except that I read news reports that he was forced to cancel a number of speeches because of illness.

I remember e-mailing a few mutual friends: Lucianne Goldberg and Kathryn Lopez. Both shared similar concerns, but we were all cautiously relieved when follow-up news stories reported Tony was OK.

I had no idea Tony had taken a turn for the worse, so the news of his death Saturday completely shocked me. The last time I talked to Tony about his disease, he was entirely upbeat and optimistic.

In retrospect, I have to wonder whether he wasn't sparing some of his friends the extent of his illness because he never wanted to dwell on himself and certainly was never seeking sympathy.

Continue reading "Tony Snow"

Posted by redguy at 08:27 PM | TrackBack (0)

July 10, 2008

Ashamed of America?

By: David Limbaugh

Some say Obama's critics have taken their eye off the ball in focusing on his associations with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, thus giving his far-left policies a pass. But that's a false choice.

Those criticisms would have more validity but for the fact that Obama's associations and his approach to policy are inextricably intertwined, flowing from a particular -- and consistent -- mindset.

It's no accident that Obama sat for 20 years and had his children baptized in a church whose pastor revved up his congregation by denouncing America with expletives, that he had a working relationship with a professor who expressed pride in his past anti-American terrorism, or even that his wife admitted a first-time pride in the United States with the advent of her husband's electoral success.

Repeated references to Obama's close connections with these people and others are not drive-by attacks designed to incriminate Obama merely by association. Their purpose is to shine a spotlight on Obama to help determine whether he embraces or is sympathetic to the same negative views about America as his soul mates.

When you couple Obama's associations with his many statements and policies, a disturbing picture emerges, suggesting Obama might lack a robust pride in America -- at least in what he considers to be its present state. This point was driven home again this week, as Obama expressed "embarrassment" that American children can't speak foreign languages while European children can speak English.

Continue reading "Ashamed of America?"

Posted by redguy at 08:30 PM | TrackBack (0)

July 07, 2008

Behind Enemy Lines

By: David Limbaugh

While everyone is focusing on Barack Obama's shifting positions on issues such as campaign finance, NAFTA, telecom immunity and Iraq, we're missing his incursion into enemy territory to capture those reviled, though politically coveted values voters.

His recent proposal to adopt a modified version of President Bush's faith-based initiative is just another piece of his strategic plan to seduce evangelical voters to his cause.

Obama is aiming for a threefer: wooing values voters, reconciling with small-town Americans, and neutralizing the taint of Jeremiah Wright and turning the religious issue into a net plus for his campaign. Hey, no one says this guy is politically naive.

You see, most liberals aren't really concerned about the intermixture of church and state unless it involves the Christian church, and only then if it involves the promotion of biblically based ideas and values. They have no problem with the government's endorsement of the values of other religions, New Age, or secular humanism. Even the state's or politicians' endorsement of nominally Christian values don't bother them, as long as they are watered down enough to detach them from any legitimate connection to Bible-centered Christianity and reframed to embrace the secular liberal worldview.

Continue reading "Behind Enemy Lines"

Posted by redguy at 08:54 PM | TrackBack (0)

July 03, 2008

Obama Protesteth Too Much

By: David Limbaugh

Sen. Barack Obama spoke on the subject of patriotism this past week in an effort to undo some of the damage he has already inflicted on his own image -- through his associations, his statements and policy positions -- and to obscure his liberalism.

Liberals rightly feel defensive about their patriotism because they always seem to find themselves blaming the United States for this or that, exhorting us to be more like the "enlightened" nations of Europe or forever shouting that we are a "laughing stock" in the eyes of other nations.

It was not a conservative who wrote in an editorial this week: "Tuck the soaring speeches in a drawer for another time. This year, America doesn't deserve to celebrate its birthday. This Fourth of July should be a day of quiet and atonement. For we have sinned."

It was Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Chris Satullo, who, like so many liberals, is angry at America because he sees it as standing for torturing prisoners, imprisoning enemy combatants without hearings, rendition and other denials of human rights. According to Satullo, America isn't safer because our alleged abuses have "spawned new enemies by the thousands, made the jihadist rants ring true to so many ears. So put out no flags. Sing no patriotic hymns. We deserve no Fourth this year."

Sorry, but you just don't hear much of this type of rhetoric from conservatives. And Obama and the entire Democratic establishment know it.

Continue reading "Obama Protesteth Too Much"

Posted by redguy at 07:39 PM | TrackBack (0)

June 30, 2008

Obama's Leftist Armies

By: David Limbaugh

Be afraid; be very afraid. If you think Barack Obama is arrogant and leftist, you ought to see those he will have to cater to if elected -- and, according to them, even to get elected in the first place.

These leftist "netroots" are none too pleased with Obama's feint to the center the past few weeks, his "capitulation" on retroactive immunity for telecoms for cooperating with the government to monitor terrorist communications, his alleged disagreement with the Supreme Court for invalidating the death penalty for child rapists, and his flip-flop on the D.C. handgun case.

They are abuzz about the messiah's apparent abandonment of their orthodoxy. Interestingly, though, not many of the complainers really believe Obama has left them. Like Obama's longtime pastor, Jeremiah Wright, they realize Obama is quite willing to mask his inner self to get elected. But many are disgusted that he's even playing the game.

One blogger at The Huffington Post writes: "Sen. Barack Obama is risking his brand as a political reformer, according to reports today in the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. In recent weeks, he has moderated or changed positions on a number of politically-charged issues, leading to criticism from demoralized Democratic activists."

Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, added, "I've been struck by the speed and decisiveness of his move to the center."

Continue reading "Obama's Leftist Armies"

Posted by redguy at 07:39 PM | TrackBack (0)

June 26, 2008

Evolving Standards of Indecency

By: David Limbaugh

The Supreme Court's barring of the death penalty for child rapists in Kennedy v. Louisiana underscores the hazards in the court's abandonment of moral absolutes in favor of "evolving standards of decency" and the court's unbridled arrogance in substituting its subjective judgment for the legislatively enacted will of the people.

In Kennedy, the court reversed the decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court to uphold the capital punishment of a convicted child rapist, holding that the Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual punishment clause prohibits executing such offenders "where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in the victim's death."

A United States Supreme Court with a majority of Constitution-respecting justices would have evaluated the Louisiana statute in light of the originally understood meaning of the cruel and unusual punishment clause.

Instead, today's sometimes Obama-inclined liberal activist majority subordinated to the lowest rung the clause's original meaning in favor of "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."

And how does the majority identify that new, enlightened standard applicable to child rape cases not resulting or intended to result in death?

Continue reading "Evolving Standards of Indecency"

Posted by redguy at 09:26 PM | TrackBack (0)

June 23, 2008

It's Only About Winning

By: David Limbaugh

The Washington Post reports that Sen. Barack Obama is aggressively trying to reintroduce himself to voters, echoing the spin of Obama's advisers that not everyone knows him yet. In reality, Obama's major campaign challenge will not be to reveal, but to conceal his true identity.

Obama is not trying to introduce himself to unreached voters, but is engaged in damage control with many he's already reached -- and insulted and disillusioned.

As long as he was soaring above the fray with the lofty rhetoric of hope, change and unity, Obama could masquerade as a quasi-messiah figure. But once forced into the nitty-gritty of contested issues and debates, his false visage began to crack. Those cracks expanded into campaign-threatening fissures when voters learned about Obama's sordid associations and left-wing elitist snobbery toward small-town America.

The Post says that in his reintroduction, Obama has "offered a clear road map for the kind of candidate he is likely to become...: an ambitious gamer of the electoral map, a ruthless fundraiser and a scrupulous manager of his own biography in the face of persistent concerns about how he is perceived."

What the Post left out is that Obama has also shown himself to be an unscrupulous master of the politics of calculation and expedience. Whether on public finance, NAFTA, Iran, Iraq, Jerusalem, special interests, Cuba, illegal immigration or the decriminalization of marijuana, Obama has demonstrated a propensity for flip-flopping that could embarrass the grandmaster himself, Sen. John Kerry.

Continue reading "It's Only About Winning"

Posted by redguy at 07:12 PM | TrackBack (0)

June 19, 2008

Ravi Zacharias: 'Beyond Opinion,' Part 2

By: David Limbaugh

In my most recent column, I introduced you to "Beyond Opinion," a Christian apologetics book, edited by Ravi Zacharias, that offers suggestions on how to approach the skeptic, depending on the skeptic's background or reasons for doubt or non-belief. Before leaving the subject, let me give you a stronger flavor of this interesting apologetics method and this fascinating book.

Ravi tells us an effective apologetic "pays very close attention not just to the question but to the questioner. That, in turn, leads to the relevance of the answer." He cites Jesus' walk on the Emmaus road as an instructive example.

The disciples find themselves walking with the risen Lord, wholly oblivious to his identity and telling him -- with unmatched irony -- that he must be the only one in the world unaware of what had happened in the past few days (Jesus' death and resurrection), when, in fact, he was the only one who fully comprehended it and its significance.

Instead of just dramatically proclaiming, "It is I," Jesus "explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself." Why did he take that approach? It's not that he hadn't proclaimed his identity at other times, e.g., John 4:26. Rather, "Jesus did what was needed in this moment: he pointed out to these two disciples a vast context of fifteen hundred years to show why the event on Calvary had to take place."

Among other things, he opened their eyes to understand why their presuppositions clouded their vision of who he was. They were expecting the Messiah to bring political deliverance, crushing their Roman oppressors. Instead, they crucified him. But he showed them he had come to offer a different kind of deliverance, which only his sacrificial death could achieve. As an apologist, it's best if you -- like Jesus -- approach people mindful of their circumstances and their possible presuppositions.

Continue reading "Ravi Zacharias: 'Beyond Opinion,' Part 2"

Posted by redguy at 09:21 PM | TrackBack (0)

June 16, 2008

Ravi Zacharias: 'Beyond Opinion'

By: David Limbaugh

As a former skeptic, I have a particular interest in Christian apologetics: the defense of the Christian faith. I've read and recommended many excellent books on the subject but want to call your special attention to one I've most recently read because of the uniqueness of its approach and content.

"Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith We Defend" is a compilation of essays by renowned Christian apologists compiled and edited by my friend and Christian philosopher and apologist, Ravi Zacharias, that together "suggest a new vision for Christian apologetics in this century."

I love apologetics because it helped me overcome certain intellectual hurdles that I believed, rightly or wrongly, were obstructing my faith. As I delved into the subject, I was immensely gratified to learn that most of my doubts and questions had been asked and answered by biblical scholars who embraced, rather than dismissed, such challenges.

If, for example, you can't reconcile the notion that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God could permit evil and suffering in the world, you might be surprised to discover that your concerns are hardly new. Such questions have troubled people for millennia. Brilliant and scholarly works exist addressing such questions, as well as seemingly problematic scriptural passages.

Continue reading "Ravi Zacharias: 'Beyond Opinion'"

Posted by redguy at 08:37 PM | TrackBack (0)

June 09, 2008

McCain's Potentially Fatal 'Exit, Stage Right'

By: David Limbaugh

Sen. McCain could be making a fatal strategic blunder in thinking he can cobble together a winning coalition in November via the unorthodox route (for a Republican) of courting moderates and jilting the conservative base, including Christian conservatives.

It's possible that McCain will win in November, but if that happens, it will more likely be a result of Obama beating himself -- assuming Obama's campaign doesn't disintegrate before he formally secures the nomination.

McCain must begin with the bad news that his historic appeal to centrist voters is in jeopardy in two major ways. The first concerns Obama's natural fit with these voters. His mythical narrative that he can unify Americans and usher in an era of "hope" will be irresistible to many who are hungrier for kumbaya than any particular policy agenda.

Second, McCain's favorable image among centrists could disappear as quickly as the mainstream media withdraws its opportunistic love for him -- a process that has already begun. Their affinity for McCain was purely a function of his being a thorn in the side to President Bush, Republicans and conservative causes. But now that he is the GOP presidential candidate, he represents the evil Republican Party, which must be destroyed at all costs.

If this weren't enough, he is running -- how dare he? -- against their chosen messiah, Barack Obama. If they turned on Hillary Clinton over it, McCain is way beyond crisp toast. This heretical challenge to the savior from a Republican will not be tolerated.

Continue reading "McCain's Potentially Fatal 'Exit, Stage Right'"

Posted by redguy at 08:41 PM | TrackBack (0)

June 05, 2008

The Arrogance of Obama's Leftist Supporters

By: David Limbaugh

It's interesting that the main people pushing Obama in the name of unity and civility are the same ones brutally trashing Hillary (and Bill) Clinton. They seem to have no sense of their own hypocrisy in defending the Clintons yesterday for far greater misconduct than that for which they are mercilessly excoriating them today in their editorials and so-called news reporting.

The hypocrisy and absence of self-reflection of this group -- mostly the mainstream media and the leftist cabal of the Democratic Party -- is born of its profound arrogance. This arrogance is also evident in the striking incoherence of their assumption that Obama can be a unifying force while working to change America in ways that are repugnant to a large plurality, if not a majority, of Americans.

You have to recognize that something about this group is just not natural when its members, such as MSNBC's Chris Matthews, can say without embarrassment that Obama sends shivers up his leg or when swooning crowds of supporters faint in his presence.

The group's obliviousness is demonstrated in its stunning state of denial over Obama's virtual free fall since the revelations about his associations with such unsavory characters as Tony Rezko and William Ayers and his longtime membership in a Christian church whose pastors and theology seem more race-oriented than Christ-centered.

You would think these fawning zealots would take notice of the backlash against Obama since he issued his outrageously divisive critique of small-town America as embittered gun- and Bible-clingers. But their Obama-intoxication blinded them to seeing anything other than that Obama still had an insuperable lead in the delegate count.

Continue reading "The Arrogance of Obama's Leftist Supporters"

Posted by redguy at 09:19 PM | TrackBack (0)

June 02, 2008

Obama's Unity Charade

By: David Limbaugh

The $64 million question is how long Barack Obama can carry forward this ruse that he is a uniter, when he has placed himself in a climate that is, at the very least, quite accommodating to an anti-white racist perspective, vulgarity and anti-Americanism. How many more shoes can drop without Obama's presidential quest completely imploding?

It strained credulity that Obama could have been unaware of the toxic environment of his Trinity United Church of Christ and its pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Actually, that didn't pass the laugh test.

But now we have the Rev. Michael Pfleger bursting on the scene -- the scene being the now-infamous Trinity Church -- and spewing the most offensive, racially charged remarks imaginable.

Truly, if Obama weren't the protected darling of the mainstream media and if the Democrats were not horrified of losing their monopolistic hold on the African-American vote, superdelegates would abandon Obama in stampedes -- yesterday.

Have you watched the video of the Rev. Pfleger's racist bilge before Obama's former congregation? Just as importantly, did you witness the approving reaction of the congregation? After all, as I said at the time the Rev. Jeremiah Wright tapes surfaced, what was as disturbing as Wright's tirades was the congregation's approving reaction.

Continue reading "Obama's Unity Charade"

Posted by redguy at 09:35 PM | TrackBack (0)

May 29, 2008

McCain and National Security

By: David Limbaugh

I'm aware of the widely held assumption that John McCain's path to victory in November requires him to capture a healthy percentage of independents and even Democrats. But his strategy could backfire if he doesn't restrain his urge to betray conservatives.

Because of his military record, his POW experiences and his pro-defense Senate record, McCain has a decided advantage over Barack Obama on national security, the most important issue for many voters and plenty important for the rest, as well.

Even McCain's outspoken support of the "unpopular" Iraq war, ironically, adds to his favorable national security image. This despite the Democrats' propagandizing against the war, their attempt to sever it conceptually from the overall war on terror, and their phony yet persistent argument that we've diverted resources away from fighting al-Qaida. The Democratic Party goes into any election with the burden of proving it can be trusted with power during times of war.

Yet for all our talk about McCain's comparative advantage on national security, many conservatives are nevertheless mystified at some of McCain's anomalous positions on the war on terror and his penchant for moving to the left here, as in so many other areas. Of all policy areas, you would think McCain could score a 100 percent among conservatives on national security, but his apparent desire for mainstream media approval and his addiction to projecting an image of unpredictability must be overwhelming.

Just this week, The Washington Post reported that McCain appears to be flip-flopping on his earlier position in favor of granting telecoms immunity for cooperating with President Bush in Bush's warrantless surveillance program to monitor terrorist activities. McCain has always sided with conservatives to deny the liberal trial lawyers their bonanza in going after these companies for rising to the president's call.

Continue reading "McCain and National Security"

Posted by redguy at 07:16 PM | TrackBack (0)

May 28, 2008

McCain Takes Obama to School on Iraq

By: David Limbaugh

On Monday, John McCain wisely urged Barack Obama to join him in visiting Iraq, something Obama hasn't done since 2006, when he declared the war lost. This is exactly what McCain ought to be doing: taking it to Obama on an issue that appears to favor Obama but in reality favors McCain.

In thrashing President Bush over Iraq since before we invaded, the mainstream media and the Democratic Party have succeeded in convincing much of the public that the war is a failure and that we must withdraw immediately. The propaganda effort has been so relentless that this perception remains to a great extent, even after the dramatic turnaround occasioned by the surge. But this is primarily because the media do their best to suppress any good news coming out of Iraq.

According to Karlyn Bowman, a public opinion researcher at American Enterprise Institute, while polls indicate a majority of Americans believe the war in Iraq was a mistake (also thanks to the Dems and the MSM), they also believe substantial progress has been made because of the surge. Surprisingly -- you'd never hear this emphasized by the MSM -- only 18 to 20 percent of Americans consistently say we should remove our troops now.

A Quinnipiac University poll conducted May 8-12 basically validates Bowman, saying 22 percent believe we should withdraw ASAP, compared to 48 percent who believe we should set a timetable and 28 percent who insist we should keep troops there as long as needed.

Continue reading "McCain Takes Obama to School on Iraq"

Posted by redguy at 05:41 AM | TrackBack (0)

May 23, 2008

The Real Obama OR Change We Don't Dare Believe In

By: David Limbaugh

Columnist Robert Novak reports that John McCain will not yield to Barack Obama's efforts to shame him into running a vanilla campaign. Instead, he says, McCain is lining up crack research operatives. Interestingly, their charge is not to gather dirt on Obama per se, but "to focus on the real Barack Obama." From where I'm sitting, that looks like one whale of a target-rich environment.

That is, McCain's operatives don't have to dig up dirt on Obama to damage his chances; they merely have to dig through the facade and uncover the real Obama. Even with the damning revelations concerning his association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and former terrorist William Ayers, I suspect Obama explorers have barely scratched the surface.

While Obama will continue to complain that an examination into his associations is dirty politics, it is anything but. We are known by the company we keep, and this goes for applicants for leader of the Free World as well.

But in Obama's case, the McCain researchers will just be getting started with Obama's sordid associations. Where he's really vulnerable -- the area where he most doesn't want you to find out who he really is -- is on policy.

Given his George Soros brand of extreme leftism, Obama will do his best to conceal his real policy self, except to the San Francisco environmental- and social-issues anarchists, the arts and croissants crowd of the Northeast Corridor, and the neo-Marxist professorial elite in academe. Of course, now that he knows microphones and bloggers can pop up anywhere, he won't even feel comfortable letting his guard down in these friendly venues to edify us about such things as small-town bitterology.

Continue reading "The Real Obama OR Change We Don't Dare Believe In"

Posted by redguy at 05:53 AM | TrackBack (0)

May 19, 2008

Over the Top Barack

By: David Limbaugh

Based on Barack Obama's hysterical, paranoid reaction to President Bush's remarks to the Israeli Knesset condemning the practice of appeasing terrorists, one might infer Obama was lying in wait for just such an opportunity to capture some national security street cred.

After all, Democrats begin any presidential race with a national security credibility deficit, and this one should be no different, notwithstanding the unpopularity of the Iraq war. Democrats like to think they gained congressional seats in 2006 because of the war, but a better read is that Republicans did themselves in through reckless spending, scandals and other abandonment of conservative principles.

Despite his puffed-up posturing, Obama probably recognizes this, as well. Otherwise, why would he have lashed out so nastily at both Mr. Bush (and Sen. McCain) for assuring our closest Middle Eastern ally that we would stand by it?

Obama was so sure Bush's remarks were aimed at him that he shed his nice-guy facade and gave the nation a little glimpse of his inner anger. For those who insist Obama is all sweet and light, I challenge you to listen to his tantrums in response to the president's non-attack.

Obama shouted: "I'm a strong believer in bipartisan foreign policy, but that cause is not served with dishonest, divisive attacks of the sort that we've seen out of George Bush and John McCain over the last couple days. They aren't telling you the truth."

Continue reading "Over the Top Barack"

Posted by redguy at 05:53 PM | TrackBack (0)

May 15, 2008

None Dare Call It 'Appeasement'

By: David Limbaugh

Let me get this straight. It's perfectly fair for Barack Obama and his cohorts to repeatedly disparage President Bush's foreign policy as "cowboy diplomacy" but unspeakably horrific for Bush to analogize the Democrats' approach to foreign policy to appeasing Hitler?

When Obama compared Hillary Clinton's threats against Iran to President Bush's threatening "bluster" and "cowboy diplomacy," no one batted an eye.

But when Mr. Bush, in addressing Israel's
Knesset, compared those who want to negotiate with today's terrorists and tyrants to an American senator in 1939 who lamented that Hitler's march into Poland might have been avoided "if only I could have talked to Hitler," Obama, other Democrats and the mainstream media went ballistic.

What's wrong with the president assuring our major Middle East ally that, under his watch at least, America will stand by it against our common enemies, such as the Holocaust-denying Iranian regime?

Well, plenty, if you listen to Democrats and the MSM. If President Bush is articulating a position with which they don't agree, he is politicizing foreign policy -- an unforgivable sin. Never mind that Democrats not only have been politicizing foreign policy for the past seven years but also undermining our official policies in the process. Jimmy Carter’s intermeddling with Hamas, Nancy Pelosi's junket to Syria and trips to Iraq by other Democratic members of Congress to sabotage U.S. policy are but several egregious examples.

CNN immediately went into overdrive to protest President Bush's "smearing" of Obama. They also likened it to John McCain's alleged smear of Obama in accurately reporting that Obama was Hamas' choice for president.

Continue reading "None Dare Call It 'Appeasement'"

Posted by redguy at 08:32 PM | TrackBack (0)

May 08, 2008

In Fairness to Hillary

By: David Limbaugh

The question, my fellow election watchers, is not, "Why won't Hillary do the honorable thing and quit?" but "Why won't Democrats do the honorable thing and quit trying to force her to?"

Did Democrats make Ted Kennedy quit when he fought Jimmy Carter through the Democratic convention in 1980 in an effort to dislodge pledged delegates though Carter had already secured a majority? That was far worse than anything Hillary is doing.

Until one of the candidates secures the magic number of delegates (a majority) -- and that number is a moving target, given the limbo status of Florida and Michigan -- there is no nominee. A plurality won't cut it.

Nor is the candidate with the most pledged delegates automatically entitled to the nod of the superdelegates or even most of them. The superdelegates are free agents, who may choose either candidate for any reason.

The superdelegate system was designed to give the superdelegates maximum prerogative, which only makes sense because the party bosses established it to ensure their own control over the nomination process. The whole idea was to give them the power to substitute their judgment for the will of the people if, in their political omniscience, they determine the people's choice to be not prudent.

Well, Democrats made their own bed. Just because they've encountered a recalcitrant candidate who will not march to their orders, they can't suddenly change the rules in the middle of the election -- a lesson they should have learned in Florida in 2000 -- and force the superdelegates to follow the pledged delegates. Free means free. The candidates may lobby for the supers' votes just as if, collectively, the supers were the last state.

Continue reading "In Fairness to Hillary"

Posted by redguy at 10:03 PM | TrackBack (0)

May 06, 2008

Is Barack a Team(ster) Player?

By: David Limbaugh

Almost every week, a new damaging story emerges about Barack Obama. Lucky for this wounded "messiah" that his disciples in the mainstream media neglect, until the last possible minute, their duty to investigate these reports. This week, there's a brand-new one, which has surfaced too late to affect the critically important Indiana and North Carolina primaries, but demands scrutiny nonetheless.

The Wall Street Journal -- admittedly a mainstream media outlet, save the editorial page -- has started the ball rolling on this one with a May 5 article examining the possible reasons behind the International Brotherhood of Teamsters' endorsement of Obama. We'll have to see whether Barack's disciples follow up.

The public line -- both of Obama and the Teamsters -- is that Obama secured the union's support by strongly condemning NAFTA, which the Teamsters believe results in the exportation of jobs. Hillary Clinton has been critical of NAFTA, as well, and even says she opposed it from the beginning. But her assertion is almost as incredible as the Bosnian sniper-fire tale because she and her two-for-one co-president were instrumental in bringing the trade agreement to fruition.

So NAFTA might be a factor, though Obama doesn't completely toe the line on protectionism, favoring certain smaller-scale agreements the Teamsters oppose. He also opposes expanded oil drilling in Alaska against the preferences of the union and favors comprehensive immigration reform over strenuous Teamsters objection. So what does Barack have over Hillary, besides her lateness to the party in opposing NAFTA?

The Journal tells us on page A1, "Sen. Barack Obama won the endorsement of the Teamsters earlier this year after privately telling the union he supported ending the strict federal oversight imposed to root out corruption, according to officials from the union and the Obama campaign."

Whoa! What's this all about?

Continue reading "Is Barack a Team(ster) Player?"

Posted by redguy at 06:57 AM | TrackBack (0)

May 01, 2008

'Willful Blindness' to the Jihad

By: David Limbaugh

You might expect the lead prosecutor against the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to tout the criminal justice system as the premier strategy to fight terrorism. If so, you're wrong.

It is precisely because of Andy McCarthy's experience in that capacity that he understands -- in a way others can't -- the crippling limitations of law enforcement and criminal prosecutions in combating global terrorism.

Though he led the Justice Department prosecution team that convicted Omar Abdel Rahman, the "Blind Sheik," McCarthy is painfully aware that "as a class, baby-boom attorneys know nothing of war. Prosecutors included." Even this successful effort left way too many militants in place and encouraged the idea that they could attack us with impunity.

The entire orientation of the criminal justice system is to protect the rights of innocents, affording the accused due process and a litany of other constitutional protections. But we are at war with an enemy who doesn't fight wars according to conventional rules. If we continue to treat them as criminal suspects rather than enemy combatants, they'll always be many steps ahead of us in a war that only they are fighting. While our government frets over their constitutional rights -- rights to which enemy combatants have never been historically entitled -- it abdicates its duty to protect American lives.

Before the 9/11 attacks, we simply did not understand that Islamic terrorists had declared war against the United States and that to have any chance in this war, we'd have to engage them militarily.

Continue reading "'Willful Blindness' to the Jihad"

Posted by redguy at 08:26 PM | TrackBack (0)

April 28, 2008

The Rev. Wright Just Can't Help Himself

By: David Limbaugh

When it comes to the connection between Barack Obama and his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright -- or to John McCain's various positions on whether criticizing Obama for his relationship with Wright is fair game -- my head is spinning.

At first, the Obama defenders said Jeremiah Wright doesn't speak for Obama. Not only have Obama's ill-wishers taken Wright's statements out of context but they have unfairly imputed those statements to Obama.

Next, we witnessed the beginning of the Jeremiah Wright rehabilitation tour. He appeared on Bill Moyers' show, endeavoring to present himself as a calm, reasonable person whose statements had been twisted against him.

Then he spoke at the Detroit NAACP dinner. Forgive me if I have a different take than most Wright critics, but I read the transcript of the Detroit speech in its entirety and did not detect too much, if any, incendiary language.

Wright presented a rather innocuous talk about the differences in human beings and how our differences do not mean certain groups are deficient -- "just different." His theme seemed to be that we should strive to overlook people's differences and work toward reconciliation because we are all made in God's image. Bravo. Who could object to that?

In his speech the next morning at the National Press Club, Obama continued with that theme, which was fine as far as it went. But alas, he couldn't help dipping his foot a little further into the waters of controversy.

Continue reading "The Rev. Wright Just Can't Help Himself"

Posted by redguy at 07:54 PM | TrackBack (0)

April 25, 2008

It's Barack, Like It or Not

By: David Limbaugh

Loyal Democrats should be grateful to Hillary Clinton, the Energizer Bunny of presidential politics, for her perseverance. Had she not stayed in the race against enormous pressure to bow out in favor of the media's anointed one, Democrats would have ended up nominating that "seriously flawed" candidate.

But wait. They're almost destined to anyway. They have little choice. How can they avoid nominating Barack Obama -- no matter how compromised he has become?

Just consider the magnitude of the Democrats' dilemma. They desperately want to regain the White House. They believed, as did political oddsmakers, the stars were lining up to make 2008 their banner year for both the presidential and congressional elections. Barack Obama had emerged as seemingly the most impressive candidate in years.

But when things seem too good to be true, they usually are. There was no way Obama could measure up to the supernatural image his supporters and the media painted of him. But little did we know that he would crash so far and so fast, that he was not only not messianic but also, like Hillary, "seriously flawed," in the words of Washington Post columnist David Broder.

Despite Obama's string of successes, he hasn't been able to win any major states, except for his home state of Illinois. He got blown out in Pennsylvania, even against the other "seriously flawed" candidate, who recently reminded voters, via sniper tall tales, of her propensity to prevaricate.

Continue reading "It's Barack, Like It or Not"

Posted by redguy at 05:42 AM | TrackBack (0)

April 21, 2008

Beware: Obamutopia

By: David Limbaugh

Barack Obama, stubbornly clinging to his right to be charismatically shallow, at first complained that Hillary Clinton was unfairly criticizing him for being all flair and fluff with no substance. Now he's upset that Clinton and the media won't let him discuss substance. Based on some of his speeches lately, I'm thinking he ought to be grateful for the diversion because his policy proposals might not survive serious scrutiny.

Maybe it's unfair to interpret literally Obama's repeated stump speech assertion that we Americans aren't perfect but are "perfectible" and conclude he possesses a New Age or secular humanist worldview rather than a Christian one, which clearly rejects the notion of man's perfectibility.

Then again, his policy proposals do sound strikingly utopian -- almost as if he's saying we truly can achieve perfection, end poverty, eradicate health care problems, establish universal harmony, legislate away all corruption, and attain wholesale energy independence without, by the way, liberating ourselves from the shackles of enviro-policemen, who forbid us from exploiting our own resources.

Obama's pitch to fawning audiences is so hopelessly idealistic and his promises so painfully unrealistic that it's amazing he's taken as seriously as he is.

If George W. Bush were to deliver the pap Obama routinely includes in his speeches, he'd be laughed off the stage. "Saturday Night Live" skits would be hard-pressed to exaggerate the vacuousness of his utterances. In fact, I'd be surprised if sympathetic journalists weren't cleaning up Obama's quotes before publishing them. But YouTube isn't so forgiving. "We believe we can change, and that's the kind of hope I'm talking about."

Continue reading "Beware: Obamutopia"

Posted by redguy at 09:21 PM | TrackBack (0)

April 18, 2008

Mainstream Media Oblivious to Relevancy of Many Obama-gates

By: David Limbaugh

The dirty little secret about Barack Obama's indictment of flyover country is that he said what liberals, including Hillary Clinton, believe. Sufficient proof of this can be found in the liberal outrage at Wednesday night's Democratic presidential debate, where Obama was pressed both by the moderators and Clinton to explain Bitter-gate, Wright-gate, Ayers-gate and Flag pin-gate.

Consider the uncannily similar reactions of columnists Tom Shales and Stephen Silver.

Shales expressed indignation that ABC News moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos would dare ask Obama to justify his insulting remarks about small-town Americans and his relationships with certain anti-American people.

Shale's fumed, "For the first 52 minutes … Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with."

Shales was particularly perturbed that Stephanopoulos "came up with such tired tripe as a charge that Obama once associated with a nutty bomb-throwing anarchist."

Continue reading "Mainstream Media Oblivious to Relevancy of Many Obama-gates"

Posted by redguy at 05:35 AM | TrackBack (0)

April 15, 2008

Obama's Projections of Bitterness

By: David Limbaugh

One of the silver linings of the mostly dismal presidential campaign has been that Democrats have finally come to see -- perhaps admit is a better word -- that the Clintons are pathological and ruthless power addicts. But that late-coming epiphany looks increasingly irrelevant, as the ascendancy of Barack Obama delivers a whole new set of deeply troubling concerns.

Democrats -- all but committed to this fresh, charismatic figure -- are forced to deny or downplay the almost daily revelations about Obama that would have derailed less promising candidates already. But they have to be concerned.

Given Obama's uncompromising liberalism, it was only a matter of time before his pretense toward unity and bipartisanship would be exposed for the mirage that it is. The contentiousness of the Democratic contest has just accelerated the process.

As these damaging items slowly dripped out about Obama, he was able to brush them aside dismissively. You'll recall his refusal to wear a flag pin, his categorical statement that "it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons under any circumstances," his assessment that the lives of our fallen soldiers in Iraq have been "wasted," his mindless promise to withdraw troops from Iraq according to an irresponsibly arbitrary timetable, and his naive remark that he would attach no preconditions to negotiating with the tyrants of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

The cumulative force of Obama's common-themed actions and statements would have compelled even a statistician to doubt they could be attributed to coincidence. Wasn't an objective pattern emerging to suggest that Obama would hardly be the fiercest guardian of America's national security interests?

Continue reading "Obama's Projections of Bitterness"

Posted by redguy at 05:36 AM | TrackBack (0)

April 10, 2008

National Security Is THE Issue

By: David Limbaugh

While there is plenty of room for robust debate about Iraq, what concerns me is that the direction of this discussion has, ironically, taken our eyes off the real ball, which is our national security.

Don't get me wrong. I believe the Iraq war has everything to do with our national security. How we proceed -- whether we maintain sufficient forces there to ensure the nation's long-term stability or prematurely withdraw with reckless disregard for the consequences -- is critically relevant to our national security.

But instead of focusing on the national security implications, we are perennially bogged down in quibbling over the partisan flash points of whether we should have attacked Iraq in the first place or whether we're being perceived as liberators or imperialists.

Have any of the Democratic presidential candidates ever been asked, for example, whether they've considered the consequences of withdrawing our troops according to an arbitrary time schedule they have fashioned for political purposes?

They are forever excused for dodging this question on the illogical basis that the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal are not their responsibility. They didn't get us into this war in the first place (allowing here, of course, for a willing suspension of disbelief as to Hillary's assertion that she was deceived into voting for the Iraq war resolution).

Continue reading "National Security Is THE Issue"

Posted by redguy at 09:05 PM | TrackBack (0)

April 08, 2008

Democratic Presidential Magic Goes Poof

By: David Limbaugh

The Democratic primary contest has degenerated from a perceived battle between the party's highest ranked superheavyweights to a fight for survival between two badly damaged club fighters.

In its early phases the campaign featured only "Hillary, the Entitled." Her inevitability had been decreed by party powers still operating under the deluded assumption that the Clinton years inspired mostly positive images, especially those of economic prosperity.

Sure, there was Bill's baggage, but the country had rejected the Republicans' attitude toward it when it punished them in the 1998 congressional elections, right? The mainstream media instantly dubbed it a "referendum on impeachment," though an equally reasonable interpretation was that the GOP losses were in line with historical midterm election trends.

But there is no denying that Bill Clinton is the only Democrat to have held the presidency since Jimmy Carter -- that's 28 years. He is the only guy that consistently stuck it to the Republicans with success, despite being politically crippled. There had to be magic with this guy -- with the Clintons.

The Clintons had become the only symbol of victory for Democrats. Even Al Gore couldn't make it to the White House when he'd won -- according to Democratic propaganda -- the 2000 election. Nor could John Kerry dispose of this Dubyah "dunce" in 2004, even with the aid of equally entrenched Democratic myths that Bush lied about Iraqi WMD, had made himself king and had destroyed our civil liberties.

Continue reading "Democratic Presidential Magic Goes Poof"

Posted by redguy at 05:47 AM | TrackBack (0)

April 04, 2008

Clintons -- MSM Whiplash Victims

By: David Limbaugh

Hillary and Bill Clinton must be beside themselves over the way the mainstream media has treated them this presidential election cycle. If they were glass-half-full types, the power couple would be counting their blessings that this treatment didn't kick in when Bill was committing and covering up his felonies.

Had the MSM been scrutinizing and exposing the Clintons' behavior in the '90s, it's very possible Bill never would have survived his impeachment ordeal. Imagine how different it would have been had the MSM focused their investigative microscopes and analytical energies on Hillary's cattle futures bonanza; the indefensible disappearance of her law firm billing records; her heartless and capricious firings of White House travel office personnel to benefit her friends; Bill's unconscionable, unsolicited pardons of FALN terrorist inmates to shore up the Hispanic vote for Hillary's New York Senate campaign; the endless trail of corruption with Red China and North Korea; the credible rape and sexual assault allegations against Bill coupled with Hillary's collusion in defusing the "bimbo eruptions"; and much more.

What a difference a few years and the advent of a promising young liberal candidate such as Barack Obama make. Now that the media have chosen sides in favor of Obama, they've lifted their protection for the Clintons, and we're getting a glimpse of the vulnerability of the Clintons when they're separated from their MSM bodyguards.

Not long ago, the MSM was heralding Bill as the first black president, with no apparent awareness of the absurdity of this caricature. Today they're showcasing his race-baiting antics in the primaries, making no effort to obscure, rationalize or apologize for them.

Continue reading "Clintons -- MSM Whiplash Victims"

Posted by redguy at 04:38 AM | TrackBack (0)

March 31, 2008

Self-Destructive Democrats?

By: David Limbaugh

Democrats seemed determined to convert their sunny 2008 forecast into a perfect storm, which only can be diverted if either the approaching Obama front or Clinton front dissipates soon or changes directions to join forces with the other via the proverbial "dream ticket."

Until Pastor Wright managed to become Obama's potentially career-shattering albatross, Obama looked unstoppable, indeed superhuman. But as has happened repeatedly in this campaign, Hillary's persistence was rewarded -- briefly, anyway. Obama's long and close association with the incendiary pastor undercut his perceived ability to rise above both race and party.

With the passage of a little time, though, Obama appears to have recovered. Or are his rising poll numbers merely a result of Hillary's umpteenth gratuitous tall tale?

It's hard to imagine that Obama's 52 to 42 percent national lead among Democrats, his narrowing of the superdelegate gap, and his lopsided acquisition of endorsements since Super Tuesday (64 to nine) are the result solely of Hillary's fraudulent assertion of sniper-tested heroism.

It's more likely that concerns about Obama's association with Wright have diminished with the cessation of a 24/7 news cycle devoted to it. The mainstream media's reversion to Obama adoration following his dreamy post-Wright lecture on race in America hasn't hurt him, either.

That said, if Hillary wasn't deterred before -- when her prospects looked even worse -- why would she be now? She has to believe -- along with many, many others -- that the Wright story has legs.

Continue reading "Self-Destructive Democrats?"

Posted by redguy at 09:18 PM | TrackBack (0)

March 27, 2008

The 2008 Campaign Mess

By: David Limbaugh

It would be fun to watch this bizarre seesaw contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, except for the horrifying possibility that one of them could end up being our next president.

Conservatives have long recognized the power lust and ruthlessness that defines the Clintons. Finally, many Democrats opened their eyes to this, too, as they watched Bill Clinton's deliberate ignition of racial tensions in efforts to quell the Obama surge. Who does this upstart Obama think he is, trying to disrupt the inexorable flow of history leading to a continuation of the Clinton co-presidency?

Though Bill's strategy only yielded the Clintons temporary fruit, Obama delivered them bushel baskets of his own with revelations of his longtime association with a stridently racist black pastor. Obama might have been finished but for Hillary's quasi-masochistic penchant for self-destruction.

Hillary just couldn't resist claiming she came under sniper fire in Bosnia, presumably so she could add this combat experience to her resume of otherwise mostly vicarious achievements.

Continue reading "The 2008 Campaign Mess"

Posted by redguy at 07:58 PM | TrackBack (0)

March 25, 2008

Forsaken So We Could Live

By: David Limbaugh

I was one of seven people who each spoke at our church's Good Friday service on one of the seven sayings of Christ on the cross. I chose, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?"

In my more skeptical days, I viewed the question as odd -- almost ammunition for the cynic. Why would Christ, if he were truly God, need to ask God about anything? Also, why would an all-powerful God have been in such a vulnerable position?

I now realize that these questions are no more unique than the basic misunderstandings of Christianity and Christian doctrine that give rise to them. But interestingly, this utterance of Christ that was once a stumbling block for me has now become a powerful reinforcement for my faith.

I used to wonder how the crucifixion, no matter how much physical suffering Christ endured, could cancel out our sins. After all, other human beings have experienced similar physical punishment. But I was completely unaware of the spiritual wounding that was involved. The Scripture tells us, "The human spirit can endure in sickness, but a crushed spirit who can bear?"

Continue reading "Forsaken So We Could Live"

Posted by redguy at 04:36 AM | TrackBack (0)

March 21, 2008

Obama Not Yet Out of the Woods

By: David Limbaugh

Barack Obama is nothing if not smooth. He seamlessly turned a would-be apology over his pastor's racism into an indictment against society's racism.

It wasn't, "Jeremiah Wright was wrong, and I was wrong for going to his church for 20 years despite his apparently unforgiving spirit, his racist and anti-American utterances, and his vulgarity, including taking the Lord's name in vain from his very pulpit -- the one venue above all on God's sacred planet that such irreverence is inalterably forbidden. No matter what racial injustices have been perpetrated over the years by mankind toward mankind, they are never an excuse for disrespecting God, and especially in His house."

Instead, Obama said, essentially, "I reject many of Rev. Wright's remarks as divisive and perhaps even unfairly critical of America, but you have to admit, he has a point."

You can talk all you want to about Obama's "audacity of hope" theme, but the only audacity I heard in his speech was his lecturing Americans on their racism instead of explaining his longtime intimate relationship with Wright.

Continue reading "Obama Not Yet Out of the Woods"

Posted by redguy at 04:43 AM | TrackBack (0)

March 18, 2008

Wright Connection Fatally Undermines Obama's Central Theme

By: David Limbaugh

The racist, anti-American rantings of Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's spiritual mentor and pastor of the church Obama attended for 20 years, raise many red flags about Obama's supposedly best selling point: his unique capability for healing societal divisions.

Considering our deep-seated societal disagreements over cultural and political issues, promises by politicians to end societal divisiveness are dubious enough on their face. But when the promisor's personal history contradicts his promises, even further scrutiny is required.

It's difficult to gauge Obama's genuineness in standing on this kind of platform because he has such a short political history to evaluate. Stories have been written, pointing to his extreme liberalism and scant record of reaching across the aisle, that cast serious doubt on his unifying claims. Until now, his lofty speeches have obscured these inconsistencies.

But with reports of his pastor saying "blacks should not sing 'God bless America, but G-- d--- America," and, concerning the 9/11 attacks, America's "chickens are coming home to roost," the burden of proof has now shifted to Obama. He must demonstrate not only that his claims to offer healing are sincere but also that he does not actually share his pastor's and, manifestly, his congregation's deeply disturbing views on race and America.

What can Obama say to meet this burden of proof?

Before this story heated up beyond the mainstream media's ability to suppress it, Obama casually dismissed the pastor's tirades merely as "controversial" remarks -- as if they had some legitimacy and were not outright indefensible but in any event should not be taken too seriously. Now he appears to be saying he was unaware of the offensive statements. But if Obama's deepest passion in life is to heal, wouldn't it follow that he would make it his business to know -- taking the willing suspension of disbelief here to new heights -- what driving passions stir his pastor?

Continue reading "Wright Connection Fatally Undermines Obama's Central Theme"

Posted by redguy at 04:36 AM | TrackBack (0)

March 14, 2008

A War of Worldviews

By: David Limbaugh

When Barack Obama promises change for America, I graciously assume, for now, that he doesn't mean he will change America to conform to his apparently racist pastor's vision for this country, though that whole subject deserves far more scrutiny. But we should also seriously examine his promise to deliver a more harmonious climate.

It's not just Obama. A lot of Democrats have been pushing the idea of bipartisanship for years. One of the Democrats' earliest criticisms of President Bush was that he didn't reach across the aisle and extend a hand to Democrats.

Of course, the truth is precisely the opposite. Bush, unlike any president in recent memory, genuinely made a determined effort to work with Democrats. Not only did they rebuff him, but they attacked him with a relentless viciousness from before day one.

Democrats weren't looking for bipartisanship. They were looking to get their way, even with a Republican president in office. They condemned as partisanship anything short of that, somewhat reminiscent of the Soviet Communists redefining imperialism not as the Soviets' swallowing up of smaller nations but as the United States' efforts to resist such Soviet imperialism.

Understand that I am not criticizing Democrats for being partisan; I'm suggesting they are cynically insincere or grossly self-deceived when they pretend to aspire to bipartisanship. They don't seek compromise; they want the unopposed implementation of their unadulterated liberal agenda, which, of course, is their prerogative.

Continue reading "A War of Worldviews"

Posted by redguy at 04:59 AM | TrackBack (0)

March 11, 2008

National Security and Iraq Winning Issues for GOP

By: David Limbaugh

When it comes to national security, Democrats are serving up softballs for John McCain. But he better be getting a lot of batting practice so he can knock it out of the park once the general-election campaign gets in full swing.

Democrats downplay the scope of terrorist threat and constantly obstruct our efforts to pursue this "overblown" enemy.

Having run out of all other excuses to oppose extending the bill that permits warrantless monitoring of international conversations between terrorists, they have settled on the specious argument that the private telecoms don't deserve immunity from frivolous lawsuits commandeered by the trial bar.

It doesn't matter to Democrats that these companies patriotically responded to the president's call to assist with surveillance and relied on his assurances that they would be acting legally. What matters is that trial lawyers are among the biggest contributors to the Democratic Party -- the party that supposedly eschews special-interest politics. The trial bar must be paid back whenever possible, even if it means telecoms will not cooperate in the future for fear of stepping into a malicious litigation trap.

Democrats say they'd allow the legislation to pass if Republicans would agree to sever the immunity provisions from the bill for later treatment. But everyone knows -- except voters the Democrats are trying to dupe -- that if you carve out that portion of the bill, Democrats will try to prevent it from ever coming to the floor.

Continue reading "National Security and Iraq Winning Issues for GOP"

Posted by redguy at 04:53 AM | TrackBack (0)

March 07, 2008

Democrats' Dicey Presidential Politics

By: David Limbaugh

The Democratic Party cashiered Howard Dean and replaced him, fairly early in the process, with the deeply flawed John Kerry when it became apparent that Dean was unelectable. But what if party honchos, much later in the game, conclude Obama is unelectable? Look out.

Right now, it's premature to conclude that Obama's momentum has been permanently quashed. He won 12 states in a row before losing three out of four Tuesday night. But for a candidate whose main attraction has been his superhuman aura to lose those major contests should be cause for concern.

In terms of delegate count, Obama still holds a commanding lead. According to ABC, if Clinton were to win all 12 remaining states with 55 percent of the vote, she would end up with 1,793 delegates, short of Obama's 1,841. If that scenario were reversed, Obama would end up with 1,902 and Clinton 1,732, which would leave Obama still short of the 2,024 delegates required.

Assuming no changes in the super-delegates from their present leanings, Obama would need to win 77 percent of the remaining pledged delegates to hit 2,024, which is extremely unlikely given the Democratic rules of proportional delegate allocation. But Clinton would need a staggering 94 percent.

Continue reading "Democrats' Dicey Presidential Politics"

Posted by redguy at 05:23 AM | TrackBack (0)

March 03, 2008

Obama's Halo Not Attached with Superglue

By: David Limbaugh

To me, the greatest irony of the Democratic primary contest is that while Hillary Clinton has tried desperately to make herself more human, Barack Obama has basked in the efforts of others to make him less so.

Eventually, Obama will be brought back down to earth from his pseudo-divine perch. When that happens, there will be plenty of areas of vulnerability for his opponent -- presumably, John McCain -- to exploit.

Unhappily for Hillary, she hasn't been able to seize on Obama's weaknesses. This is because many of them she shares, and the others she can't politically afford to draw attention to. Obama's extreme liberalism across the board makes him ripe for attack from the right, or even the center, but Hillary is hardly in a position to make a credible case against him there, except possibly on national security and Iraq.

With cool, premeditated calculation, Hillary methodically positioned herself as plausibly hawkish enough for the general election. How was she supposed to know she would face such a formidable challenger in the primaries?

Her response hasn't helped. Instead of defending her position on Iraq and presenting Obama as irresponsibly dovish on foreign policy, she has distorted her vote on the Iraq War resolution to con the base into believing she was with them all along.

Continue reading "Obama's Halo Not Attached with Superglue"

Posted by redguy at 09:23 PM | TrackBack (0)

February 29, 2008

MSM Gods, Hillary and John McCain

By: David Limbaugh

Memo to former mainstream-media darling John McCain: I hope you are paying close attention to the MSM's palpable favoritism toward Barack Obama because we haven't seen anything yet. You think The New York Times was an exception? Just wait. I urge you to review the tape of the Ohio Democratic debate from Tuesday night.

In one sequence after another, Brian Williams and Tim Russert took proactive roles in the debate, playing "gotcha" mostly against Hillary Clinton instead of facilitating a debate between the candidates.

"So what?" MSM apologists might say. "This isn't a high school debate where we are trying to pick the best debater. This isn't about fairness to the candidates. The purpose is to elicit the most information from the candidates and test them under fire so the voters can make the most informed decision."

Yes, but when the moderators team up against one of the two candidates, the dynamics change. It's hard not to be defensive when everyone in the room who's talking is against you. That's difficult to overcome psychologically.

It reminds me of certain jury trials I've witnessed where the trial judge was noticeably prejudiced against one side and projected his feelings -- in body language, words and attitude -- to the jury. The less-favored litigant had little chance. And it was outrageously improper.

Continue reading "MSM Gods, Hillary and John McCain"

Posted by redguy at 06:02 AM | TrackBack (0)

February 27, 2008

Upstream

By: David Limbaugh

If you want to better understand the intramural battles among conservatives today, there's no better way than to review the historical development of the modern conservative movement. Al Regnery's new book, "Upstream, the Ascendance of American Conservatism," does just that.

It covers the development of modern conservatism from its inception to the present. Though I am too young to have firsthand knowledge of the earlier phases, I've read plenty about them. No book summarizes this entire history better than this one, bringing to life all the significant players and their causes.

But it's not just for political junkies, though they'll find it fascinating as well. It is for everyone who seeks a better understanding of today's political issues because it provides essential historical context and perspective.

It is a book about great, enduring ideas and the great men and women who believed strongly enough in those ideas to dedicate their lives to advancing them against very difficult odds.

Many conservatives today tend to think we are experiencing something unique in our struggles against liberal Democrats and against moderate Republicans who want to take control of the party and dilute the conservative philosophy. They're quite wrong.

Continue reading "Upstream"

Posted by redguy at 06:06 AM | TrackBack (0)

February 22, 2008

Obama's Weaknesses Off Limits to Hillary

By: David Limbaugh

Poor Hillary. She can't afford to attack Obama where he's vulnerable, but she can't afford not to. Even if she does, it's likely it won't resonate with a leftist base made to order for Obama. Worse yet, it's probably too late anyway.

The irony is that if Hillary had been willing to be who she really is -- an antiwar leftist -- she'd probably be in the driver's seat right now. But her calculated and inconsistent shift to the center several years ago in anticipation of a general election created a gigantic Obama-shaped hole on the left.

Hindsight reveals that Hillary's strategy of holding herself out as the battle-tested, experienced candidate was ill-conceived. Not only was it untrue -- most of her experience was vicarious, which doesn't really count -- but the very theme of experience did not play well with a leftist base that was agitating for change, radical change, even if it had to come from a greenhorn. Hillary's claim of mature leadership just reinforced that she is part of the Washington establishment that gave us Iraq.

Even if that issue is becoming moot, its bitter memory is not. Hillary will always be damaged goods to the unforgiving antiwar left, no matter how often she pretends she was duped by a "dope" into voting for the resolution authorizing war.

Of course, Hillary says she's for change, too -- she wants to revert to the Clinton glory years. But with Bill's unattractive side -- defensive, combative, narcissistic -- in such prominent display on the campaign trail, voters are reminded more of the Clinton scandals than their so-called glory years. Simply put, the left wants change, and Hillary has no credibility as a change agent.

Continue reading "Obama's Weaknesses Off Limits to Hillary"

Posted by redguy at 05:50 AM | TrackBack (0)

February 19, 2008

Conservatives and First Principles

By: David Limbaugh

Something is missing in all the intramural debates among different stripes of Republicans this primary season. Bigger-government Republicans don't seem fully to appreciate the extent to which the differences between conservative Republicans and liberals are about more than policy.

Conservatives and liberals differ not merely over the level of taxation, protection of the unborn, immigration, the war and other issues -- though the importance of these disputes cannot easily be overstated.

Admittedly, conservatives view these policy differences as matters of great urgency. The power to tax is the power to destroy. Abortion kills human beings. Illegal, unregulated immigration jeopardizes our national security, undermines the rule of law, could bankrupt our government and, because of the negligence concerning proper assimilation, would likely radically change the culture. Successful prosecution of the war on terror, in Iraq and elsewhere, is essential to our national security.

But at an even more fundamental level, conservatives, being sentimental saps, believe -- apparently unlike Michelle Obama -- that the United States is not only the greatest nation in the world but also that it owes its greatness largely to its Constitution.

Even if liberals were to concede this point, they would probably have different reasons for believing it is so. They tout their fondness for the Bill of Rights and little else in the document, but even here, close inspection reveals their affinity is selective.

Continue reading "Conservatives and First Principles"

Posted by redguy at 08:08 PM | TrackBack (0)

February 15, 2008

McCainiacs Must Persuade Grassroots, Not Commentators

By: David Limbaugh

Political commentators from various points on the right-wing spectrum are still arguing about the McCain presidential candidacy, lecturing and scolding each other -- as if their opinions are going to decide the election. They take themselves too seriously.

The McCainiacs are warning McCain's conservative opponents that unless they stop criticizing McCain immediately, he'll never recover in time for the general election.

This assumes that if the pundits come around, the grassroots will follow, like mindless sheep. Newsflash: They are neither intellectually shallow nor easily led. They are informed, engaged, independent minded and principled.

Nothing illustrates this better than the controversy surrounding the revival of McCain's candidacy. I haven't seen this much anxiety among conservatives since the Clinton impeachment.

I've never received more e-mails, and they've never been more passionate. My correspondents fall roughly into three groups:

Continue reading "McCainiacs Must Persuade Grassroots, Not Commentators"

Posted by redguy at 05:46 AM | TrackBack (0)

February 11, 2008

GOP Rearrangement Syndrome

By: David Limbaugh

Here we are -- the non-McCainiacs -- just minding our own business and contemplating such lofty ideals as party unity while the McCainiac cabal lobs yet more rhetorical cruise missiles our way. Hold your fire, boys, we're trying to meet you at the peace table.

If I were just slightly inclined toward the conspiratorial, I'd wonder whether this were an orchestrated assault by the McCain forces against the recalcitrant. Could more be going on than meets the eye?

Given the aggressiveness of McCain's soldiers, I'm thinking they are not as interested in a rapprochement with Reagan conservatives as they are in taking over the party from them.

If they were seeking reunification, would they be making their attacks personal? Would they be suggesting that those not-yet-warm to John are afflicted with McCain Derangement Syndrome? Would they be salivating over their delusional fantasy that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Laura Ingraham are losing their influence?

You'd think they'd think twice before hurling invectives toward the very base of the Republican Party, whose support in the general election is indispensable to McCain.

Continue reading "GOP Rearrangement Syndrome"

Posted by redguy at 08:53 PM | TrackBack (0)

February 08, 2008

Critics of McCain's Critics Should Chill

By: David Limbaugh

Isn't it ironic that GOP moderates are harshly criticizing GOP conservatives for being harshly critical of GOP presidential frontrunner John McCain?

What mortal sins have conservative McCain critics committed? Oh, they've stuck to their conservative principles, fighting for the values they believe in and refusing, prematurely, to surrender. What good would they be if they so readily threw in the towel of defeat?

"Enlightened" moderates are shocked at conservatives, tagging them as uncompromising extremists who represent the very fringe of the Republican Party.

John Dilulio, a principal architect of President Bush's arguably non-conservative, faith-based initiative, is among those making these arguments.

Writing for the Weekly Standard, Dilulio says that only 3.6 percent of Republicans identify themselves as "very conservative." Is Dilulio making the unwarranted leap of implying that McCain's critics come from this 3.6 percent fringe and that mainstream conservatives have no problem with McCain?

If so, and with due respect to Mr. Dilulio, I emphatically reject that only 3.6 percent of Republicans have great difficulty swallowing McCain -- ideologically and personally. McCain isn't winning a majority of Republicans, much less conservative ones, and is relying heavily on Democrat crossovers and independents, not to mention a little help from his friends Mike Huckabee and the mainstream media.

Continue reading "Critics of McCain's Critics Should Chill"

Posted by redguy at 05:40 AM | TrackBack (0)

February 05, 2008

Republican Party Can't Afford More Liberal Leaders

By: David Limbaugh

I suppose I could be accused of over-dramatizing, but I truly worry about the direction this nation is headed when contemplating a presidential race where the choices are liberal and liberal-light. If John McCain is the GOP nominee, that's what we'll be faced with, despite the Herculean efforts of some to spin it otherwise.

In that case, the presidential candidates of both parties would be willing to use the bully pulpit and governing power of the presidency to suppress political speech, punish producers, oil companies and drug companies, open wider our borders, cater to the whacko environmental movement and its junk-science-driven pseudo-consensus on global warming, nominate judges who don't "wear their conservatism on their sleeve," close Gitmo, confer constitutional civil liberties on enemy combatants, end life-saving interrogation techniques, demonize evangelical conservatives, and obstruct efforts of conservative Republican legislators.

It is also distressing that many conservative commentators are so deeply mired in rationalization in order to spin their support for John McCain.

Sure, if I'm a paid staffer for McCain or a high-school debater forced to take the affirmative side of the proposition that McCain is a conservative, I can make a colorable case -- intellectual honesty be damned -- that he's a conservative. But I am under no such constraints.

Continue reading "Republican Party Can't Afford More Liberal Leaders"

Posted by redguy at 06:39 AM | TrackBack (0)

January 28, 2008

The Clintons' Possible Political Demise -- a Bittersweet Pill

By: David Limbaugh

It's a good thing for Hillary Clinton that she and her political-bodyguard husband aren't Republicans. She'd be out on her ear for race-baiting alone.

Do you remember a few short weeks ago when Hillary suggested that the real mover and shaker on civil rights was not MLK but LBJ, without whom MLK's efforts would have been for naught, essentially? Do you remember the Clintons' surrogate, Robert Johnson, smearing Barack Obama with allusions to his youthful drug experimentation?

Liberals, including the mainstream dinosaur media, circled the wagons around her, insisting she couldn't possibly have intended racial slurs. Even many conservatives hastened to defend her against this charge.

Had a Republican made a statement like Hillary's about the respective accomplishments of MLK (an African American) and LBJ on the heels of making a similar comparison between Obama (an African American) and herself, liberals would have savaged him and driven him out of the race. They would have invoked the irrebuttable liberal presumption that conservatives are racists. Just ask Trent Lott.

With Democrats, the opposite presumption applies. Hillary couldn't possibly have intended a racial slur, nor could she have been guilty of racial insensitivity, because she is a liberal Democrat and liberal Democrats are enlightened and incapable of racism. You need look no further than the race-based assaults by liberal cartoonists against Condoleezza Rice to understand the magnitude of this double standard.

Continue reading "The Clintons' Possible Political Demise -- a Bittersweet Pill"

Posted by redguy at 06:00 PM | TrackBack (0)

January 24, 2008

"Maverick" and "Conservative" Aren't Synonyms

By: David Limbaugh

Many conservatives have said Sen. John McCain is not conservative enough to suit them. Some of McCain's defenders have not only disagreed but have impugned his critics, hypocritically blaming them for divisiveness.

But intramural bickering isn't the issue. What's important is that conservatives have an intellectually honest and open discussion about GOP presidential contenders.

It's disappointing to watch good conservatives demean themselves by trying to present McCain as something he's not. No matter how much they spin, they can't fool conservatives familiar with McCain's record. McCain's detractors are not the ones having to stretch and massage the facts in order to turn McCain -- overnight -- into a Reagan conservative.

McCain is not only not conservative enough; he has also has built a reputation as a maverick by stabbing his party in the back -- not in furtherance of conservative principles but by betraying them. McCain delights in sticking it to his colleagues while winning accolades from the mainstream liberal media.

Former senator Rick Santorum, whose conservative credentials are beyond question, said, "I don't agree with (McCain) on hardly any issues." Santorum told radio host Mark Levin, "I just have to tell you, as a leader, as someone who had to put these coalitions together, it was always hard and we very rarely on domestic policy had any help from the senator from Arizona." Santorum said McCain has been damaging to conservative causes and would be no friend to conservatives in the White House.

Continue reading ""Maverick" and "Conservative" Aren't Synonyms"

Posted by redguy at 09:27 PM | TrackBack (0)

January 18, 2008

Answering Fred's Call

By: David Limbaugh

Commentators are citing the unpredictability of the Republican primary contests as proof that Reagan conservatism is dead when precisely the opposite conclusion is warranted.

The main reason the conventional wisdom is being shattered in the primaries is that conservative voters, so far, have not been persuaded there is an electable, reliable conservative in the race.

But as I've stated before, I believe Fred Thompson is a reliable, consistent conservative. There are others in the field I could support, but not without some reservations. The more I learn about Fred and observe him in action, the more convinced I become that he's the right choice.

I was among those who urged Fred to step up and prove to the people he wanted the job. Regardless of whether Fred actually had "fire in his belly," the unmistakable perception out there was that he did not, so I encouraged him to add a little spring to his step.

But I've also appreciated Fred's unwillingness to be somebody he is not. He will not respond like a puppet when a debate moderator tells him to raise his hand to signify a childishly simplistic approval or disapproval of a certain policy. He will not be goaded by interviewers into saying things he doesn't feel comfortable saying. He won't divide us with class envy or pretend we can be friends with rogue regimes or terrorists. He does not promise a chicken in every pot or pander to liberals on global warming.

Continue reading "Answering Fred's Call"

Posted by redguy at 07:08 AM | TrackBack (0)

January 10, 2008

Conservatism's Identity Crisis

By: David Limbaugh

Liberals have every reason to be pleased with the three remaining Democratic presidential candidates and what they portend for the vitality of political liberalism in the Democratic Party. The same cannot be said for conservatives concerning the Republican candidates and the vitality of conservatism.

There isn't a dime's worth of ideological difference between Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. They just present their respective brands of statism in different ways. In the Democratic Party, big-government liberalism is alive, well, robust and vibrant.

Hillary might resume "Third Way" Clintonian politics if she wins the nomination, but for now, she's bragging that her health-care plan is more Marxist than Barack's.

But for Republicans, there's a fierce intramural debate not just over how conservative the party should be but also over the very definition of conservatism.

This debate wouldn't be as significant if it were limited to the candidates alone, but a growing number of conservative intellectuals have also surrendered to the oxymoronic notion that conservatism must adapt to survive as a powerful political force in this nation.

Continue reading "Conservatism's Identity Crisis"

Posted by redguy at 08:21 PM | TrackBack (0)

January 07, 2008

Observations on the Presidential Races

By: David Limbaugh

1. We expect promises of change from Democratic candidates, but it's disappointing to watch certain Republican candidates yield to that superficially seductive sound bite, too. It's like the global-warming freight train, which few politicians have displayed the guts and character not to board.

2. It's disappointing to watch candidates from both parties accept the premise that criticizing your opponents' records and pointing out their inconsistencies and lies is engaging in dirty politics. It is not dirty but obligatory to draw distinctions between you and your opponents. Dirty politics is distorting one's record or spreading lies about a candidate. Why do so many refuse to see the difference? It's the same type of shallow thinking that prefers that politicians get along rather than promote their ideas.

3. Until very recently, "experts" have proclaimed that only Rudy and Romney had a realistic path to the GOP nomination and that Hillary was inevitable on the Democrat side. Now, many tell us Romney is dead unless he wins in New Hampshire, Rudy is already toast and Hillary is almost toast. The common denominator is that the punditocracy has been consistently wrong, which will not deter them from continuing their pseudo-omniscient, mostly erroneous analysis.

4. "Experts" also say that if McCain wins New Hampshire, he'll be the clear frontrunner -- though New Hampshire is not a bellwether state and McCain will remain, based on logic and experience, an overwhelming long shot.

Continue reading "Observations on the Presidential Races"

Posted by redguy at 09:30 PM | TrackBack (0)

January 04, 2008

Rededication to Conservative Principles

By: David Limbaugh

Many have discussed whether certain candidates have "fire in the belly." What I'm wondering is whether, at this point in our national history, conservatives in general have fire in their bellies.

Given Gov. Mike Huckabee's remarkable performance so far in the GOP presidential contest in the name of conservatism, and especially after seeing his interview on the "Tonight Show," I question how brightly that flame is flickering.

When Ronald Reagan was running for president in 1980, conservatives had more reasons to be discontent. We had been conditioned to believe that inviolable economic principles dictated that there was a necessary trade-off between unemployment and inflation: You couldn't decrease one without increasing the other.

The Carter years were characterized by full-blown pessimism. Interest rates, inflation and unemployment all soared. Nuclear-freeze liberals were hell-bent on our unilateral disarmament. The ravages of the Warren Court were in full bloom, and the Republican Party was mired in the taint of the Watergate scandals.

Ronald Reagan came along and offered hope. He refused to acquiesce to the defeatism of the period. He refused to accept that half the world would remain under the tyrannical hand of global communism. He revived the latent conservatism in the hearts of the "silent majority" by proclaiming and proving that neither America nor American ideals were dead; they only needed permission to breathe again.

Continue reading "Rededication to Conservative Principles"

Posted by redguy at 07:35 AM | TrackBack (0)

December 27, 2007

The Case for the Real Jesus

By: David Limbaugh

It's interesting that many who dismiss the Bible and certain essential Christian claims -- saying they believe there is scant evidence to support them -- are able to readily embrace rival belief systems and their texts, which are far less reliable.

Former atheist Lee Strobel has used his formidable journalistic and legal background as legal editor of the Chicago Tribune to research and write a number of bestselling books in defense of the Christian faith. His recently released "The Case for the Real Jesus" goes beyond the traditional apologetic to address some of the current attacks on the identity of Jesus Christ, typified by the heretical storyline in the popular The Da Vinci Code.

I strongly recommend this book this Christmas season because it compellingly debunks many of the most recent mythical challenges to Christianity. It is perfect for believers whose perceived spiritual security could be threatened by the crop of fantastic notions now circulating and for nonbelievers who are open to the evidence.

Strobel correctly observes that ideas have consequences and, particularly, what we believe about Jesus will have profound consequences for us individually. Since modern theories directly attack what Christians believe about the very identity of Jesus, Strobel wanted to examine their validity to determine whether the Christian idea of Christ could survive rigorous inquiry.

Having begun as a smug nonbeliever and converting only after subjecting Christianity's historical and doctrinal claims to scrupulous investigation, Strobel was unafraid to put his faith to the test once again. Are we, believers and nonbelievers alike, similarly unafraid?

Continue reading "The Case for the Real Jesus"

Posted by redguy at 07:00 PM | TrackBack (0)

December 21, 2007

Hillary's Spousal Albatross

By: David Limbaugh

Hillary Clinton doesn't have the luxury Al Gore did of choosing to dump Bill Clinton on the presidential campaign trail. She's stuck with him, for better or for worse. And if she becomes president, so is America.

People always questioned Gore's judgment to cut his umbilical cord from Mother Bill, some saying he had to do it to free himself of the taint of the scandals and others saying the move cost him the election because he was unable to capitalize as much on the Clinton economic record.

There's doubtlessly merit to both arguments, and Gore was probably hurt some and helped some by the decision. Ultimately, though, voters surely were and are smart enough to evaluate the candidate on his own merits, regardless of the strength of his ties to his predecessor.

But in Hillary's case, it's obviously more complicated. Bill will not just have been a past president with very close ties to President Hillary, should she win. He won't merely be with her in the White House. He will be in her space.

Think about it. Right now, Hillary is probably conflicted about Bill's role in the campaign. She's obviously aware of a certain segment of the public's adulation for the man -- mystifying though it is -- but equally aware of another segment's visceral (and cerebral) revulsion.

Continue reading "Hillary's Spousal Albatross"

Posted by redguy at 07:28 AM | TrackBack (0)

December 17, 2007

Huck: Playing to Our Inner Jimmy Carter

By: David Limbaugh

At the risk of incurring a roundhouse kick from the great Chuck Norris, I must confess that I'm even more troubled by Mike Huckabee's direction than I was last week.

On "Meet the Press" in January 2007, Tim Russert asked Huckabee, "You said this: 'I have a hard time seeing (Sen. John McCain) being elected president, just because I think, at times, some of his views have alienated very important segments of the Republican Party. I'm not sure he can mend the fences with the evangelical wing of the party, the pro-life part of the party.' You stand by those words?"

Huckabee responded, "Well, sure, I said them. I, I have a lot of respect for Senator McCain. He's a great American hero. But I do think that there are going to be some challenges that he'll face, and some of them have to do with issues that really have alienated many conservatives."

Bingo -- except now these words could apply equally to Huckabee -- not concerning the pro-life issue but Huckabee's unfortunate piece in Foreign Affairs magazine, where he joined the Democratic amen chorus in indicting President Bush for his "arrogant bunker mentality."

Until now, Huckabee has been fairly Teflon, avoiding real damage with conservatives for some of the unappealing aspects of his record and policy agenda. But the Foreign Affairs article, "America's Priorities in the War on Terror," could be his "Howard Dean scream" moment -- assuming Republicans are listening with a modicum of objectivity.

For taken at face value, a number of his statements in the piece surely will, to paraphrase Huckabee, "alienate very important segments of the Republican Party." Why? Because they wrongly trash President Bush in the words of ill-meaning Democrats who have slandered Bush's foreign policy from the beginning for their own partisan ends.

Continue reading "Huck: Playing to Our Inner Jimmy Carter"

Posted by redguy at 08:07 PM | TrackBack (0)

December 10, 2007

Huckabee, Romney, Church and State

By: David Limbaugh

The surfacing of the "religion question" in the Republican presidential primary campaigns of both Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee has raised important issues and exposed much public confusion about the intersection of religion and politics.

Secularists feign sympathy with Romney for having to address the Mormon question in response to alleged anti-Mormon bigots but condemn him for failing in his speech to expressly include nonbelievers among those whose religious liberty he would safeguard.

This particular attack on Romney by the secularist bigot patrol reveals their own religious bigotry, their ignorance or their disingenuousness. It goes without saying that robust religious liberty includes the freedom to believe in any religion or not to believe at all.

But the secularists' attacks on Huckabee are more serious. They have taken him to task for identifying himself as a "Christian leader" in Iowa, with some saying he was exploiting Romney's Mormonism and also violating the spirit of the constitutional prohibition on requiring religious tests for public office.

In a campaign ad, Huckabee says, "Faith doesn't just influence me. It really defines me," and he identifies himself as a "Christian leader."

It's one thing to read the First Amendment Establishment Clause as prohibiting the slightest government endorsement of the Christian religion (while not demonstrating similar angst over government promotion of secular humanism, New Age-ism, Islam or Native American spirituality). But it's taking it to an entirely new level to say that it precludes public officeholders from allowing their Christian worldview to influence their policy preferences or governance.

Continue reading "Huckabee, Romney, Church and State"

Posted by redguy at 08:56 PM | TrackBack (0)

December 06, 2007

Obama Should Push Hillary Out of Her Comfort Zone

By: David Limbaugh

Paradox: Hillary seems both inevitable and inconceivable to me. Part of me says, "There's no stopping her," and the other part says, "Hold on, do you realize what you're saying? This is Hillary Clinton we're talking about! No way." On the bright side, the inevitability applies mostly to her nomination, and the inconceivability to the general election.

I think most people, including commentators, have considered her nomination a foregone conclusion.

This consensus was briefly threatened during Barack Obama's initial deification by the media, but then it was pretty much restored. After the mainstream media's early infatuation with Obama wore off, they were back to worshiping at Hillary's altar, both promoting and protecting her.

They called her "presidential," "inevitable" and "experienced" and said she was running an error-free campaign. Actually, the media were just ignoring her mistakes, inconsistencies and embarrassingly unpresidential episodes, as when she patronizingly spoke in black dialect to an African-American audience.

The media didn't just shield her errors. They also insulated her from the ordinary scrutiny all other presidential candidates receive. They allowed her to choose what she wanted to talk about and what questions she would answer. With few exceptions, they gave her a pass.

Continue reading "Obama Should Push Hillary Out of Her Comfort Zone"

Posted by redguy at 08:42 PM | TrackBack (0)

December 04, 2007

Mitt Should Can "The Speech"

By: David Limbaugh

I think it's a mistake for Mitt Romney to give "the speech" -- the one aimed at addressing his Mormonism and its relevance, or irrelevance, to his candidacy.

There have long been rumors that Romney would make "the speech," but the matter seemed dormant until recently, when evangelical Mike Huckabee began surging in the polls, especially in Iowa.

Some Romney strategists fear his conservative Christian supporters in Iowa are shifting to Huckabee -- an ordained Baptist minister -- because they are uncomfortable with Mitt's Mormonism.

Huckabee's Christian credentials are doubtlessly helping him with many Christian conservatives. But I don't think Mitt's Mormonism is driving Romney voters to Huckabee. If Romney's Mormonism didn't bother them before Huckabee surged, it isn't bothering them now.

This is not to say that Romney's Mormonism isn't a potential liability for him. I think it is, but not among those who have already been supporting him. The more attention he draws to his religion, the more of a liability it will become. He should leave well enough alone.

Continue reading "Mitt Should Can "The Speech""

Posted by redguy at 07:04 AM | TrackBack (0)

November 29, 2007

Clinton News Network

By: David Limbaugh

The CNN/YouTube Republican presidential debate serves as a perfect example of why conservatives refer to CNN as "Clinton News Network." Republicans should have declined CNN's invitation, just like Democrats declined Fox News, though it's doubtful Fox would have orchestrated or permitted a similar ambush of Democratic candidates.

The "debate" involved many questions designed not so much to highlight the candidates' differences (other than Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney on immigration) but to place the entire conservative agenda in a negative light.

Many were "When did you stop beating your wife?" questions because they included premises calculated to make Republicans look bad irrespective of the candidates' responses. Even if CNN didn't conspire with the questioners, the effect was the same. You'd never catch Democrats in such a situation. Let me give you a few examples and, with some, offer alternative responses.

One questioner asked what criminal penalties should be imposed against an aborting mother -- not whether there should be criminal penalties but what they should be. The purpose was to divert attention from the horror of abortion to the seeming harshness of criminalizing pregnant women who choose to end their babies' lives. Conservatives are uncaring, uncompassionate and evil. Are Democrats ever asked whether the denial of a woman's "choice" to abort is outweighed by the denial of the baby's very right to live?

Another asked "Christian conservative" candidates whether Jesus approved of the death penalty. On the heels of the abortion question, this question seemed intended to 1) suggest an inconsistency in the conservative position opposing abortion but supporting capital punishment and 2) paint Christian conservatives as false followers of Christ because Christ presumably wouldn't favor capital punishment.

Continue reading "Clinton News Network"

Posted by redguy at 07:30 PM | TrackBack (0)

November 26, 2007

2008: Holding Democrats Accountable on War

By: David Limbaugh

Some say Democrats won't have Iraq as an issue for the 2008 presidential campaign due to our dramatic turnaround there. Republicans should take it a step further and make it an issue themselves.

Democrats have accused President Bush of politicizing the war any time he merely reported favorably on our progress or made a speech defining the enemy and explaining our multi-pronged strategy to defeat him. All the while, it was Democrats who were exploiting the war for partisan gain.

They clearly tried to do so in the 2006 congressional campaigns, and when they recaptured their congressional majorities, they proudly declared their victory was a mandate for their position on Iraq (though exit polling data indicates otherwise).

Indeed, until frustrated by our recent progress in Iraq, Defeatocrats had been planning on making Iraq the central issue in the 2008 presidential campaign. But now, even The New York Times ruefully acknowledges that "as violence declines in Baghdad, the leading Democratic presidential candidates ... are trying to shift the focus to the lack of political progress there, and highlighting more domestic concerns like health care and the economy.

Continue reading "2008: Holding Democrats Accountable on War"

Posted by redguy at 08:40 PM | TrackBack (0)

November 19, 2007

Will Apple Pie Be Next?

By: David Limbaugh

If you want to acquire greater insight into the mindset of much of Hillary Clinton's base -- the type of people she caters to, and will continue to cater to if she is elected -- you should familiarize yourselves with a couple of recent news stories involving the Boy Scouts and our troops.

In Philadelphia, the glorious city where our unique experiment in constitutional governance began, the city solicitor issued the Cradle of Liberty Boy Scouts Council a dire ultimatum. Unless it renounces its policy excluding homosexuals by Dec. 3, it will forfeit the right to rent from the city a building it has rented for $1 a year since 1928.

Solicitor Romulo Diaz said, "While we respect the right of the Boy Scouts to prohibit participation in its activities by homosexuals, we will not subsidize that discrimination by passing on the costs to the people of Philadelphia."

The solicitor apparently doesn't care that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Scouts have a right to exclude homosexuals or that Congress passed a law two years ago -- the Support Our Scouts Act -- to restrict the right of cities to deny Scouts access to public facilities because of their policy.

Gay-rights advocates often insist on rights going one way: their way. They demand that homosexuals be permitted "the right" to join the Scouts, though it would deny this private organization its constitutional right of free association and what values it chooses to uphold.

Meanwhile, Cambridge, Mass., the proud home of Harvard University, fired a shot at both the Boy Scouts and the United States armed forces. The city put the kibosh on Cambridge Troop 45's innocuous Election Day drive to collect care packages for American soldiers in Iraq because it was "political."

Continue reading "Will Apple Pie Be Next?"

Posted by redguy at 07:50 PM | TrackBack (0)

November 12, 2007

Giving Defeat A Chance

By: David Limbaugh

Listening to the Democrats denying our progress in Iraq is reminiscent of a high school debate where one team gets stuck with the wrong side of the issue and has to defend it valiantly anyway. But in real life, especially when life-and-death consequences are involved, such artificial, unreasonable positions are not valiant but disgraceful.

On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson whether his plan to withdraw all troops from Iraq was outdated now that the surge "shows signs of working." Wallace noted that U.S. casualties for October were the lowest since March 2006 and civilian casualties, murders and roadside bomb attacks have all fallen dramatically.

Straight-faced, Richardson replied, "First of all, I don't believe the surge is working. … You don't measure progress by body counts."

Oh? You sure could have fooled Richardson's fellow Democrats who used that yardstick with a vengeance prior to the surge.

But that was before the facts became inconvenient. Since the surge has been working, many Democrats have shifted the goal posts to say we may only measure our progress by political successes.

Continue reading "Giving Defeat A Chance"

Posted by redguy at 09:01 PM | TrackBack (0)

November 08, 2007

Mark Levin, Blessed by an Angel

By: David Limbaugh

A good friend of mine, who died several years ago from diabetes-related complications, once said to me, "Show me a dog lover, and I'll show you a good person." I'm sure there are many exceptions to this adage, but the principle it expresses couldn't be more applicable to my close friend Mark Levin, whose new book, "Rescuing Sprite," makes poignantly clear.

Mark was about to write a completely different book when the death of his dog, Sprite, turned his world upside down. Mark was devastated by Sprite's death and was forced to switch gears.

He said, "You'll probably think I'm crazy, but I feel compelled to write a book about Sprite now and need to put the other book on hold."

At first, I was stunned because I believed his other book needed to be written. I also couldn't imagine how he could fill a book's worth of pages with stories about a dog -- no matter how much I shared his love for canines.

Continue reading "Mark Levin, Blessed by an Angel"

Posted by redguy at 08:04 PM | TrackBack (0)

November 05, 2007

Time for GOP Backbone and Leadership

By: David Limbaugh

This latest "torture" flap concerning Judge Michael Mukasey's attorney-general nomination raises an important question. Why do Republicans always let liberals co-opt the moral high ground and back them into a corner where their only escape is to prove they are as "compassionate" as liberals?

If Republicans are serious about reestablishing themselves as the dominant party, they should recapture their moral courage and start defending principles they claim to believe in.

The Republicans' timidity shows up on a wide array of issues, from Social Security to torture, where they're on the defensive and apologetic, and they allow the liberals' revisionist "facts" to become "conventional wisdom."

Republicans should have owned the Social Security issue. President Bush is the only political leader in modern history to take on the "third rail of politics" after years of both parties warning about its imminent insolvency.

Instead, Democrats stole the narrative as quickly as you can say "demagogue" and scared seniors into believing Bush was trying to destroy the system.

Continue reading "Time for GOP Backbone and Leadership"

Posted by redguy at 06:29 PM | TrackBack (0)

November 01, 2007

Hillary Indecisive? Please

By: David Limbaugh

I have to laugh at the suggestion that Sen. Hillary Clinton displayed "indecisiveness" in the recent Democratic presidential debate. Clinton is about as indecisive as a Calvinist on the doctrine of election.

She knows exactly what she thinks about -- as opposed to where she should stand for maximum political effect on -- the issues. So when she vacillates on driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, don't hand her the excuse that she is torn on a tough issue.

There's nothing difficult about this decision at all. It's a slam-dunk for anyone professing the slightest allegiance to the rule of law. Illegal immigrants should not be permitted to drive in New York or any other state.

But for Clinton, it's not that simple. While not torn on the issue, she's torn between two constituencies: ethnic pressure groups and the vast majority who oppose New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's irresponsible policy. The allure of this new ready-made constituency is too tantalizing to resist. Driver's licenses are but a baby step away from voting -- and voting, she presumes, Democratic.

Continue reading "Hillary Indecisive? Please"

Posted by redguy at 11:16 PM | TrackBack (0)

October 29, 2007

In Partial Response to Christopher Hitchens

By: David Limbaugh

Last week, I strongly endorsed "What's So Great About Christianity," Dinesh D'Souza's impressive defense of Christianity against the almost-organized assault by such "antitheists" as writer Christopher Hitchens. I heartily reiterate my endorsement.

I have since read portions of Hitchens' new book "God is Not Great" and watched his debate with theologian Alister McGrath. Please indulge me in addressing a few of Hitchens' arguments.

Hitchens unfairly and illogically conflates Christianity with other religions, blaming it not only for the evils committed in its own name but also for those committed by practitioners of other religions.

Hitchens' approach is only fair if you accept the modern pluralistic ruse that all religions are the same, which they aren't since many of their truth claims contradict each other.

Continue reading "In Partial Response to Christopher Hitchens"

Posted by redguy at 06:32 PM | TrackBack (0)

October 25, 2007

D'Souza: Debunking Atheists

By: David Limbaugh

My goal here is to convince as many of you as possible to read Dinesh D'Souza's compelling new book, "What's So Great About Christianity."

Since I wrote my book chronicling the war against Christianity in our culture, many atheists have come out of the closet to admit their hostility toward Christianity and formally declare war against it.

Anti-Christian books have cropped up like alien pods in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," not only disputing Christianity but arguing that it is a societally destructive force.

I have often lamented that too many Christians have opted out of the culture wars, for varying reasons. Some are apathetic; others mistakenly believe that the biblical injunction to rejoice in their persecution also means we should roll over and surrender. Still others grossly underestimate the stakes involved and the fierce determination of their opponents.

Dinesh D'Souza is not among the AWOL Christians. And, unlike some other Christian apologists, he meets the enemy on his own turf, confronting and deconstructing his arguments rather than merely reciting Scripture that might be intelligible only to "the choir."

Continue reading "D'Souza: Debunking Atheists"

Posted by redguy at 06:48 PM | TrackBack (0)

October 22, 2007

Phony Indignation over a Phony Scandal

By: David Limbaugh

The dirty little secret about Sen. Harry Reid's failed character assassination attempt against my brother, Rush Limbaugh, is just how contrived the Senate Democrats' outrage was about the fraudulent allegation that Rush had impugned certain soldiers.

I won't rehash the facts in detail, but essentially, Rush was falsely accused of calling troops who had expressed opposition to the Iraq War "phony soldiers."

Not only was Rush not criticizing soldiers, but he was defending soldiers who had been criticized by pretend Iraqi War veterans who had lied about their combat service in Iraq to gain credibility when they accused the actual soldiers there of unspeakable atrocities.

If Reid's true instinct was to defend soldiers, he would have agreed with Rush's criticism of the fake soldiers who lied about the real ones. He would have shared Rush's outrage and demanded strict proof.

Continue reading "Phony Indignation over a Phony Scandal"

Posted by redguy at 07:30 PM | TrackBack (0)

October 19, 2007

The Liberal Compassion Mirage

By: David Limbaugh

Two recent news items remind us of the disconnect between the Democrats' claimed monopoly on compassion and the effects of their policies.

First, consider the emotionally charged public debate over President Bush's veto of a proposed expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Programs.

Standing by congressional Democrats in their push to override the veto, singer Paul Simon said with earnest indignation, "The president's veto of the reauthorization of SCHIP appears to be a heartless act. I'm here today to ask those of you who supported the veto to reexamine your conscience, to find compassion in your heart for our most vulnerable and sweetest citizens, our children."

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, the compassionate Simon is obviously unaware that the matter is not as simple as merely throwing money at the problem. To quote House Minority Leader John Boehner, "There are 500,000 kids in America who are eligible for this program who have not been signed up, yet there are some 700,000 adults who are already on the program."

Simon, unlike the Democrats pulling his puppet strings, must not realize that President Bush supports a $5 billion expansion, not reduction, of the program, or that the Democrats' plan goes far beyond providing a safety net to the needy. It would allow states to make coverage available to families with incomes greater than $60,000 a year, which would entice people who can well afford private health insurance to opt for state coverage.

Continue reading "The Liberal Compassion Mirage"

Posted by redguy at 06:23 AM | TrackBack (0)

October 12, 2007

Liberty or Security -- a False Choice

By: David Limbaugh

I doubt it's the Democrats' concern for freedom and civil liberties that drives their opposition to extending the Protect America Act. Rather, it's their failure to take the threat posed by global jihadists seriously enough.

Congress passed the Protect America Act in August, over much Democratic opposition, to authorize continued wiretapping under the NSA terrorist surveillance program. But the law is set to expire in January unless Congress votes to extend it.

Congressional Democrats are now balking at the proposed extension and are proposing revisions that the administration believes would impose unnecessary limitations on our terrorist monitoring and severely compromise our national security.

Democrats want the law revised to require the government to obtain warrants before eavesdropping on calls into this country from suspected terrorists overseas. Democrats have repeatedly mischaracterized the monitoring of these communications as "domestic spying," though the administration says that with such calls, it is targeting the overseas terrorists, not Americans. The administration insists Americans are never targeted without warrants and that it has already obtained some 100 warrants this year where Americans were targeted.

New Mexico Rep. Heather Wilson said, "If I'm targeting you, I don't know who you're going to call next." Wilson argues that under the Democratic proposal, the government would need a warrant for every call because there's always a chance that the international caller could contact someone inside the United States. For the first time in our history, we'd have to get warrants to eavesdrop on terrorist calls or Internet transmissions coming from outside the United States into this country.

Continue reading "Liberty or Security -- a False Choice"

Posted by redguy at 06:26 AM | TrackBack (0)

October 09, 2007

Confusion Everywhere

By: David Limbaugh

No matter what "conventional wisdom" purports to tell us about the dominance of the Christian worldview in our culture, recent headlines illustrate the formidable challenges confronting Christian conservatives from inside and outside the church.

On ABC's "The View," Whoopie Goldberg dressed down the program's lone conservative, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, for daring to air her pro-life views. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama appeared at a megachurch in South Carolina calling for the creation of an earthly kingdom. And President Bush reportedly said, "All religions pray to the same God." Let's consider each story.

On "The View," Hasselbeck spoke favorably of a proposal of Hillary Clinton's that "might help reduce abortions." Goldberg -- apparently feeling assaulted over the innocuous remark -- told Hasselbeck to "back off a little bit" since Hasselbeck admitted to never having been in a position to abort a child. "Very few people want to have abortions," said Goldberg, who reportedly has had a number of them. "Americans," said Goldberg, ought to "revere" women who have had abortions. "It's the hardest decision that a woman ever has to make."

This densely packaged example of wrong-headedness illuminates the depth and intensity of the cultural divide in this country. Goldberg's position is so patently illogical that it wouldn't require refutation but for the lamentable fact that it is shared by a frightful percentage of social liberals.

The first self-evident fallacy is that only those who have been in a position to have an abortion have the moral authority to address the issue, which, right off the bat, excludes all men. This follows the same pattern of liberal illogic holding that only those who have been in combat have the moral standing to advocate the combat deployment of our troops.

Further, Goldberg's assertion that few women want to have an abortion flies in the face of the reality that nearly 50 million children have been aborted since the Roe decision in 1973.

Continue reading "Confusion Everywhere"

Posted by redguy at 06:33 AM | TrackBack (0)

October 04, 2007

Actual Malice

By: David Limbaugh

My brother Rush has nothing for which to apologize concerning the left's maliciously manufactured "phony soldier" scandal. He said nothing wrong and his accusers know it. There is no gray area here.

Rush is fraudulently accused of calling soldiers who oppose the Iraq war "phony soldiers." On his September 26 show, he referred to men, like Jesse MacBeth, who lied about their service in Iraq and went on to impugn the service of those who actually have served there as "phony soldiers."

Two days before, on September 24, Rush recorded his "Morning Update," which aired on September 25 and mirrored an ABC "World News with Charles Gibson" piece that used the phrase "phony heroes" three times and "phonies" once to describe men like MacBeth who falsely claim to be veterans. Rush noted that the anti-war left makes celebrities of such frauds who falsely claim to have witnessed American soldiers committing atrocities in Iraq.

In his dialogue with the caller "Mike in Chicago" on the 26th, Rush used the phrase "phony soldiers," clearly referring to -- in Mike's words -- "soldiers that come up out of the blue." Rush never stated or remotely implied that any soldiers other than those who had been caught in such fabrications are phony. He did not say, would not say and never has said that soldiers who oppose the war are phony soldiers -- because he doesn't believe it.

Continue reading "Actual Malice"

Posted by redguy at 07:10 PM | TrackBack (0)

October 01, 2007

At War with Being at War

By: David Limbaugh

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman must be awfully tired of the global war on terror (GWOT). In his column "9/11 Is Over," he laments that "we've become 'The United States of Fighting Terrorism.' ... I will not vote for any candidate running on 9/11. We don't need another president of 9/11. We need a president for 9/12."

Alrighty, then. Let's just declare the war over.

Liberals have tried to convince us they are hawks on the GWOT but that they just don't believe Iraq is part of it. They want to go back into Afghanistan with greater force, or perhaps into Pakistan and capture Osama bin Laden, who President Bush "let escape" at Tora Bora.

Many conservatives have long been skeptical about the Democrats' claim to be hawkish on the GWOT. As I've detailed before, Democrats have opposed President Bush at every turn in the GWOT -- not just on Iraq.

They've scoffed at President Bush's moral clarity in depicting the GWOT as a struggle between the forces of good and evil. They've tried to undermine the Patriot Act, which was designed to break down the walls between our intelligence agencies and help us "connect the dots" to prevent future terrorist attacks.

Continue reading "At War with Being at War"

Posted by redguy at 06:41 PM | TrackBack (0)

September 27, 2007

An Unhappy Marriage

By: David Limbaugh

Every political observer knows of the far left's hostility toward President Bush, his war policies and anyone who supports either or both. But has it occurred to you how much the base must also distrust most of the major players in the Democratic Party? That's one thought I took away from this week's Democratic presidential debate.

The relationship between the base and the party's candidates and officials is like a forced marriage characterized by a mutual dependence and reciprocal distrust.

The base, typified by groups like MoveOn.org, has no choice but to accept the Democratic Party as its vehicle to promote the liberal policy agenda. There is no other viable alternative. In turn, party leaders must cater to the far left because of its indispensable funding and grassroots contributions.

While there are many blind followers in the base, there are also plenty of savvy operators who are fully aware of the massive deception Democratic leaders have perpetrated on the American people concerning Iraq.

They're too shrewd not to understand that John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, to name a prominent few, have been lying through their teeth in saying they were duped into supporting the Iraq war resolution.

Other than their delusions about Bush having stolen the 2000 election, nothing motivates the base more than the carefully crafted fable that Bush "lied" us into war. You cannot be worthy of the left's consideration unless you fully embrace this propaganda.

Continue reading "An Unhappy Marriage"

Posted by redguy at 09:43 PM | TrackBack (0)

September 25, 2007

Columbia University's Selective First Amendment Affinity

By: David Limbaugh

Over an avalanche of protests, New York's Columbia University invited Iran's Holocaust denying dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak on campus. That any American institution would furnish a propaganda platform for this murderous thug is symptomatic of staggering ignorance about our enemies in this global war on terror.

Self-congratulatory liberals, like Columbia's President Lee Bollinger, actually see the university's hosting of Ahmadinejad as a cause to celebrate -- advancing free speech and diverse viewpoints -- as opposed to something that must be reluctantly tolerated.

What will it take to wake people up to the reality that this tyrant is every bit as pernicious as Osama bin Laden? Then again, many would probably jump to offer bin Laden a forum, as well. After all, they believe both have legitimate grievances against U.S. policy.

Columbia history professor Kenneth T. Jackson said New York has more than a legal duty to accommodate controversial figures from abroad. "It's a moral obligation as a great city," said Jackson. "New York's record is one of toleration of difference."

Continue reading "Columbia University's Selective First Amendment Affinity"

Posted by redguy at 06:06 AM | TrackBack (0)

September 18, 2007

The Party of George Soros

By: David Limbaugh

I don't think nearly enough has been made of the despicable MoveOn.org character assassination attack ad against General David Petraeus and the Democratic leadership's striking refusal to repudiate it. If you want to see the face of the modern Democratic Party, re-read that ad.

The full-page New York Times ad, reportedly purchased at a radical discount, directly accused Petraeus of "cooking the books for the White House," called him "a military man constantly at war with the facts," and said he "is likely to become "General Betray Us."

Lest you think I'm exaggerating, consider the comments of MoveOn's executive director, Eli Pariser. He said, "If you have a general who is being willfully misleading to the public and the Congress about the state of a military endeavor, that's a big problem."

Most Democratic leaders refused to condemn the ad. Some, like Hillary Clinton, independently echoed its sentiment. Clinton unmistakably called Petraeus a liar when she told him, "I think that the reports that you provide to us really require a willing suspension of disbelief."

Gone for now are the "Sister Souljah moments," where Democratic presidential candidates dress down the far left to appear more centrist to a credulous general electorate. If this ad proved nothing else, it showed that the Democratic Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the George Soros empire.

Continue reading "The Party of George Soros"

Posted by redguy at 06:41 AM | TrackBack (0)

September 11, 2007

How Low Will They Go?

By: David Limbaugh

Has the left no remaining ounce of shame? Its latest target: the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, General David Petraeus, whom Senate Democrats unanimously confirmed.

Remember Democrats faulting President Bush for being inflexible, not following the advice of the generals and having no strategy in Iraq -- never mind that they've never had so much as a paper-napkin sketch of a clue as to what to do in Iraq or the War on Terror? Yet, when he took decisive action that can fairly be said to have addressed all of these criticisms, they reflexively opposed him again, proving once more their allegiance to party over nation.

He replaced Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and appointed Petreaus to implement a new strategy in Iraq, which Democrats tacitly approved in confirming him. But even before the "surge" was fully in place, Democrats declared it a failure.

Now that the surge's military successes are so manifest that even some recalcitrant Democrats have been forced to admit them, they are doing everything they can to obscure those successes and to force a reversal in strategy that would completely erase them.

Some still deny our military gains. Others -- exemplars of legislative excellence that they are -- say the gains are irrelevant because of the lack of political progress by the Iraqi parliament. They are demonstrating an astonishing amount of inflexibility themselves, not permitting the facts to interfere with their bias toward failure nor their partisan interests.

Continue reading "How Low Will They Go?"

Posted by redguy at 06:43 AM | TrackBack (0)

September 07, 2007

Reclaiming the High Ground on Iraq

By: David Limbaugh

Given our success with the counterinsurgency operations and the stakes involved in the outcome of the war in Iraq, President Bush and other Republicans have a window to restate their case for the importance of Iraq in the War on Terror. They should seize the opportunity before war opponents have another chance to discourage the war effort.

Let's agree to disagree right now on whether we should have attacked Iraq in the first place. Let Democrats savor the prospect of using that issue for the 2008 elections -- if things turn back around for them and against our progress in Iraq.

But we're in Iraq now, and whether we win or lose matters -- believe it or not -- and when we begin to withdraw our troops matters because it will affect whether we win. But we shouldn't allow the answer to either question to be affected by disputes over the justification for our initial attack.

The preliminary success of the "surge" has greatly undermined the Democrats' position on a number of fronts, which is why they are trying to destroy General David Petraeus's credibility in advance of his favorable report. It is why they are developing new strategies to secure our withdrawal, such as backing off their demands for a firm withdrawal date to lure "moderate" Republicans into joining their cut-and-run scheme.

Democrats have said this is a civil war, that America's presence is exacerbating the ethnic rivalry and prolonging the war, that Al Qaeda's involvement is marginal, that the war is "unwinnable," and that even if we are making great strides militarily, we are getting nowhere politically.

Continue reading "Reclaiming the High Ground on Iraq"

Posted by redguy at 06:43 AM | TrackBack (0)

September 04, 2007

Hypocrisy as an "Impeachable" Offense

By: David Limbaugh

Why did Sen. Larry Craig resign? Was it that he was exposed as a homosexual? That he is also a Republican? That he lied? That he committed a misdemeanor? That he is a hypocrite? Or that Republicans had to offer him in sacrifice lest they too -- horrors -- be accused of party-wide hypocrisy?

Obviously, he resigned under pressure from the left -- which ought to be defending him -- and his GOP colleagues.

The larger question, then, is why both the left and right came down so hard on Craig. MSNBC's Chris Matthews inveighed against Craig because Republicans have railed against "San Francisco Democrats" and "hypocrisy does loom here."

Matthews' "Hardball" guest, Salon's Joan Walsh, agreed. "Hypocrisy absolutely looms, Chris. ...The Republican Party has made itself the party of the bedroom police. They've gone after gays, they've snickered about San Francisco Democrats, and they went after Bill Clinton in a sexual kind of witch hunt, and so they've left themselves really open to double standards."

Not so fast, Chris and Joan. While many "values voters" admittedly disapprove of homosexual behavior, they are not anti-gay in the sense liberals are suggesting.

I don't know of any Republicans or conservatives who engage in or advocate bedroom policing -- a smear that is too-often repeated and accepted unquestioningly.

Continue reading "Hypocrisy as an "Impeachable" Offense"

Posted by redguy at 08:46 PM | TrackBack (0)

August 31, 2007

Bush Tax Cuts Must Be Extended

By: David Limbaugh

Democrats have only two arguments left against extending the Bush tax cuts, but recent data affirm that neither is valid. Sadly, though, Democrats will never abandon their claims because they fit so well into their class warfare template.

Even Democrats can't reasonably deny we've experienced sustained economic growth following the Bush tax cuts. Instead, they've resurrected the canard they used to discredit the phenomenal growth of the supply-side Reagan years: Our economic growth has come at the expense of federal solvency.

The growth, they say, is illusory, because it has led to record federal deficits, which means that greedy capitalist Republicans are getting richer on the backs of future generations.

Democrats have added another argument to discourage Americans from believing their lying eyes about the growth spurred by the Bush tax cuts, which also plays into their class warfare methodology. Without refuting that traditional economic indicators reveal strong and steady economic growth, they race to point out that these gains have not been equitably distributed among income groups. The rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer.

Let's see how both claims -- exploding deficits and income inequalities -- stack up against the facts.

Continue reading "Bush Tax Cuts Must Be Extended"

Posted by redguy at 06:23 AM | TrackBack (0)

August 27, 2007

Secularists Often Behave As They Claim Christians Do

By: David Limbaugh

Newsweek's Anna Quindlen recently wrote that a presidential victory for Rudy Giuliani "wouldn't be a good thing for this country, but his candidacy may wind up being a good thing for his party," which Quindlen obviously believes has been hijacked by the Christian right.

Giuliani's strong poll numbers, said Quindlen, perhaps "indicate that the end is nigh for the stranglehold the Leviticus Lobby has had on the GOP."

It's no longer surprising that those screaming most loudly against Christianity and its influence on public policy in America often employ the same tactics and represent the same dangers they falsely attribute to Christians. Christians have far more to fear from the secular thought police than the other way around.

Whether it's writer Christopher Hitchens or CNN's Christiane Amanpour sloppily conflating Christian "fundamentalists" or observant Jews with Islamic jihadists; secular leftists calling the Christian right the American Taliban; or militant secularists like HBO's Bill Maher salivating over reports that Mother Teresa had a crisis of faith, the theme is the same. Christian activists are a societal nuisance.

Continue reading "Secularists Often Behave As They Claim Christians Do"

Posted by redguy at 08:21 PM | TrackBack (0)

August 24, 2007

Defeatist Dems Sing Same Song, Different Key

By: David Limbaugh

The Democrats' latest ploy of shifting the goal posts to dampen Gen. Petraeus's anticipated report of military successes in Iraq by emphasizing the slow progress on the political side makes it increasingly hard to deny they are working for defeat at all costs.

From Sens. Carl Levin, to Dick Durbin to Hillary Clinton, Democrats who have been on the front lines forecasting our military defeat in Iraq are now scrambling to repackage their message -- retrospectively.

Upon returning from Iraq, Levin grudgingly conceded the surge was working, but quickly diluted his positive assessment with negative assurances to his party's antiwar base that political progress was lagging. Hillary Clinton agrees we're making headway militarily, but not soon enough, and certainly not politically, so we must begin to withdraw -- now.

But Democrats haven't been rooting for political success in Iraq either. Remember their underwhelming reaction to the landmark January 2005 elections, when millions of Iraqis risked their lives to vote? Democrats refused to be pleased, complaining that too few Sunnis participated.

There's also the question of what Democrats mean by political progress. Some of these self-styled "democrats," like Clinton, who criticize the U.S. for imposing its will, are demanding that Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki be removed from office. So much for the "progressives'" view of Iraqi sovereignty.

Continue reading "Defeatist Dems Sing Same Song, Different Key"

Posted by redguy at 06:42 AM | TrackBack (0)

August 21, 2007

The Left's Rovian Hate-Obsession

By: David Limbaugh

Those decriers of "hate" on the left just can't imbibe enough hatred for Karl Rove to quench their "tolerant" and "compassionate" appetites.

What drives them to this persistent state of unmitigated and unforgiving rage? I'll tell you what it's not. It's not that he's an unfriendly, hateful, uncompassionate, unlikable ogre -- because he is none of those things.

It's also not about Iraq, for even the Democrats' most fantastic claims can't reasonably pin that one on him -- though they've tried.

The painfully obvious answer is simply that he has made his career beating Democrats and keeping them out of power most egregiously with that intractible "unilateralist" George W. Bush.

People forget that the left's infernal hatred for President Bush began way before their famous catch-all excuse, the Iraq invasion, was a glimmer in the president's eye. Their permanent antipathy began with the Democrats' 2000 electoral defeat.

It didn't matter that Bush didn't draw first blood in the endless Bush/Gore saga in Florida. It was irrelevant that Bush was on the receiving end of an unprecedented Democratic party-wide conspiracy to steal the presidential election. All that mattered was that he wasn't compliant. He wouldn't get out of their way.

When the United States Supreme Court finally said, "Enough is enough," to the Democrats' disgraceful, chad-manipulating, rule-of-law crushing, propaganda-filled Dade charade, the Democrats' misappropriated victim status in one of the most colossal PR flimflams in American history. And who was most responsible for making them victims?

That's right. That "right-wing Rasputin," the ubiquitous Karl Rove.

Continue reading "The Left's Rovian Hate-Obsession"

Posted by redguy at 07:39 AM | TrackBack (0)

August 17, 2007

Misguided or Calculated Race Exploitation?

By: David Limbaugh

Is Barack Obama black enough? Is John Edwards Latino enough or woman enough? Heaven save us from the bean counters.

Isn't it ironic that while the sin in racism is judging, prejudging or treating people differently on the basis of their race, those most conspicuously exercised about the sin are often its most habitual practitioners?

Seriously. What values are we trying to promote here: equal opportunity for all and that all people be judged on the content of their character, not the color of their skin? Or something else, like settling past scores?

Do most of the people forever stirring the pot on these delicate issues care much about vindicating the original principles of the civil rights movement, or are they engaged in blind pursuit of political power -- ultimately trampling on those principles and exploiting those they're pretending to protect? On what possible moral authority do those who promote race-consciousness to end race-consciousness rely?

Continue reading "Misguided or Calculated Race Exploitation?"

Posted by redguy at 07:42 AM | TrackBack (0)

August 14, 2007

Overhyped 'Meet the Press' Debate

By: David Limbaugh

The much ballyhooed debate on "Meet the Press" between former Congressman Harold Ford Jr. and Markos Moulitsas, publisher of the liberal Daily Kos website, was instructive for what it revealed about both the divisions in the Democratic Party and the underlying disingenuousness of both factions.

Ford was defending the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), an organization that holds itself out as centrist, urges the Democratic Party to move in that direction, and proudly claims former President Bill Clinton as its most honored member. Moulitsas was there to represent the more leftist wing of the party, which has used his website to increase its influence.

Ford sounded reasonable on the surface, touting the successes of the Clinton record and attributing those to DLC ideas. But in the end, Ford's message was garbled.

He said that to win national elections "you have to cross three hurdles." You must prove your "strength and trustworthiness on national security," that your values are in line with mainstream America and that you are trustworthy on "taxes, economic and fiscal policy."

Continue reading "Overhyped 'Meet the Press' Debate"

Posted by redguy at 07:06 AM | TrackBack (0)

August 10, 2007

Democrats' Radical Prescriptions for America

By: David Limbaugh

The 2008 election is shaping up to be one of the most important in decades. With every passing day we are seeing a greater contrast between the Democratic Party platform and the national interest -- as witnessed by the positions of the leading Democratic presidential candidates in their debates.

Indeed, the unpopularity of the war in Iraq has fueled a remarkable boldness by these candidates in bringing their liberalism out of the closet. Whether the candidates are sincere in advocating some of their radical positions or merely sucking up to the various interest groups, they are parading their extremism on national television.

The Democrats rail against lobbying, as if to suggest they abhor special interest politics and the undue influence of these interests on policymakers. Yet they are nothing if not beholden to a collection of special interest groups, from labor unions, to gay activists, to race-baiting civil rights leaders, to illegal immigrants, to feminists, to global warming alarmists to antiwar, antimilitary groups to outright class-warfare-waging socialists.

While the Democrats claim to be uniters, virtually every demand of these groups of their puppet-stringed candidates is inherently divisive. The consequent message the candidates carry forward is one of an alienated, polarized, divided and perpetually agitated America.

A disturbing theme coursing through every policy they promote is that almost every problem in America is caused by a wrong action or inaction of the federal government, which Democrats obviously believe is responsible for everything from people's jobs to their health care to global warming -- even their happiness.

Continue reading "Democrats' Radical Prescriptions for America"

Posted by redguy at 06:53 AM | TrackBack (0)

August 03, 2007

Sen. Leahy and the Fair-Weather Constitutionalists

By: David Limbaugh

Sen. Patrick Leahy has mounted his high horse again and is on the warpath against all things Bush and all things Republican. It might be instructive to examine certain statements in his tirade disguised as an interview with Politico.

Leahy said, "The president, with others, has stated in effect that he is a law unto himself and the president can overrule the law, the courts and congressional actions. We have seen this with regards to torture, signing statements and the president determining who will be prosecuted."

For Leahy this is nothing new. Like a spoiled kid who can't always have his way, he has been blowing things out of proportion for some time now -- turning every political frustration into a supposed constitutional crisis. In early 2006, he betrayed his true colors when he said the constitutional "checks and balances that have served to constrain abuses of power for more than two centuries in this country" are at risk when Republicans control the legislative and executive branches.

To Leahy it was a constitutional crisis for voters to elect Republicans to power in the executive and legislative branches. But what's his excuse now, with Democrats in control of the legislative branch? Instead of admitting he has policy differences with President Bush, he says Bush is abusing the Constitution.

Continue reading "Sen. Leahy and the Fair-Weather Constitutionalists"

Posted by redguy at 06:47 AM | TrackBack (0)

July 31, 2007

Little Johnny Injects Himself into the Fray

By: David Limbaugh

The artificial dust-up between John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over the actual dust-up between Hillary and Barack is both amusing and annoying. Probably due to their laziness, the mainstream media conspired to allow Edwards to inject himself into the story, which -- originally -- had nothing to do with him.

The story began when Clinton called Obama "irresponsible" and "naive" for saying that, as president, he would be willing to meet with leaders of Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela and Syria without preconditions.

Clinton said she wouldn't risk allowing these dictators to use her as a propaganda dupe. (One wonders where Hillary was when House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi served as propaganda dupe for Syrian President Bashar Assad -- not to mention grossly undermined the commander in chief.)

The media ooh'ed and ah'ed as if it was daring for Hillary even to take issue with Obama. Obama, who has made a big deal of holding himself out as a uniter, not a divider, lashed back with an impressively divisive rejoinder, tagging Hillary as "Bush-Cheney lite."

Continue reading "Little Johnny Injects Himself into the Fray"

Posted by redguy at 06:36 AM | TrackBack (0)

July 29, 2007

Saying What "Progressives" Want to Hear

By: David Limbaugh

Liberals like to think of themselves as "progressives," which is not only a euphemism to avoid the stigma attached to "liberal," but is intended to convey that they are a step ahead of conservatives -- socially, culturally, morally and, not least, intellectually. But have you ever noticed at a presidential debate, like the one last Monday, the types of questions these "progressives" in the audience ask of Democratic candidates, or the types of predictable, vacuous answers they applaud?

Some self-styled progressive elites like to think of red-staters as reality-challenged, but when you observe the progressives in action at these forums, it's hard not to conclude they are driven mainly by emotions and largely ignore reality. If it sounds good, regardless of whether it makes sense in the real world, it will score well. The key ingredient to impressing a progressive is to demonstrate that you care.

If you want to ingratiate yourself to these audiences, just say something brilliant like, "I abhor war," or "Dick Cheney is evil."

If you want to risk a little higher level of sophistication, you can say, "We need to get our troops out of Iraq, where our soldiers are dying in a civil war" -- which, of course, implies we have no stake in the war, which, in turn, implies that our soldiers' deaths have been in vain.

Continue reading "Saying What "Progressives" Want to Hear"

Posted by redguy at 08:19 PM | TrackBack (0)

July 23, 2007

Democrats Can't Handle the Good News

By: David Limbaugh

Very good news is coming out of Iraq. Not surprisingly, this hasn't caused a change of heart among the Democratic leadership. It hasn't even given them pause. One wonders if they are capable of hearing such news anymore.

The Times Online reports that Al Qaeda is facing rebellion from within its ranks. "Fed up with being part of a group that cuts off a person's face with piano wire to teach others a lesson, dozens of low-level members of Al Qaeda are daring to become informants for the U.S. military in a hostile Baghdad neighborhood."

Some of these junior Al Qaeda members are said to be repulsed by the gratuitous, barbaric violence. One said, "I am sick of it and I hate them, and I am done."

The good news doesn't stop here. Al Qaeda is not only facing internal dissension, but evidence is also emerging that other ethnic forces formerly friendly to Al Qaeda are changing their tune. Iraqi locals are denying Al Qaeda the sanctuary they need to operate. Lt. Col Stephen Michael, commander of a 700-troop battalion in Doura, says, "Al Qaeda's days are numbered, and right now he is scrambling."

Continue reading "Democrats Can't Handle the Good News"

Posted by redguy at 09:11 PM | TrackBack (0)

July 20, 2007

Chris Matthews and "Misinformation"

By: David Limbaugh

MSNBC's Chris Matthews appeared on "The Tonight Show" Wednesday night pontificating, mostly, about the Iraq war. Those who deny the overwhelming liberal bias of the mainstream media and who are pushing the Fairness Doctrine to muzzle conservative talk radio should be required to watch a tape of Matthews' performance.

To a fawning Jay Leno, Matthews engaged in a nearly uninterrupted soliloquy trashing all things Bush, from his governing according to perceived signals from God to his alleged lies about WMD.

Notably ironic, was Matthews' repeated spewing of misinformation in the process of characterizing the administration of disseminating misinformation. They talk about men and women occupying different planets. Perhaps, but at least their planets seem to be in closer proximity than the ones inhabited, respectively, by liberals and conservatives.

Leno jump-started Matthews by asking him about New York Times columnist David Brooks' supposed assertion that President Bush has pursued the war in Iraq because God wills it. "God told him that we should fight this war."

Continue reading "Chris Matthews and "Misinformation""

Posted by redguy at 06:47 AM | TrackBack (0)

July 17, 2007

I Respectfully Disagree with Peggy

By: David Limbaugh

While I've had strong policy disagreements with President Bush, I am unafraid to say I am still grateful he is commander in chief at a time when more and more people are losing sight of the big picture in the global war against Islamist terrorists.

It is difficult even for the most hawkish not to be dispirited by the unrelenting negativity against the war by Democrats and the mainstream media, especially since it has gone on longer than we'd hoped.

It's important that those who have realistically assessed the almost-inevitably devastating consequences of our precipitous withdrawal from Iraq resist the seductive pressure to jeopardize our long-term security in exchange for the quick-fix withdrawal option.

This is why it's especially disappointing that some previously war-supporting conservatives have succumbed to the temptation to fold in the face of the public's war fatigue. I assume that such fatigue is behind the revulsion columnist Peggy Noonan expressed for President Bush in her July 13 column http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110010326.)

Continue reading "I Respectfully Disagree with Peggy"

Posted by redguy at 07:12 AM | TrackBack (0)

July 10, 2007

Muddle-headed Politicians and the Terrorist Threat

By: David Limbaugh

Have you seen the latest reports and photographs of Al Qaeda's brutality and savagery in Iraq? In view of these, how can any reasonable person still maintain our own policies and actions are making them do it?

How can so many be blind or indifferent to the ruthlessness, tenacity and implacability of our jihadist enemy? How can they so easily downplay or ignore this global threat as if its existence is purely a product of our perception, which we can wish away with positive thinking, legislate away or make disappear by withdrawing from Iraq?

Ending our involvement in Iraq will not end the Iraq war as Democrats glibly imply, nor our involvement in the global war. But it will surely increase the violence and death in Iraq and the likelihood of victory for our terrorist enemies.

What kind of deceptive force possesses American and Western European liberals to make obscene claims of moral equivalence between the consistent acts of barbarism unquestionably committed by our enemies and the rare cases of alleged misconduct by our troops in Iraq or Guantanamo?

Continue reading "Muddle-headed Politicians and the Terrorist Threat"

Posted by tom scerbo at 08:33 PM | TrackBack (0)

July 03, 2007

Race-Baiting Dem Candidates Twist Court Decision

By: David Limbaugh

Based on their consistent behavior in recent years, and specifically again in their presidential debate last Thursday, it is fair to ask whether there is any race-sensitive situation Democrats will not exploit for political purposes.

The Supreme Court's decision last week involving the public schools' use of race to achieve diversity was just too tempting to pass up. The respective candidates' reactions spawned a grotesque competition among them to see which was the best demagogue.

These candidates surely understand that the Court's ruling in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al, did not -- let me repeat -- did not overrule the Court's landmark 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education.

In Brown, the Court held that forced segregation of the races in public schools violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the Parents case, the Supreme Court did not reverse itself on the issue of segregation, which was not even at issue.

The Parents case involved two separate school districts, in Seattle, Wash., and Jefferson County, Ky., both of which voluntarily adopted student assignment plans that allocated children to different public schools based solely on their race. The Supreme Court held that such plans violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection guarantee.

Continue reading "Race-Baiting Dem Candidates Twist Court Decision"

Posted by redguy at 07:31 AM | TrackBack (0)

June 29, 2007

Babbin: "In the Words of Our Enemies"

By: David Limbaugh

Almost as upsetting as the fact that the United States is engaged in a long-term global war against radical Islamists is that a shocking percentage of people seem predisposed against grasping it.

To the perennially oblivious, we are in a war of choice in Iraq, which, among other "elective" actions, is stoking extremism and provoking retaliatory action against us. If we will just cease and desist these actions and otherwise alter those policies giving rise to grievances among radical Muslims, their rage will subside and they'll quit targeting us for extinction.

Those afflicted with this line of thinking not only believe it is our actions and policies that cause terrorists to hate us, but that many of those actions and policies are indeed objectionable.

That is, many of those who think global jihadists can be pacified uncoincidentally also believe they have legitimate complaints against the United States.

Continue reading "Babbin: "In the Words of Our Enemies""

Posted by redguy at 05:30 AM | TrackBack (0)

June 26, 2007

Bipartisanship and the Lott/Feinstein Love-fest

By: David Limbaugh

In their joint appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Sens. Trent Lott and Dianne Feinstein unwittingly gave a seminar on the corrupting influence of governmental power, the "bipartisanship is a virtue" myth and the urgent need for term limits.

During their interview, which was billed as a "rematch" but more closely resembled a love fest, the senators seemed to agree with each other way more than they disagreed -- and this from legislators reputed to be ideological opposites.

The senators were busy congratulating themselves over their collegiality and how nice senators looked during Seersucker Suit Week in the Senate, and commenting on the ignorance of American talk show listeners.

While I'm no fan of incivility, I would have felt far better represented if these two lovebirds had engaged in heated debate and at least one of them demonstrated the faintest connection with us mortals outside the governing class.

Speaking of which, host Chris Wallace asked Lott about his recent statement that "senators on both sides of the aisle are being pounded by these talk radio people who don't even know what's in the bill."

Continue reading "Bipartisanship and the Lott/Feinstein Love-fest"

Posted by redguy at 06:58 AM | TrackBack (0)

June 22, 2007

The Left's Stranglehold on the Donkey

By: David Limbaugh

Putting aside the dismal state of the conservative movement's influence on the current political class, including far too many Republicans, and what must be done to remedy it, one hopes that so-called swing voters are paying attention to the leftward lunging of all Democratic presidential candidates.

If -- and this is a big "if" -- Republicans eventually get their house in order on immigration and other major issues, they might be able to capitalize on the extreme left's stranglehold on the Democratic Party.

The far left is not only calling the shots, it is boasting about it, and at this stage, the competing candidates don't dare step out of line, much less fight back against the extremists. For now, they are just doing as they are told.

If things had gone as Hillary Clinton had planned: dispensing with the annoying primary competition and proceeding to the crowning, she might already be pretending to be a reasonable centrist again. But curse Obama and John Edwards, who are forcing her to be honest to her true leftist convictions.

We witnessed the left's cockiness and the candidates' pathetic sycophancy toward it during this week's "Take Back America" conference in Washington, D.C. The event is being sponsored by Campaign for America's Future, a far-left group devoted to the recapturing of America for unmitigated liberalism.

Continue reading "The Left's Stranglehold on the Donkey"

Posted by redguy at 06:21 AM | TrackBack (0)

June 19, 2007

Let's Not Minimize Nifong's Culpability

By: David Limbaugh

I believe the culpability of "rogue" prosecutor and bully-extraordinaire Mike Nifong in the Duke LaCross "fiasco" has been grossly understated. His premeditated actions and apparently unrepentant heart merit a special ranking on the outrage meter and it should be a very long time before we apply to this case the adage that time heals all wounds.

Even in his mostly condemnatory statement explaining the North Carolina Disciplinary Commission's decision to disbar Nifong, commission chairman F. Lane Williamson seemed to bend over backward to give Nifong the benefit of the doubt -- a benefit the wrongfully accused Duke Lacrosse defendants never received.

Williamson said that Nifong's action appeared to the commission "to be out of self-interest and self deception, not necessarily out of an evil motive, but that his judgment was so clouded by his own self-interest that he lost sight of it and wandered off the path of justice and had to be put back on course again by extraordinary means."

I respectfully disagree with the evil motive part. It's as if the commission is suggesting that Nifong's consuming quest for selfish political benefit somehow lessens his culpability, when it clearly aggravates it.

This is a bit like saying that a bank robber's criminal act is less criminal because he possessed a dizzying desire to enrich himself. Perhaps if the robber had committed the crime sacrificially to save starving people in Ethiopia, his actions could be viewed in a more favorable light, but that's hardly the situation here.

Continue reading "Let's Not Minimize Nifong's Culpability"

Posted by redguy at 06:35 AM | TrackBack (0)

June 12, 2007

Another Lesson In Selective Tolerance

By: David Limbaugh

People who don't think the radical homosexual lobby is trying to force its views on society probably aren't paying close attention. Increasingly, in various parts of this nation, if you express traditional views on traditional marriage, you risk being branded a bigot and your speech being muzzled.

For the radical homosexual lobby, it isn't enough that its views are guaranteed full protection, even special protection by the state. They also want to ensure that those disagreeing with them are demonized and denied their First Amendment rights.

The Washington Times' Julia Duin reports on a lawsuit -- Good News Employee Association vs. Hicks -- originating in Oakland, Calif., that is being appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

The controversy arose when two employees of the city of Oakland formed the Good News Employee Association (GNEA) to challenge activities of a previously formed group of homosexual employees. The homosexual group and other radical left-wing groups had availed themselves of the city's e-mail and bulletin board systems.

One e-mail message said, "I personally think the good book needs some updating." According to the Pro-Family Law Center, "Other city-approved e-mails (during the same time period) announced the establishment of an 'altar' for the Day of the Dead, … 'National Coming Out Day,' 'the first anti-Iraq war teach-in sponsored by a city government anywhere in the U.S.,' and a 'First Annual Holiday Mixer' for the Gay-Straight Employee Alliance."

Continue reading "Another Lesson In Selective Tolerance"

Posted by redguy at 06:21 AM | TrackBack (0)

June 08, 2007

The Dem Presidential Candidates' Sojourn to Faithland

By: David Limbaugh

You've got to hand it to Democrats. They are bountiful in chutzpah and relentless in trying to expand their tent. With the second-class treatment they routinely mete out to Christian political activists you'd think they'd be more discreet about proselytizing Christians on the virtues of liberalism. Think again.

Never mind that Democratic leaders become apoplectic every time Republicans so much as whisper about Christianity in the public square; their presidential candidates came right out in the open Monday night and attended Sojourners' Forum on Faith.

Mainstream media reporters couldn't hide their incredulity as they detailed the religious statements of candidates from Hillary Clinton to John Edwards, who just couldn't brag enough about the importance of prayer and faith in their lives. A Washington Post article covering the forum was titled "The Democrats' Leap of Faith."

You've got to admire the Democrats' tenacity. No matter how consummately the Republican Party is destroying itself, Democrats refuse to concede any voter bloc.

Of course, this is nothing new. Jim Wallis, founder and organizer of Sojourners, has been trumpeting the compatibility of evangelical Christianity with political liberalism for a number of years, most prominently in his book "God's Politics," and exhorting Democrats to pursue evangelicals with an evangelical fervor.

Continue reading "The Dem Presidential Candidates' Sojourn to Faithland"

Posted by redguy at 06:56 AM | TrackBack (0)

June 05, 2007

Edwards' Peculiar Brand of Patriotism

By: David Limbaugh

I watched parts of the Democratic presidential debate, then downloaded the transcript. Of all the column fodder it contained, I was particularly taken by two responses of John Edwards that, I believe, fairly represent the Democratic Party's wrongheaded foreign policy worldview.

His statements were at the beginning and end of the evening, and served as figurative bookends that nicely frame the Democrats' curious attitude toward this great nation they seek to lead. They tell us all we need to know about these would-be commanders in chief: that we cannot afford to have them anywhere near the Oval Office, especially as long as this war persists.

Toward the beginning, moderator Wolf Blitzer asked Edwards to clarify his statement that the "war on terror is a bumper sticker, not a plan," in light of the freshly thwarted terrorist plot to bomb JFK airport and the surrounding area in Queens, N.Y. Does Edwards really believe, asked Wolf, that "the U.S. is not at war with terrorists?"

Though he never answered the question directly, Edwards said -- unconvincingly -- he would use every means available to "find terrorists where they are" and "stop them." But he is sticking by his position that the "war on terror" has just been a bumper sticker and political slogan used by President Bush to justify every nefarious act he has committed, from "the ongoing war in Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, spying on Americans, torture. "

Continue reading "Edwards' Peculiar Brand of Patriotism"

Posted by redguy at 07:38 AM | TrackBack (0)

May 30, 2007

Keep a Sharp Eye on Warming Zealots

By: David Limbaugh

Whether or not blind faith in man-made, catastrophic global warming has become a new religion, many of its adherents, ironically, embrace it with the same type of unquestioning zeal they sloppily attribute to and summarily condemn in Christians.

Case in point: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, after leading a congressional delegation to Greenland, declared that she and her fellow travelers saw "firsthand evidence that climate change is a reality, there is just no denying it."

Pelosi is also sure the "global warming" is caused by human beings. She said, "It wasn't caused by the people of Greenland; it was caused by the behavior of the rest of the world."

Well, that settles it then. Speaker Pelosi sees Greenland's ice expansion, and the world is coming to an end. The debate is even more over; we now have a consensus about the already-declared consensus! Never mind substantial contrary evidence and opinion.

Pelosi, in keeping with her M.O. of lauding our foreign critics and enemies, praised the German government for its leadership on global warming. She made the trip -- consistent with her self-appointed role as shadow commander in chief and foreign policy czar -- in anticipation of the upcoming Group of Eight summit. There, the leading industrialized nations will discuss possible successors to the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty, set to expire in 2012, that places limits on carbon dioxide emissions.

Continue reading "Keep a Sharp Eye on Warming Zealots"

Posted by redguy at 06:04 AM | TrackBack (0)

May 24, 2007

Why Aren't Republicans Crying?

By: David Limbaugh

Republican proponents of the so-called "compromise," "comprehensive" immigration bill argue the legislation is palatable because it includes important concessions to accommodate conservatives' concerns. But the more I read about the measure, the more apparent it becomes that it is neither a compromise nor comprehensive and that any concessions offered by Democrats are illusory.

Proponents tout the bill as comprehensive because it allegedly deals with all aspects of the knotty immigration problem, including enforcement, security, immigration-related labor, employment and business issues, the rule of law and even assimilation concerns.

Democrats definitely get what they want: an ever expanding new voter constituency and a lasting supply of fodder for self-congratulation for helping people with other people's money, but what about Republicans?

If the concessions promised conservatives never materialize, there's no compromise and no comprehensiveness, just a sophisticated bait-and-switch scam to lure unteachable Republicans -- and possibly the nation -- into suicide.

One unmistakable sign the bill offers Republicans little is that Ted Kennedy cannot wipe the smile off his face. Why shouldn't he be smiling?

Continue reading "Why Aren't Republicans Crying?"

Posted by tom scerbo at 09:02 PM | TrackBack (0)

May 22, 2007

The Immigration Debacle

By: David Limbaugh

The almost-stealth immigration bill light-speeding its way through Congress represents all that is wrong with politics and an elitist political class that is too far removed from its constituencies.

There is so much wrong with this bill procedurally, and substantively, that one can barely scratch the surface in a short column, but I'll recapitulate some of the most egregious concerns and share a few pet peeves.

First, we are bogged down in a semantic debate over whether the bill constitutes "amnesty." Open-borders apologists take umbrage at the term, saying the bill does not constitute amnesty because illegal immigrants will be punished, never mind how inconsequentially.

But I would argue that those insisting it is amnesty are, in a sense, understating their case. In certain respects it's worse than amnesty. Not only will criminal violators of the immigration laws receive a mere wrist-slap for their infractions; they will be rewarded for them.

Continue reading "The Immigration Debacle"

Posted by redguy at 06:21 AM | TrackBack (0)

May 15, 2007

Memo to Dem Base re Hillary's Quick Trigger Finger

By: David Limbaugh

Any time I write something about Hillary Clinton I hear catcalls from the left accusing me, alternatively, of obsessing over her or unfairly attacking her. Truthfully, none of us has obsessed over her enough, considering she is far and away the frontrunner in the Democratic presidential field and could be the next president.

More than that, conservatives have a duty to spotlight Hillary's record, since the mainstream media (MSM) almost always give her a pass, throw her softballs and ignore her highly relevant past, especially as co-president.

Contrary to her vaunted image, Hillary rarely says anything that isn't programmed and clichéd, but when she does, it's often revealing. Recently, she said President Bush is running a "government of the few, for the few and by the few." Forget the cheesiness of her populistic modification of Lincoln's aphorism. Forget that there's no evidence, including Bush's tax-cutting policies that have benefited people across the economic spectrum, to support her anti-capitalist, anti-freedom appeal. Just remember it is such an appeal.

That socialist tone is also present in her ever-cockier promise for universal health care and her vague noises about making college education another entitlement. We can't afford to be complacent about Hillary Care simply because Hillary failed so miserably in her first attempt to initiate it. Health care costs have continued to grow since then, and increasing percentages of people are now dependent on the federal government, not to mention ignorant of the relationship between free markets and the vitality of our economy.

Continue reading "Memo to Dem Base re Hillary's Quick Trigger Finger"

Posted by redguy at 06:04 AM | TrackBack (0)

May 11, 2007

Whose and What Hearts and Minds?

By: David Limbaugh

The capture of the "Fort Dix Six" has inspired liberals to dust off and republish their "hearts and minds" mantra, which might sound wonderful to some, but bears more sober consideration. Before we can even consider whether winning hearts and minds is a remotely realistic goal, we need to determine whose hearts and minds we're talking about and what "winning hearts and minds" actually means.

Do liberals mean we should convince existing terrorists that diplomacy is a superior path to achieving their goals? That tolerance of other religions is the morally superior position? That women are entitled to dignity and equal rights? That the United Sates and Israel really aren't that evil? That their extreme brand of Islam is misguided?

Surely we can all agree that if we're talking about existing jihadists, these goals are quixotic. You are never going to tame a large percentage of "holy warriors" -- and there are more of them worldwide than we would like to think. It's not like they haven't thought about it and considered the options. It's not like these types haven't been around for more than a thousand years.

Or, are liberals talking about winning the hearts and minds of potential terrorists? If so, do they plan on sending ambassadors from the National Education Association (NEA) to Middle East madrassas, where children are being indoctrinated to hate the West? The NEA would first have to purge itself of its own contempt for Western civilization.

Continue reading "Whose and What Hearts and Minds?"

Posted by redguy at 05:46 AM | TrackBack (0)

May 08, 2007

Hillary's War

By: David Limbaugh

One of my favorite law school professors was Mr. William Fratcher, a nationally recognized expert in property law, trusts and future interests, and an exceedingly eccentric man with odd speech patterns (picture an erudite Elmer Fudd) and a dry wit. One day in Property class he posed the question, "If you are the owner of a worthless tract of real estate but have to pay taxes on it each year, how do you get rid of it?"

His answer? "Convey it to a gutter rat."

I was reminded of that as I watched Hillary's latest gyration on the war in Iraq. In a recent interview she said, "This is Bush's war." Nice try, Hillary, but the inescapable truth is that it is also your war. As much as you'd like to divest yourself of ownership in it, as much as you'd like to convey your interest in it to a gutter rat, like, say, George W. Bush, this is your war, too.

Poor Hillary. Those of us with a speck of discernment always knew she was just pretending to be hawkish to make herself appear more presidential back before the war's popularity went in the gutter along with our proverbial rat. We also knew that eventually she would have to account to the antiwar Democratic base for her apostasy.

Continue reading "Hillary's War"

Posted by redguy at 06:07 AM | TrackBack (0)

May 04, 2007

Leftist Thought Control

By: David Limbaugh

The political left, which holds itself as progressive, rational and fact-based, is becoming an enemy of academic inquiry, and a practitioner of thought control on a wide variety of issues. Increasingly, from the left's perspective, there is just one acceptable viewpoint.

Consider the subjects of evolution, global warming, special rights for homosexuals and abstinence education. Consider efforts of the left to silence conservative talk radio. Consider the mainstream media's arrogant denial of its transparent liberal bias, pronouncing itself to be above politics and inherently objective and its critics somehow skewed.

Consider the leftist refrain that red-state conservatives do not merely possess a different worldview, but are not part of the "reality-based community." Consider the near monolithic liberalism and secularism of our university faculties.

The U.S. House is expected to pass a landmark federal law that would expand hate crimes legislation to include attacks against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender citizens. Opponents argue that it's conceivable under the bill that if a rabbi, priest or pastor reads to his congregation a passage from the Bible condemning homosexuality, he could be considered an accomplice to any parishioner who later commits a "hate crime" against a homosexual.

Continue reading "Leftist Thought Control"

Posted by redguy at 06:09 AM | TrackBack (0)

April 30, 2007

More Red Herrings Fall Into Dems' Laps

By: David Limbaugh

Now that former CIA Director George Tenet has begun his pile-on of the beleaguered Bush administration on the very issue (WMD) he helped the administration formulate, be prepared for a new round of "Bush lied, people died" propaganda. Since Democrats are forcing us to deal with this issue, yet again, couldn't we just once put them on the ropes?

The entire WMD issue has been a Democratic diversion from the get-go. It has allowed Democrats immeasurable cover for their irresponsible absence of policy on Iraq and has provided endless fodder for their libelous claims against the administration.

The Democrats' behavior over the last six years reminds me of that of O.J. Simpson's "Dream Team." Since the blood evidence against O.J. was overwhelming and the defense had no case, it had to create sinister diversions to discredit the evidence gatherers and paint police investigators as racists. Happily for the defense, certain anomalies fell into its lap that it could exploit to confuse and incite a racially charged jury.

Similarly, until recently, Democrats have had no policy since 9/11 began, other than to try to poke holes in the administration's policies and actions -- and to inflame the passions of the electoral "jury" against the Bush Administration and the Iraq War. Unfortunately, anomalies have fallen into their laps as well: little things that appeared wrong that they could blow up and distort to discredit the administration and the war effort. Consider:

Continue reading "More Red Herrings Fall Into Dems' Laps"

Posted by redguy at 07:42 PM | TrackBack (0)

April 26, 2007

There Are "Lies," and Then There Are Lies

By: David Limbaugh

As someone who has criticized the Bush Administration for not fighting back enough against relentless Democrat attacks and disinformation, I was delighted by Vice President Cheney's overdue dress-down of the Peter-principled and unprincipled Senate majority leader, Harry Reid.

If the mainstream media (MSM) gave as much credence to stories of real deception by Democrats as they do to phony allegations of Republican deception, the political landscape would look dramatically different. But no, I'm not holding my breath.

The MSM dutifully reports as fact the Democrats' false allegation that Bush lied about Iraqi WMD, when at worst it was a mistake, since Bush was properly relying on the virtually unanimous opinion of all major intelligence agencies in the United States and the world. To lie is to say something you know at the time to be false.

In fairness, though, it was not President Bush's mistake, but the intelligence agencies. If you insist on saying Bush made a mistake, so did the Democrats who voted along with him -- with access to the same intelligence, though they've lied in denying that as well.

Continue reading "There Are "Lies," and Then There Are Lies"

Posted by redguy at 07:25 AM | TrackBack (0)

April 23, 2007

It Depends What the Meaning of "Support" Is

By: David Limbaugh

One is entitled to wonder how the prime movers in today's Democratic Party would behave differently if they were trying to dispirit our troops and embolden the enemy.

Early on in the Iraq war I watched in disbelief as Democrats, one by one, then group by group, with malice aforethought, fraudulently accused President Bush of something they knew to be false: that he deceived the nation about Iraqi WMD to start a war he had been predetermined to launch since before he was conceived because a) he wanted revenge against Saddam for his father, b) he wanted Iraq's oil for the United States, c) he wanted Iraq's oil for Dick Cheney or d) he is a neoconservative dogmatist who believes democracy is a panacea and preemptive wars to convert tyrannies to democracy are our new Manifest Destiny.

Yes, they accused our commander in chief of lying us into war -- thus savaging his reputation and that of the United States before the entire world -- all the while complaining that President Bush had damaged our reputation in the international community.

Just to make sure there was no misunderstanding as to their intent to destroy his (and the nation's) image, they remained at their megaphones to shriek, incessantly, that Mr. Bush hadn't given Saddam enough time and chances to comply with U.N. resolutions (though he'd violated umpteen of them). This sent an unmistakable signal to the world that it was President Bush that had been unreasonable and in the wrong on this war.

Continue reading "It Depends What the Meaning of "Support" Is"

Posted by redguy at 09:42 PM | TrackBack (0)

April 20, 2007

The Ginsburg Worldview

By: David Limbaugh

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissenting opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart illustrates the moral depths and quagmires of irrationality to which the political and cultural left in this country have descended.

In Carhart, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, a limited congressional ban on partial-birth abortion that was shot down by lower federal courts.

What stands out in Ginsburg's opinion is not her condemnatory legal critique of the majority opinion, but her philosophical/political assertions. While she pays lip service to the supposedly conflicting interests of the government in "safeguarding a woman's health" versus "preserving and promoting fetal life," it is clear that neither of those hold a candle to her interest in promoting "a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature."

Much of Ginsburg's opinion reads like a feminist manifesto straight from the National Organization for Women. One gets the sense that she believes what is really at stake in the abortion debate is not the vindication of "some generalized notion of privacy." No, this is purely and simply a power struggle on behalf of women pursuing their presumably unrealized quest for complete equality.

Continue reading "The Ginsburg Worldview"

Posted by redguy at 06:00 AM | TrackBack (0)

April 17, 2007

Imus and the Wonderful People

By: David Limbaugh

Let's stipulate, uncourageously, that Don Imus' epithet toward the Rutgers women's basketball players was vile, offensive and despicable. That said, I am troubled that, as usual, certain race hucksters seized on the event and, as usual, our society has allowed itself to be bullied into conceding their legitimacy and emboldening them. But I am even more concerned about what the firestorm surrounding Imus' whirlwind demise portends for the future of political discourse in this nation

I've grown suspicious of the sanctimonious types -- in the media and elsewhere -- who slobber all over themselves in self-congratulation when they publicly condemn statements or actions as racist.

I wonder whether their inner feelings and private conduct match their very public statements apparently designed to make the world believe they are compassionate, enlightened and, well, just wonderful people. Do they care as much about the plight of minorities as they do cultivating their image as wonderful human beings?

As others have said, if they are truly worried about the plight of minorities, especially blacks, then why don't they decry and organize against the racism and misogyny in rap and hip-hop music? "That's different," they say, "because it's art." Or, "That's different, because it's not racism when a minority disses his own."

Continue reading "Imus and the Wonderful People"

Posted by redguy at 05:51 AM | TrackBack (0)

April 13, 2007

Iraq Burns While Dems Fiddle

By: David Limbaugh

It is hard to overstate the arrogance and bellicosity of the congressional Democratic leadership. When they're not playing footsie with our enemies, they're savaging President Bush, gleefully naysaying every aspect of the Iraq war and harming the troops they pretend to protect.

Everywhere you turn, Democrats are working their partisan destruction.

Turn to the Washington Post and read about Sen. Joe Biden contradicting the administration and the military's claims that the "surge" in Iraq is producing dividends. Don't be misled, chides Biden. Don't dare focus on any good news coming out of Iraq that doesn't fit into our anti-Bush, anti-war template. Talk all you want about increased security in Baghdad, but the chaos on the city's periphery more than outweighs any gains we've made. The surge, says Biden, is doomed to fail.

Is it too harsh to infer that Biden and his ilk are rooting for failure in Iraq? If bad news doesn't immediately jump out at them, they redouble their efforts to find it, because bad news is their currency. It is their ticket to political power.

Next, turn to an entry from The Crypt's Blog on Politico.com, which reports that Sen. Harry Reid compared President Bush to the most vilified 20th century American president: Richard M. Nixon. Bush, said the quintessentially pugnacious Reid, is "as isolated" over the Iraq war as Nixon was over Watergate.

Continue reading "Iraq Burns While Dems Fiddle"

Posted by redguy at 08:05 AM | TrackBack (0)

April 10, 2007

The Pelosi Democrats' Moral Confusion

By: David Limbaugh

In our outrage over Nancy Pelosi's unconstitutional and,according to some legal experts, criminal attempt to steal the reins of American foreign policy from President Bush, let's not tacitly give her a pass for her egregiously wrongheaded assertion that "the road to Damascus is a road to peace."

Apparently Pelosi believes: a) that the terrorist- sponsoring Syrian regime is a nation of good will, whose leaders are reasonable and interested in resolving disputes through peaceful dialogue, and b) that the U.S. policy of isolating Syria and refusing to negotiate with its leaders until it renounces its support of terrorism is wrong.

How is this different from the Pelosi liberals' position concerning endless "negotiations" with Saddam Hussein? To them, it didn't seem to matter that he had violated umpteen U.N. resolutions and was openly defying weapons inspectors. They always wanted to extend the time for diplomacy and defer the use of force.

Their mindset toward Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is no different. They believe he can be reasoned with and that his grievances can be addressed through jawboning. We are the unreasonable ones, not
Ahmadinejad, for refusing to engage in bilateral talks with him.

Continue reading "The Pelosi Democrats' Moral Confusion"

Posted by redguy at 06:05 AM | TrackBack (0)

April 05, 2007

Gen. Pelosi's Gift to Our Enemies

By: David Limbaugh

It is frankly astounding to me that people aren't making a bigger deal of the colossal impropriety of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's unauthorized trip to Syria. Where is the outrage?

I realize Democratic leaders and those they answer to have unmitigated contempt for President Bush. I realize they believe the public rewarded their hatred and their antiwar posturing in the November congressional elections.

But according to the latest news reports, President Bush is still in office. This means he is still commander in chief and primarily in charge of U.S. foreign policy.

Democrats have long been opposed to the administration's stern policy toward terrorist-sponsoring states like Iran and Syria. They apparently believe their evil tyrants mean well, and if we will just open a dialogue with them, we can build a lasting peace. After all, the vaunted Iraq Surrender Group recommended that very thing.

Continue reading "Gen. Pelosi's Gift to Our Enemies"

Posted by redguy at 05:07 PM | TrackBack (0)

April 03, 2007

Disappearing Elephant Could Squash Dems

By: David Limbaugh

The way I see it, politically speaking, Democrats better hope we don't withdraw our troops from Iraq before the 2008 presidential and congressional elections. Not only would they be damaged by the inevitably catastrophic consequences our premature withdrawal would cause, but voters would also begin to see their obstruction in the prosecution of the war is not limited to Iraq.

Think about it. Right now they are basking in every bit of bad news the mainstream media selectively ensures comes out of Iraq, and they are daily ratcheting up the pressure on President Bush to set "benchmarks" and "timetables." Given the war's apparent unpopularity, Democrats can't help but profit in the short term as they appear to be advocating a position that aligns them with the majority of Americans.

Indeed, the more they hear themselves rant, the more emboldened they become toward extremism and to attempt legislation outside their constitutional authority.

A telltale sign of their increasing cockiness is their announcement that they are about to introduce a bill to cut funding for the Iraq war. Up until now, they've lacked the courage to go that far and have just danced around the issue.

Continue reading "Disappearing Elephant Could Squash Dems"

Posted by redguy at 06:13 AM

March 27, 2007

Sen. Hagel's Reckless Rhetoric

By: David Limbaugh

RINO (Republican in Name Only) Sen. Chuck Hagel boldly suggests (without being bold enough directly to identify with the sentiment) that some congressmen are considering impeachment proceedings against President Bush because he is flouting Congress and the public on Iraq. Hagel needs to be pressed on this.

Hagel has been dogging Bush for months, if not years, over Iraq, and now he is actually doing the antiwar Democrats' bidding on it.

"Any president who says, 'I don't care' or 'I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else' or 'I don't care what Congress does, I am going to proceed' -- if a president really believes that, then there are ... ways to deal with that," said Hagel on ABC's "This Week."

You would think that a person who has made it to the United States Senate would have a least a rudimentary understanding of our constitutional government. You would assume he would have grasped that impeachment is a remedy to remove a president (or other officer) for the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Continue reading "Sen. Hagel's Reckless Rhetoric"

Posted by redguy at 05:02 AM | TrackBack (0)

March 23, 2007

Who's Politicizing Justice

By: David Limbaugh

One reason I have been urging Republicans to man their battle stations against Democrats is that Democrats are in perpetual, full-blown war mode against Republicans. The Democrats' militant approach to the manufactured Justice Department scandal illustrates the point.

If Democrats, as they profess, are inclined toward bipartisanship and conciliation, why are they always alleging GOP scandal even before they have any idea what the facts are?

The answer is that it's all about discrediting the president and augmenting their own power, which is why they always try to tie Cheney or Rove personally to every event they mischaracterize as a scandal.

So it is with this latest installment concerning the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. Despite the unfortunate responses from Alberto Gonzalez, probably born of wholly justified defensiveness toward the Democrat scandalmongers, all available facts point to the conclusion that no impropriety was involved on the part of either the Justice Department or the White House.

Continue reading "Who's Politicizing Justice"

Posted by redguy at 02:22 AM | TrackBack (0)

March 19, 2007

Republicans Won't Stand When Democrats Lie

By: David Limbaugh

As long as the administration and Republicans allow Democrats a monopoly on righteous indignation, it's doubtful they'll make headway in convincing the electorate they hold the moral high ground on the important issues of the day. If this were merely a game of political one-upmanship, it would be one thing, but national security consequences are involved.

From the war on Iraq, to Gitmo, to the NSA surveillance program, to the Wilson-Plame fiasco, to global warming, to the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, deceitful Democrats engage in relentless warfare against Republicans, and Republicans -- way too often -- roll over without even returning fire.

What is a half-attuned public to surmise about the relative integrity of the two parties when one party is forever accusing the other of misconduct and the other barely defends itself, much less turns the tables on its wrongful accusers?

Surely in their wildest dreams Democrats didn't expect the PR and electoral bonanza they've achieved with their "Bush lied" lie. When they first trotted it out, it was almost too preposterous to require refutation. But with four years of daily repetition it has become so entrenched in the conventional wisdom that those of us who bother to refute it are considered the deceivers or the brainwashed.

Continue reading "Republicans Won't Stand When Democrats Lie"

Posted by redguy at 08:55 PM | TrackBack (0)

March 15, 2007

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Even Think It"

By: David Limbaugh

Marine Gen. Peter Pace has violated a cardinal rule of our politically correct culture: stating his opinion that homosexual behavior is immoral. While some of his critics say they are upset he uttered his remarks in his official capacity, that's a mere sidebar. Their real beef is with the content of his remarks, not in what capacity -- official or personal -- he made them.

Had Gen. Pace, in full dress uniform, expressed approval of homosexual behavior, do you think there would be a similar uproar? Or would he have been celebrated as a man of courage and enlightenment?

But that's not quite what he said in an interview with the Chicago Tribune on the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which essentially provides that as long as homosexuals don't engage in homosexual conduct, their orientation will be irrelevant and certainly not disqualifying.

Pace said he believes, "that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts." But he was clear that he was expressing his personal views "as an individual."

Continue reading ""Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Even Think It""

Posted by redguy at 07:38 PM | TrackBack (0)

March 12, 2007

Dems Can Cut and Run, But They Can't Hide

By: David Limbaugh

Newscasters and pundits keep talking about the dilemma the Democrats are facing in legislatively opposing President Bush's troop surge. But this is hardly anything new. The Democrats have never had any answers on Iraq or the larger war on terror. It's just that now, they're going to have a harder time avoiding that fact.

We all know what the Democrats oppose in the war, but after all this time, do we know what they are for?

They are against the war in Iraq, and they are opposed to most of the tools the administration has used to prosecute the war on terror. They are against much of the Patriot Act, the NSA domestic surveillance program, the trial of enemy combatants in military tribunals, tough interrogation techniques, Gitmo and Bush's harsh language against the "evildoers."

They are against "unilateralism" when they mistakenly think Bush has employed it (in the build-up to the Iraq attack) and against multilateralism when Bush is obviously employing it (Iraq and North Korea).

Continue reading "Dems Can Cut and Run, But They Can't Hide"

Posted by redguy at 07:34 PM | TrackBack (0)

March 08, 2007

Whose Fall Guy?

By: David Limbaugh

The whole Scooter Libby case, from start to finish, has been based on the left's depraved obsession with substantiating the lie that President Bush and Vice President Cheney lied us into war.

Though I won't presume to substitute myself as a juror and will never downplay the actual commission of perjury, I have serious doubts that Mr. Libby lied -- as opposed to having an imperfect memory over matters not that critically important -- because he had no motive to lie. He had no motive because the administration had nothing to hide concerning its decision to attack Iraq and particularly the yellow cake uranium flap, despite the left's endless cacophony to the contrary.

The relevant facts in this unfortunate saga are not that complicated. Most Democrats, because of overwhelming public support for the war, were politically compelled to support the Iraq war resolution. But when the war became less popular and the Democrats' antiwar base demanded accountability for the Democrats' heresy, they manufactured the fiction that the administration lied about WMD.

Enter Joseph Wilson, who was willing to put some teeth into their false claims. Wilson corroborated the Democrats' claim that Bush lied in his 2003 State of the Union address in saying, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." (Note that the Brits still stand by their statement.)

Continue reading "Whose Fall Guy?"

Posted by redguy at 08:13 PM | TrackBack (0)

March 05, 2007

Don't Knuckle Under to the Enviro-Luddites

By: David Limbaugh

In spiritually weak moments, I sometimes envy the blind faith of the environ-zealots, even if the object of their faith is hardly sacred.

For all their self-congratulation over their allegiance to science and the scientific method, they flatly violate the spirit of scientific inquiry in their approach to environmental issues.

Of course they cloak all of their claims with the cover of science. They accompany their manifestos with endorsements from hundreds or thousands of scientists, who serve as the functional equivalent of human shields to insulate their extreme claims from scrutiny by the not yet converted.

Never mind that many of the credentialed signatories are anything but experts on climate science. They are scientists, and they buy into the dogma. End of discussion.

Continue reading "Don't Knuckle Under to the Enviro-Luddites"

Posted by redguy at 08:05 PM | TrackBack (0)

March 01, 2007

A Fantasy Transcript for Mr. Fox

By: David Limbaugh

No one should have to suffer the indignity of a moral lecture from Sen. John Kerry as did fellow Missourian Sam Fox at hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on his nomination for Belgium ambassador.

Given Kerry's history of self-indulgence and hubris, it should come as no surprise that he would forget his proper role in the hearings -- as a senator considering the nominee's qualifications and fitness -- and turn the proceedings into an embarrassing spectacle about himself.

Kerry was not about to forego this opportunity to transfer his unquenched hostility against the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to Mr. Fox, who, it turns out, had donated $50,000 to that group during the 2004 presidential race.

Though Fox received "glowing tributes" from a number of senators, Kerry didn't even try to mask his anger. He said, "I assume that you believe that the truth in public life is important? Might I ask you what your opinion is with respect to the state of American politics as regards the politics of personal destruction?"

Continue reading "A Fantasy Transcript for Mr. Fox"

Posted by redguy at 07:29 PM | TrackBack (0)

February 26, 2007

Ending Democrats' Free Ride on Iraq

By: David Limbaugh

For liberals like Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, it is far worse for Vice President Dick Cheney to accuse congressional Democrats of playing into Al Qaeda's hands on Iraq than for Democrats actually to play into Al Qaeda's hands on Iraq.

It's perfectly fine for liberals to liken Bush and Cheney to Adolf Hitler or falsely accuse them of lying us into war in Iraq to steal its oil. It's perfectly fine for liberals to attribute failures in the federal response to Hurricane Katrina to alleged Republican racism.

But don't you dare question the wisdom of the Democrats' proposals on Iraq in such a way as to cause the hypersensitive to infer you were challenging their patriotism.

Apparently to Dionne and other like-minded liberals, the potential dire consequences of the Democrats' policies on Iraq are not appropriate for discussion and debate because they might make Democrats look bad, or even feel bad -- and those are far worse evils than throwing our national security in the toilet.

Precisely what did Dick Cheney -- the public servant who Democrats may, with impunity, stoop to any depths to slander -- say to make House Speaker Nancy Pelosi so indignant? Well, he issued his assessment of the Democrats' legislative proposals to emasculate our current offensive in Iraq.

Cheney said, "Al Qaeda functions on the basis that they think they can break our will ... " and cause us to "quit and go home. ... That's their fundamental underlying strategy. ... If we adopt the Pelosi policy ... we will validate the strategy of Al Qaeda. I said it, and I meant it."

Continue reading "Ending Democrats' Free Ride on Iraq"

Posted by redguy at 06:45 PM | TrackBack (0)

February 22, 2007

Trolling for International Admiration

By: David Limbaugh

While arrogantly guaranteeing that she would be the next president, Hillary Clinton promised to stop America from being an "arrogant power." Well, maybe when she accomplishes her mission, she can begin to work on herself.

Notice that Hillary didn't say we "appear" to be arrogant or that other nations misperceive us as an arrogant nation. She said, "When I'm president, I'm going to send a message to the world that America is back -- we're not the arrogant power that we've been acting like for the last six years."

For those of you who doubted John Kerry was expressing a common Democratic sentiment when he called America an "international pariah," here is your confirmation. Indeed, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, when running for president himself, said of America, "We find ourselves, too often, isolated and resented." President Bush, he said, had "created a new rallying cry for terrorist recruits."

And in case you think Hillary is less politic on this issue than her politically gifted husband, you might recall that when accepting an award for "international understanding" a few years ago, Bill Clinton said that America's image had suffered in the Muslim world. Another Democratic ex-president, Jimmy Carter, said that by acting unilaterally, President Bush had alienated and isolated the United States from its potential allies in the war on terror. He said Bush's policies have resulted in America losing her "reputation as the most admired champion of freedom and justice."

Are these people singing from the same hymnbook, or what?

Continue reading "Trolling for International Admiration"

Posted by redguy at 08:36 PM | TrackBack (0)

February 19, 2007

Racing for Defeat

By: David Limbaugh

I hope those who dismissed the consequences of a Democratic takeover in Congress last November are beginning to see the error of their ways. With each passing day the Democratic leadership is becoming more extreme and urgent in undermining America's cause in Iraq.

President Bush's 21,000-troop surge is well underway, and its accompanying strategy to secure Baghdad proceeds apace. Now, more than ever, our troops need our moral and spiritual support. Now, more than ever, Democrats -- and a disturbing number of Republicans -- are withdrawing it. Their actions are unconscionable.

Two weeks ago, we saw their failed resolution denouncing the build-up of American troops in Iraq. Over the weekend, they tried again, unsuccessfully.

On Friday, the House passed such a resolution by a comfortable vote of 246-182. But when Senate Republicans succeeded in blocking the resolution in the Senate, Democrats threw a tantrum, saying Republicans were stifling debate.

Continue reading "Racing for Defeat"

Posted by redguy at 05:34 PM | TrackBack (0)

February 16, 2007

Barack Rodney King Obama

By: David Limbaugh

Barack Obama's glib announcement in declaring his candidacy for the presidency provides clues about the man and reminds us, contrary to his stated message, of the great chasm that separates people of different political orientations.

Mr. Obama appears to have fallen prey to the wave of public adulation accompanying the media's hype about him -- to the point that he broke his recent promise not to seek the presidency at this early stage in his inexperienced political career.

I realize many politicians, like Hillary Clinton, break similar such pledges. But with Obama it's a bit different. He actually seemed to believe his earlier admission that he hadn't yet accumulated sufficient miles in government to prepare himself for what is not an entry-level position. On the surface his confession reflected a degree of humility, or at least an awareness that the public wouldn't seriously consider someone so green.

But his formal announcement, by contrast, evinced an abrupt graduation from any hint of his previous humility. He even acknowledged as much, admitting "there is a certain presumptuousness in this, a certain audacity. I know I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington."

Continue reading "Barack Rodney King Obama"

Posted by redguy at 06:24 AM | TrackBack (0)

February 12, 2007

Hillary's War With The Base

By: David Limbaugh

As the 2008 Democratic presidential sweepstakes unfolds, it will be interesting to watch the ongoing conflict between the two main rivals: Hillary Clinton and the antiwar base.

Everyone knows that Hillary has shrewdly positioned herself as a hawk in anticipation of a presidential run. Far fewer have bought into her sincerity on the matter. Conservatives know she has been acting. Antiwar liberals have fervently hoped so.

From the beginning, Hillary has received angry criticism from the left for her pro-war rhetoric and her vote in support of the Iraq war resolution. But she was able to deflect most of it earlier because the war wasn't so unpopular then and because even while supporting the war she always found a way to harshly criticize President Bush's war policy.

But now that the Democratic contest is underway, the war is much more unpopular and Hillary has primary opponents running to her left, she is facing more backlash than perhaps she expected. Will she surrender, or will she fight back with the ferocity of which she recently boasted? If the latter, who will be left standing at the end of the day: Hillary or the base?

Continue reading "Hillary's War With The Base"

Posted by redguy at 08:29 PM | TrackBack (0)

February 08, 2007

Known By the Company They Keep?

By: David Limbaugh

Memo to the national Democratic Party: Having a reputedly Hezbollah-supporting imam lead you in a Muslim-based spiritual and political prayer does not support your contentions that your values better reflect true Christianity than those of Republicans and that you support the troops.

Democrats invited Imam Husham Al-Husainy of the Karbalaa Islamic Education Center in Dearborn, Mich., to pray at their annual winter meeting in Washington. Columnist Debbie Schlussel has reported that last summer this same imam led "almost-daily protests of thousands of Hezbollah supporters on the streets of Dearborn and Detroit, swarming with swastikas and anti-Semitic, anti-American signs."

Though other commentators have also addressed this, I am surprised it hasn't drawn more attention, and, frankly, more outrage. It is beyond belief that one of the two major parties in the United States would embrace a person who has openly rooted for terrorists and condemned Jews and America.

To the untrained ear or the Democrat apologist, Al-Husainy's prayer might have sounded inclusive and innocuous. Husainy's prayer included these words, "We thank you, God, to send us your messages through our father Abraham and Moses and Jesus and Mohammed. Through you, God, we unite. So guide us to the right path. The path of the people you bless, not the path of the people you doom. Help us, God, to liberate and fill this earth with justice and peace and love and equality. And help us to stop the war and violence, and oppression and occupation. Amen."

Continue reading "Known By the Company They Keep?"

Posted by redguy at 08:46 PM | TrackBack (0)

February 05, 2007

The Politically Uninspiring Era

By: David Limbaugh

Democrats regained congressional control in November largely by being the only alternative to the unpopular party. Could a similar phenomenon operate in reverse in 2008 with the GOP recapturing Congress and retaining the presidency mostly by default?

Surely most political commentators would agree that Democrats didn't inspire voter enthusiasm in November. They didn't even really try to, because they were banking on the president's and his party's unpopularity. They also knew that if they were to offer something substantive on Iraq, it might drag them down, too. So they relied solely on trashing the president and his policies. But circumstances are working against them enjoying this luxury much longer.

In the first place, Democrats now control Congress, so even though Republicans still have the White House, it will be harder for Democrats to escape scrutiny. But more importantly, we're already in the season of presidential fever, and this is a dangerous season for Democrats with national aspirations.

For though the Iraq war is currently a noose around the neck of the GOP, America remains a center-right nation that will still be in the thick of the war on terror in 2008 and beyond, regardless of what happens in Iraq. Democratic presidential aspirants will have to answer in 2008 for the things they say now to ingratiate themselves to their implacable antiwar base.

Continue reading "The Politically Uninspiring Era"

Posted by redguy at 08:26 PM | TrackBack (0)

February 01, 2007

Don't Underestimate Antiwar Forces

By: David Limbaugh

With the growing influence of the antiwar left in this country, particularly emboldened by the November congressional elections, I fear for our nation as I consider the strong possibility it could elect a liberal, antiwar commander in chief during wartime.

"Chill out," you say. "These people have been protesting for years. They're just fringe extremists and no one listens to them."

Really? It would be nice if they could be so easily dismissed. But these so-called extremists -- many of them Sixties radicals -- just happen to dominate our universities, and their sympathizers "own" the mainstream media. There are far more of them in government and politics than you think, and their impact is significant.

One of them would be commander in chief today but for some 120,000 votes in Ohio, or the noble efforts of certain Swift Boat patriots to highlight the other side of his military record.

Continue reading "Don't Underestimate Antiwar Forces"

Posted by redguy at 08:21 PM | TrackBack (0)

January 29, 2007

Hillary's Understandable Contradictions

By: David Limbaugh

Hillary Clinton's many contradictions aren't hard to understand once you realize her need to suppress her natural instincts and policy preferences because they conflict with her lifelong presidential aspirations.

For the most part Hillary is not personally conflicted: She knows precisely what she wants. But her personality characteristics and the circumstances in which she finds herself force her to walk a tightrope between warring constituencies and to project a double-mindedness that is wholly inconsistent with her innate ideological certitude.

These themes were on display this past weekend as Hillary began her presidential campaign in Iowa. From the issue of her gender, to her kaleidoscopic positions on the war, she was trying to thread personal and policy needles to make herself attractive to Midwestern voters without triggering any more blue-state liberal landmines in the process. (Hollywood moguls have already sent her a message by hosting a fundraiser for Barack Obama.)

In the past, Hillary has vacillated between righteous indignation at any expectation that she should be home "baking cookies" and her acquired awareness that she must not go too far and project herself as cold and heartless.

Continue reading "Hillary's Understandable Contradictions"

Posted by redguy at 07:41 PM | TrackBack (0)

January 25, 2007

Can Democrats Square the Circle with Webb?

By: David Limbaugh

Democrats have a new rock star, and I'm not talking about Barack Obama -- the most recent victim of the Clinton smear machine. I refer to Virginia senator James Webb, who delivered the Democrats' response to the president's State of the Union address.

Ever since 9-11, Democrats have been searching for that magical formula (or politician) that would restore their foreign policy credentials during this time of war. Given their well-earned reputation for weakness on defense, this is no small order.

You will recall the pathetically forced military imagery accompanying Sen. John Kerry's acceptance speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. Kerry's speech, from the bogus opening line: "Reporting for Duty," was a calculated sales pitch aimed at convincing TV viewers they should disregard his and his party's antiwar record and listen, instead, to their empty promises to be tough on terror.

For liberals, there was nothing contradictory in this picture. Kerry was a decorated war vet, and those credentials -- putting aside the credible challenges against them -- would trump all anti-military behavior in which he had engaged from the time he returned from Vietnam.

Continue reading "Can Democrats Square the Circle with Webb?"

Posted by redguy at 07:45 PM | TrackBack (0)

January 22, 2007

Biden & Co. Lack Seriousness on War

By: David Limbaugh

Democrat senators Joseph Biden and Carl Levin appeared on "Fox News Sunday" to promote their toothless resolution against the president's troop "surge" in Iraq, but ended up unwittingly reinforcing their party's image as lacking the requisite seriousness to run the war.

Levin said, "It is a political solution which is needed in Iraq. … Recent events … prove that you can make some political progress perhaps without deepening military involvement by the United States."

While there's no doubt that Iraqi politics are quite relevant, Levin's formulation is precisely backward. Though we've been urging Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to quit protecting Moqtada al-Sadr and his militia, it wasn't until he gave the United States the green light to drop the hammer on the mini-tyrant that Sadr ended his boycott and sent his political flunkies scurrying back to the Iraqi parliament.

So yes, politics matters. But the lesson is that terrorists and lawless insurgents only understand the politics of force. You don't extract results from them by jawboning around a conference table. You either use force or credibly threaten it. Whether our government follows up is another matter, but this is a start, and it wasn't achieved through highbrowed diplomacy.

Continue reading "Biden & Co. Lack Seriousness on War"

Posted by redguy at 08:06 PM | TrackBack (0)

January 18, 2007

The Un-Fairness Doctrine: Unevening the Playing Field, by Law

By: David Limbaugh

Beware of liberals using such words as "fairness." In resurrecting the "Fairness Doctrine," liberals are trying to kill conservative talk radio and restore their media monopoly. Period. The doctrine would selectively stifle free political discourse, which is essential for our representative government.

The Fairness Doctrine, an FCC regulation in force from 1949 to 1987, required broadcasters to present "both sides" of controversial issues. During that time, liberals had a virtual monopoly on the media.

Since the rule was repealed, conservative talk radio has exploded -- Rush Limbaugh launched his syndicated radio show in 1988 -- and other media outlets multiplied: the Internet, including blogs, cable and satellite TV and satellite radio, among others. The conservative viewpoint has fared quite well in the new media.

This is not to say that the government's elimination of the regulation discriminated against the liberal message. The liberal viewpoint still dominates the mainstream media, cable TV, except for Fox News, and the overwhelming number of major print media outlets. Liberals also have equal access to new media outlets, though they've had enormous difficulty competing in the marketplace of ideas.

Continue reading "The Un-Fairness Doctrine: Unevening the Playing Field, by Law"

Posted by redguy at 07:41 PM | TrackBack (0)

January 15, 2007

The Left's Tiresome "Chicken-hawk" Mantra

By: David Limbaugh

Senator Barbara Boxer has mastered the art of rudeness much better than she has cultivated wisdom on weighty matters of state.

When questioning Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on the president's Iraq war policy, Boxer uttered a series of bizarre rhetorical questions. They were obviously intended to discredit Rice, not based on her support of the president's presumably dubious war strategy, but because she doesn't have children, which disqualifies her from participating in a decision that could affect people's children.

Referring to war, Boxer said, "Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families."

Despite her professional and personal accomplishments, Rice is frequently a target for liberals, who apparently find Rice's Republican Party membership a particular betrayal, given her gender and race, which to liberals mean unquestioned allegiance to liberalism.

Continue reading "The Left's Tiresome "Chicken-hawk" Mantra"

Posted by redguy at 07:57 PM | TrackBack (0)

January 11, 2007

Choosing Victory Over Surrender

By: David Limbaugh

President Bush has now done what Democrats have been demanding of him for years. But are they satisfied? Of course not. They make sure of that by forever moving the goal posts.

Democrats have constantly complained that President Bush never admits mistakes and is too stubborn and inflexible to change his strategies. But on all these counts, his speech on Iraq should give Democrats much to cheer about.

He admitted he has made mistakes in Iraq and that his policies were not working. He accepted responsibility for his failures and laid out a new strategy specifically to address and remedy them. But instead of praising him, Democrats redoubled their criticism and reaffirmed their resignation to our defeat.

How about the president's new strategy? The press is heavily emphasizing his plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq, but is ignoring the other equally important aspects of the strategy.

Continue reading "Choosing Victory Over Surrender"

Posted by redguy at 06:41 PM | TrackBack (0)

January 08, 2007

Spreading the Misery

By: David Limbaugh

One of the first actions the new Democratic congressional majority took was to change legislative rules, implemented by the 1994 Republican-controlled Congress, that made it difficult to raise taxes. I suppose the Democrats' apparent plan to increase taxes on "the rich" won't count as a broken campaign promise not to raise taxes since "the rich" aren't entitled to any rights, only to scorn, jealousy and resentment.

The Contract with America provision required a supermajority or 60 percent to increase taxes, but the Democrats' rule change will now permit a tax hike on a simple majority vote. It will also give the Democrats an advantage in preventing Republicans from extending the Bush tax cuts, which are set to expire in a few years. Democrats removed any doubt that this was an accidental development when they rejected a motion by Minority Leader John Boehner to bar the rule change.

It would be one thing if Democrats were solely motivated here by fiscal concerns: balancing the budget, eliminating the deficit and reducing the national debt. But we know better than that because they understand that the president's tax cuts, like President Kennedy's and President Reagan's, increased federal revenues.

Moreover, they can't help but realize that President Bush's tax-cut-driven economic boom has now caused dramatic reductions in the deficits. But to admit such things would be to forfeit class warfare as a demagogic weapon, one of their best remaining tools to bludgeon heartless Republicans.

Continue reading "Spreading the Misery"

Posted by tom scerbo at 08:55 PM | TrackBack (0)

January 04, 2007

It's the Worldview, Stupid

By: David Limbaugh

The American left exhibits ambivalence toward Christians and Christianity. On the one hand it routinely demonizes them and their values, and on the other, identifies with them. This sometimes looks like an insulting charade.

Liberals often mock the perceived backwardness of Christianity, yet their prominent politicians jump at the chance to appear at megachurches to rub elbows with their robust congregations.

They conspicuously wear their Bibles for photo-ops and cite Scripture in campaign speeches, yet deride Christian conservatives and condemn Republican politicians for allowing their Christian beliefs to inform their policies.

Their pastors write books upbraiding Republicans and conservatives for claiming the mantle of Christianity, then proceed to claim it themselves, asserting that liberalism, not conservatism, represents true Christianity.

Some Democrats indignantly deny that liberalism is at war with Christianity or that fundamental liberal principles contradict the Judeo-Christian worldview, insisting that many Democrats are Christians.

Continue reading "It's the Worldview, Stupid"

Posted by redguy at 08:13 PM | TrackBack (0)

January 03, 2007

GOP at Crossroads

By: David Limbaugh

Rank-and-file Republicans are justifiably focused on their party's potential slate of presidential candidates in 2008, but I think they ought to be more concerned with the more fundamental issue of the direction of the party itself.

I agree with Newt Gingrich that the Republican brand is in trouble. People no longer associate the Republican Party with fiscal restraint or limited government. What differences there are between the parties -- and they are still substantial -- are thought to spring more from partisanship than ideology and principle.

To motivate its alienated conservative base, which is the only avenue to resurrecting the Republican majority -- and to good governance -- the party must recapture its ideological underpinnings. It cannot be all things to all people nor significantly dilute its agenda without losing its core -- its soul.

Country club Republicans, of course, disagree with this prescription and will urge the party to accept the "reality" of big government and move to the center, insisting that the only path to reconnecting with voters is to compromise with liberals.

Continue reading "GOP at Crossroads"

Posted by redguy at 05:57 AM | TrackBack (0)

December 28, 2006

Iran, Iraq and Democrats

By: David Limbaugh

As the end of the year always occasions retrospectives, prospectives and resolutions, it might be a worthwhile exercise to consider our experiences with Iraq as a guide to what might happen with Iran, especially since Iran president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's saber rattling has reached a fever pitch.

While comparisons to Hitler (and the world's reaction to him) are painfully trite anymore, it's hard not to notice parallels between Hitler and his apologists and Ahmadinejad and the stubborn appeasers today.

We used to review the world's response to Hitler, uniformly condemn his Neville Chamberlain appeasers and smugly assure ourselves that we would never again ignore such clear signs of malignant aggression. "Never again" would we tolerate the type of infernal anti-Semitism that led to the Holocaust.

But the Iranian president is a professed anti-Semite dedicated to exterminating Jews, he's a devout enemy of the West and freedom, and is quite unapologetically clear about his sinister aims concerning Israel and America, though he mostly pretends he is pursuing nuclear technology for legitimate reasons.

Continue reading "Iran, Iraq and Democrats"

Posted by redguy at 08:17 PM | TrackBack (0)

December 21, 2006

Universal Health Care: Is the Unthinkable Now Thinkable?

By: David Limbaugh

America has the greatest health care in the history of the universe, but the system is fraught with problems that are getting worse every day. It has become so complex that prospects for significant reform seem bleak. But putting aside political considerations, the solutions might be simpler than we assume.

The main problem is that we have crowded out market forces and reduced consumer choice. What the system needs is a robust dose of capitalism.

No one has done a better job of making that case than Dr. David Gratzer in his book, "The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care." The late Dr. Milton Friedman endorsed Dr. Gratzer's recommendations in his foreword to the book.

Friedman explained that before World War II, medical care, like other consumer goods and services, was dispensed through a mostly free market. Patients could choose their own doctors and were responsible for paying the fees. Health care insurance generally didn't cover routine treatment, only catastrophic events.

Continue reading "Universal Health Care: Is the Unthinkable Now Thinkable?"

Posted by redguy at 07:09 PM | TrackBack (0)

December 18, 2006

Lessons from the Cold War

By: David Limbaugh

While there are, of course, enormous differences between the big picture war on terror and the Cold War and the smaller picture war in Iraq and the Vietnam War, there are also uncanny parallels that might enhance our understanding of today's global conflict.

In the Sixties and Seventies, liberals and conservatives disagreed on whether Vietnam was in a civil war or a victim of the Communists' plan for global expansion. The left seemed all too eager to ignore that both the Soviet and Chinese communists were funding and fomenting North Vietnam's aggression, just as the left today wants to ignore Iran's and Syria's similar sponsorship of terrorism and ethnic strife in Iraq.

Indeed, liberals argued that there was no monolithic communist movement -- given the competing communist power centers of the Soviet Union and China -- and dismissed fears born of the domino theory: that if South Vietnam were to fall, other nations would do likewise. Much of the left today tells us that because there is so much internecine conflict among Muslims, mainly between Sunni and Shia, that we shouldn't fear their pursuit of a global caliphate. Liberals today view the Iraq war in a vacuum, denying it is part of the global war on terror and downplaying the likely devastating consequences for Iraq, the Iraqi people and the war on terror if we prematurely withdraw from Iraq.

We lost very few battles in Vietnam, yet the left and the media convinced the American people we were losing the war, which eventually eroded our will. We have lost few, if any battles in Iraq, but the conventional wisdom emanating from the left and the mainstream media is that we are losing the war. Consequently, America's will to persevere has been severely compromised.

Continue reading "Lessons from the Cold War"

Posted by redguy at 09:15 PM | TrackBack (0)

December 15, 2006

Unauthorized Diplomacy -- Where's The Outrage?

By: David Limbaugh

I suppose certain puffed-up congressmen are feeling their oats since the election, but that’s no excuse for their unauthorized trips overseas to meet with leaders of foreign nations. This destructive practice must be stopped.

Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson traveled to Syria and met with its president, Bashar Assad, without the authority and contrary to the wishes of the Bush administration, including the State Department.

The well-known policy of the Bush administration is that the United States has limited diplomatic ties with the Syrian government because of its support for terrorist organizations Hezbollah and Hamas, its support of terrorism and ethnic strife in Iraq, and its policy toward Lebanon.

The Constitution firmly places the conduct of U.S. foreign policy in the hands of the executive branch because the Framers understood the pitfalls of conducting foreign policy by committee.

Legislators, no matter how personally popular or professionally respected, and irrespective of the wisdom or foolishness of the policies they are seeking to promote, have no business -- as a matter of Constitutional law, historical practice and common sense -- meeting with foreign leaders without executive permission. (Some would even argue that Nelson’s unilateral junket violates the Logan Act -- which carries criminal penalties -- but there’s insufficient space to address that here.)

Continue reading "Unauthorized Diplomacy -- Where's The Outrage?"

Posted by redguy at 04:21 PM | TrackBack (0)

December 11, 2006

The Naive Idealism of the ISG "Realists"

By: David Limbaugh

Upon further study, what strikes me most about the Iraq Study Group report (ISGR) is its profound naivete. The group could better identify its operative philosophy as "unrealism," rather than realism.

The modern form of foreign policy "realism" emerged, according to "The Oxford Companion to Politics of the World," in reaction to "idealism," an "approach which held that countries were united in an underlying harmony of interest -- a view shattered by the outbreak of World War II." But there's more:

"Rather than study the world as it might be, Realists maintained that a science of international politics must study the world as it was -- an insistence that resulted in the Realists' self-acclaimed appellation."

I suppose the Baker-Hamilton "realists" might accuse President Bush of idealism for believing in the potential contagiousness of democracy. Indeed, it might be wishful thinking to believe a democratic Iraq would lead to a democratization of the Middle East, especially given the theocratic nature of Islam.

Continue reading "The Naive Idealism of the ISG "Realists""

Posted by redguy at 08:17 PM | TrackBack (0)

December 08, 2006

ISG: The Granddaddy of Armchair Quarterbacks

By: David Limbaugh

It's painful to watch the Iraq Study Group (ISG) selectively invoking our Cold War policies to support their recommendation that we negotiate with our enemies. We didn't negotiate an end to the Cold War. We kicked the Soviets' rear end. Indeed, the very type of "realists" in charge of the ISG largely opposed Ronald Reagan's confrontational approach toward the Soviets that enabled us to graduate from stalemate to victory.

Here are some other thoughts and questions about the vaunted ISG report (ISGR):

-- The ISG seems convinced we are "perilously" close to defeat in Iraq. With this method of war scorekeeping could America have ever won a war, or will it ever again?

-- Did the ISG ever seriously consider that we pursue outright victory over the terrorists, or did their initial bias preclude them from considering that option?

-- Are the ISG's recommendations based on their assumption that Iraq is not part of the overall war on terror? If so, and they are wrong -- which they are -- is their entire report flawed, having been primarily based on an erroneous assumption?

Continue reading "ISG: The Granddaddy of Armchair Quarterbacks"

Posted by redguy at 07:05 AM | TrackBack (0)

December 04, 2006

Justice Breyer's Dangerous Jurisprudence

By: David Limbaugh

Many conservatives reportedly chose not to vote in November to protest the Republican Party's abandonment of conservative principles. One potential consequence of that boycott could be a forfeiture of the chance to finally secure a majority of "originalist" justices on the Supreme Court.

Granted, it was going to be tough enough for President Bush to win confirmation for another conservative nominee to the court in the face of a militant minority should a vacancy occur, but now that the Democrats have control it will be virtually impossible.

This is something disgruntled conservatives should contemplate before sitting the next one out. It is also something Republicans should consider before abandoning conservative principles to the point of alienating their base.

Chris Wallace's "Fox News Sunday" interview of Justice Stephen Breyer is a sobering reminder of the impact of the elections on the judiciary. Wallace asked Breyer about his book, "Active Liberty," released a year ago in which Breyer supposedly defended his practice of rejecting "originalism" in constitutional interpretation.

Continue reading " Justice Breyer's Dangerous Jurisprudence"

Posted by redguy at 07:20 PM | TrackBack (0)

November 30, 2006

Thinly Disguised War on Christianity Thrives

By: David Limbaugh

In this self-congratulatory age of multiculturalism and hyper-tolerance, what religion other than Christianity is treated as inherently offensive? In fact, haven't our cultural high priests instructed that we dare not find other religions offensive, but must even enthusiastically embrace them for contributing to our diversity of ideas and values?

Of course they have, but that admonition -- as all but the most inattentive recognize -- doesn't apply to Christianity, as this year's annual war on Christmas demonstrates once again.

The city of Chicago asked organizers of the German Christkindlmarket, a downtown Christmas festival, to reject New Line Cinema as a sponsor because its advertisements for the movie "The Nativity Story" might offend non-Christians.

Isn't that line getting a little old, especially in a nation where some 90 percent of the people supposedly identify themselves as Christians? It's always easy to say people might be offended, because some people are always in a desperate hurry to be offended.

But what is more likely is that activist organizations like the ACLU, various atheist groups and other radical secularists want to create the impression that Christianity is offensive in order to diminish its influence and its presence in the public square.

Continue reading "Thinly Disguised War on Christianity Thrives"

Posted by redguy at 07:58 PM | TrackBack (0)

November 28, 2006

Reuniting The Conservative Base

By: David Limbaugh

It seems like everyone wants to be like Ronald Reagan these days -- at least those with presidential aspirations. Gov. Mitt Romney says he's a Reagan Republican, and so does John McCain -- amazingly. Some Democrats even identify with the Gipper.

Indeed, mainstream conservatives, present company included, believe Republicans should revert to Reagan conservatism. But this will be easier said than done given the different set of problems facing the nation today, the sharp disagreements among those who each claim to represent Reagan conservatism and the lack of a clear leader of the conservative movement.

President Bush has been quite conservative on certain highly important issues such as taxes and foreign policy. But he has never even purported to be a movement guy and has sometimes dissociated himself from mainstream conservatism, as with his insistence that he's a "compassionate conservative."

Apparently his idea of "compassionate conservatism" is that the government should stay big and intrusive in the domestic spending department, but it should spend the money in ways presumably more palatable to conservatives, such as on the faith-based initiative or by demanding standards in education.

Continue reading "Reuniting The Conservative Base"

Posted by redguy at 06:41 AM | TrackBack (0)

November 20, 2006

Addressing the Elephant in the Room

By: David Limbaugh

I realize Democrats won the elections, but I believe the last thing the president should do the next two years is retreat from his agenda or extend the hand of bipartisanship to liberal Democrats who will only bite it off to a nub anyway.

The elections are not a mandate for the Democrats' policy agenda, because they didn't offer one. I tend to agree with the commentators who contend the elections were not a repudiation of conservative principles, but a referendum on the GOP's perceived competence. If so, the lesson should not be to tack toward the center, or radically alter their ideological approach, but to govern more effectively.

I believe President Bush should govern proactively, not reactively, in his final two years, choosing a handful of issues and pressing forward boldly to promote them: extending the tax cuts, retaining the necessary tools to prosecute the war on terror, drastically reducing domestic spending, immigration reform (the GOP House version -- I know that's wishful thinking), and Social Security reform -- this time with a plan, not just an open-ended invitation for proposals. He cannot and must not expect good faith cooperation from Democrats, except the newly elected conservatives among them.

But to achieve meaningful progress on any of these issues, he first has to work toward restoring his credibility on Iraq, the oxygen-sucking elephant in the room. He cannot possibly lead effectively on Iraq without clearly communicating the options and the pros and cons of each.

Continue reading "Addressing the Elephant in the Room"

Posted by redguy at 08:36 PM | TrackBack (0)

November 17, 2006

Bipartisan Senatorial Grandstanding

By: David Limbaugh

I thought President Bush has been lying to us about our troop requirements in Iraq and that the generals were too afraid of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to contradict his claim that we had enough troops. Isn't that what the critics have been telling us? Well, Rumsfeld is on his way out and the generals are telling Congress that he and Bush have been telling the truth all along.

Our lofty politicians say we should never politicize the war, yet the 2008 presidential frontrunners of both parties, Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain, did precisely that as they each tried to use Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in the Mideast, as an unwitting prop to launch their respective campaigns. I guess this is an example of the "bipartisanship" we can expect from the new Congress.

Unfortunately for these Oval Office aspirants, Abizaid didn't succumb to their shameless grandstanding or defer to their simulated senatorial sagacity, but took them both to the woodshed when they tried to manipulate him during his Senate testimony into supporting their differing positions on the war.

McCain was visibly frustrated with Abizaid's refusal to bow to his imperious wisdom that we should have more troops on the ground in Iraq. Other senators questioned whether we had too few troops.

Continue reading "Bipartisan Senatorial Grandstanding"

Posted by redguy at 06:52 AM | TrackBack (0)

November 13, 2006

GOP: Back to the Basics

By: David Limbaugh

While I stand by my contention that the Democratic Party is intellectually and morally bankrupt, I'll concede Republicans are floundering right now. Ideologically, this is a center-right nation, and yet Republicans lost at the polls. Democrats are going to continue being who they are, but Republicans need to come home.

It's true our congressional losses were not unusual for a midterm election, especially in the president's second term. But if the party had stuck to its principles, it wouldn't have sustained such losses. Republicans need to find their voice again, and well before the 2008 elections, which will be a formidable challenge.

Before addressing the points of conflict, let's consider the principles upon which most Republicans agree. Most agree on lower taxes, lower spending, less government regulation, a strong national defense and originalist judges. Our elected Republican representatives haven't always lived up to these principles, but they remain our principles.

Unfortunately the intra-party differences are many and growing in intensity. The issue of immigration is particularly divisive. Wall Street Journal conservatives are militantly open-borders. They seem to view border control advocates with an elitist disdain, attributing their views to a nativist, xenophobic strain. The border control activists resent the mischaracterization of their passion to preserve our sovereignty and unique American culture as racist. Many of them see the open-borders policy of the elite as wrong-headed naivete at best and economic idolatry at worst.

Continue reading "GOP: Back to the Basics"

Posted by redguy at 09:41 PM | TrackBack (0)

November 09, 2006

We're Still At War

By: David Limbaugh

I am mildly depressed over the Republicans' "thumping" in the election, but not so much because of setbacks to the Republican Party. Though I am concerned with President Bush's apparent belief that he can appease this implacable opposition party by moving to the center, I still believe this defeat could lead to Republicans returning to their conservative roots and presenting a more inspiring message in 2008. But that is only mildly comforting to me since we are at war and much of the nation and many of its leading politicians have reverted to a Sept. 10 mindset. That is much more troubling to me than any Republican losses.

Many conservatives are telling themselves and others that Iraq didn't play a major role in the voters' decision to elect Democrats. They cite dubious exit polls to prove their point.

But if we truly believe we are in a world war against global jihadists, that the major battlefield in the war is Iraq, and that Democrats, for all practical purposes, oppose our continued prosecution of the war there, then Iraq did us in because we didn't make the case. Democrats have succeeded in convincing enough people that Iraq is a costly diversion in the war and Republicans have failed to convince them otherwise.

President Bush tried earnestly to make that case, but he got little help from congressional candidates, with the notable and admirable exception of Rick Santorum, who went down in flames perhaps because of his honest, sacrificial statesmanship.

Continue reading "We're Still At War"

Posted by redguy at 09:44 PM | TrackBack (0)

November 06, 2006

Democrats Challenging America's Will to Persevere

By: David Limbaugh

If you believe the polls, there is a frightening disconnect in American politics today. Polls show that while voters believe Iraq and the war on terror are the most important issues, they are leaning toward restoring congressional control to the party that is too arrogant and disorganized to tell us what it would do on those issues if elected.

Many of us have so often stated that Democrats don't have a plan for Iraq that I am concerned voters are either numb to it or think it's just another Republican talking point. But it is undeniably true.

Democrats have been holding their breath throughout the campaign season, praying they could hold on to an apparent lead by relying solely on their criticism of the president's policies and without revealing their hand on the war.

They had no other issues to run on, since the robustness of the Bush economy became too obvious for them to distort it and their faint toward social conservatism was too absurd to sustain, even with the mini-explosion of isolated Republican "morality" scandals.

They also did their best to avoid national security and the war on terror, knowing that public scrutiny would highlight their unacceptably irresponsible softness on both. Beyond scandalmongering and distraction, their campaign has centered on segregating Iraq from the war on terror, then painting Bush and Republicans as wholly incompetent and immoral concerning the initiation and prosecution of that war.

Continue reading "Democrats Challenging America's Will to Persevere"

Posted by redguy at 08:25 PM | TrackBack (0)

November 03, 2006

Don't Tread On Our Military

By: David Limbaugh

I honestly don't believe Kerry was joking when he warned students they better stay in school lest they wind up in Iraq, nor do I believe, based on his initial reaction of indignation, that he was sincere in the apology that he was browbeaten into giving. Those questions aside, the more important point is that Kerry's statement has had the effect of placing the Democrats' approach toward defense, the war on terror and the military under a microscope, and nothing could be worse for them -- politically.

That Kerry doesn't share a high opinion of our military is born out by his categorical defamation of his fellow Vietnam vets upon returning from Vietnam. Indeed, he launched his political career on the backs of those soldiers, whom he fraudulently alleged had routinely committed atrocities. Very recently he reaffirmed his remarks by emphasizing that he had "told the truth" when he came back from Vietnam.

Kerry also wildly accused our troops in Iraq of terrorizing women and children in their homes. Viewing his remarks in the light most favorable to him, he was "throwing the soldiers under the bus" for the sake of trashing our operation in Iraq. The reputation of our troops was an acceptable casualty for him when he returned from Vietnam. Why not today as well?

Kerry's remarks and his intent are relevant, not only because he still has presidential aspirations, though he's pretty much sabotaged those, but because he was the Democrats' presidential nominee in 2004. The party chose him well aware of his proclivities, and its own.

Continue reading "Don't Tread On Our Military"

Posted by redguy at 06:02 AM | TrackBack (0)

October 30, 2006

GOP Can't Have It Both Ways On Iraq

By: David Limbaugh

Does the Republican Party truly believe Iraq is part of the war on terror and that the war on terror is the most important issue facing voters next week? If so, I wish its operatives and candidates would start acting like it instead of running from Iraq and President Bush.

Too many GOP candidates and spokesmen are playing into the Democrats' hands by virtually conceding the Iraq issue -- an issue upon which the Democrats are extremely vulnerable themselves, if challenged.

I know, I know, many readers will think I'm way off base making such an assertion, having bought into the spoon-fed conventional wisdom that Iraq is a guaranteed loser. What is guaranteed is that America will be the loser if we abandon the president on Iraq and abandon the mission there.

I've seen countless Republican politicians sprinting for the tall grass when asked if they support the president's policy on Iraq. Most of them by the way, are incumbents who have most certainly supported Bush's thankless policy but are now afraid to stand by him in the heat of an election contest.

Continue reading "GOP Can't Have It Both Ways On Iraq"

Posted by redguy at 07:13 PM | TrackBack (0)

October 26, 2006

Iraq, the Stumbling Block

By: David Limbaugh

Iraq is a stumbling block for Democrats. They tend to view every foreign policy issue through their self-stained Iraq lens. Their manufactured fixation over whether we were justified in attacking Iraq obscures their view of the war on terror and the magnitude of the global terrorist threat.

Democrats often charge that if President Bush just hadn't attacked Iraq, the United States would have ample resources to deal with other threats in the world, like Iran and North Korea. Because our military assets are tied up in Iraq we can't effectively deter dictatorial mischief from Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

This criticism is disingenuous, since Democrats probably wouldn't favor tough action against either tyrant anyway. Besides, President Bush is nowhere close to issuing military threats against either one of these rogue regimes. While he wisely won't rule out the military option, he has been emphasizing diplomatic solutions, as well as sanctions.

He has steadfastly insisted on a multilateral approach to both nations against opposition from Democrats who have mystifyingly demanded that we elevate the stature of their dictators by meeting alone with each of them. President Bush has refused to exclude from the talks the other nations, who, according to Condoleezza Rice, arguably have a greater immediate stake in them than we do.

Continue reading "Iraq, the Stumbling Block"

Posted by redguy at 08:07 PM | TrackBack (0)

October 24, 2006

Without Conservative Help, Democrats Shouldn't Bet the Farm

By: David Limbaugh
The real question facing voters in November is whether Democrats will be able to do to the entire legislative branch what they've done to their party. The agenda-less party has become infected with a paralyzing negativity born of its singular hatred for President Bush. Will that mindset be permitted to seize control of our legislative branch? Will disgruntled conservatives collude to make this happen?

How many times have you heard Democrats decrying the Bush administration for having no plan to win the peace in Iraq? We might have executed the initial phase of the war masterfully by removing Saddam, they now grudgingly concede, but we didn't anticipate and plan for the problems that would arise after his removal.

Putting aside a debate over that assertion, let's apply the same standard to their agenda for America today. Shouldn't we ask: "Democrats have a potentially masterful plan for removing Republicans from majority control, but what is their plan for action if they win?

Let's just look at the most important issues: the war on terror, including Iraq, the economy, social issues and immigration. In each category, they either have no plan or are unwilling to publicize it for fear that Rovian Republicans will pick it apart and expose its flaws.

Continue reading "Without Conservative Help, Democrats Shouldn't Bet the Farm"

Posted by redguy at 06:36 AM | TrackBack (0)

October 19, 2006

Christian Conservatives Should Feast, Not Fast, On Politics

By: David Limbaugh

Democrats, with the unsolicited aid of some Republicans, have put on a full court press for "values voters" in their bid to regain control of Congress.

Through various tactics, like tarring the entire GOP with the Foley scandal, and capitalizing on defections by some Christians from the GOP, they hope to suppress the Christian conservative voter turnout. At the same time, they are courting the votes of those they can't discourage enough to stay home.

Democrats have been agonizing since Election Day 2004 over how to repackage their message to deceive values voters into believing they truly represent their interests. Never mind their promotion of same-sex marriage, abortion on demand and partial birth abortion. Never mind their ridiculing of Christian conservatives, their comparisons of Christian "fundamentalists" to Islamic fundamentalists or their institutional sneering at Boy Scouts.

Then, serendipitously, as if by divine intervention, Foley fell into their laps. Next, with the pre-election timing that conspiracy theorists couldn't possibly countenance as coincidence, a number of Republican "insiders" released books recommending a downscaling of influence by Christian conservatives on the Republican Party.

Continue reading "Christian Conservatives Should Feast, Not Fast, On Politics"

Posted by redguy at 09:57 PM | TrackBack (0)

October 16, 2006

John Kerry's Consistent Inconsistencies

By: David Limbaugh

If I hadn't observed Sen. Kerry's incoherent ramblings during the 2004 presidential campaign, I would have been shocked by his indecipherable utterances on "Fox News Sunday" regarding President Bush's foreign policy. Almost every statement was at war with the facts or with other statements he made elsewhere and in this same interview.

On North Korea, Kerry said, "One of the reasons that North Korea can misbehave the way it is today is because the United States has lost its leverage, lost its credibility and doesn't have the capacity to be able to bring countries together in the way that it used to. ... This administration is allowing North Korea to get away with what its doing."

Notice Kerry didn't make the argument that we haven't brought enough force into Iraq and so we lack the credibility to inspire fear in and thereby deter the North Korean regime. No, the context makes clear that Kerry is talking about our failure to approach our diplomacy multilaterally: We don't "have the capacity to be able to bring countries together."

So one would assume that when Chris Wallace asked Kerry what he would do differently, he would respond that we need to work more closely with other nations. Wrong. Kerry said, "I would ... engage in bilateral, face-to-face negotiations with North Korea, make it absolutely clear that we are not intending to invade and have a regime change, and work on the entire set of issues that are outstanding since the armistice with regard to the north."

Continue reading "John Kerry's Consistent Inconsistencies"

Posted by redguy at 06:56 PM | TrackBack (0)

October 12, 2006

The Underestimated Communicator

By: David Limbaugh

President Bush is the Republican's best-kept-secret weapon for retaining control of both houses of Congress in November. Between now and Nov. 7, this grossly underestimated communicator must be on point selling his case to the American people.

I was asked by a television network to be part of a panel discussing the impact of the president's Wednesday press conference. Since I only caught part of the event on television, I studied the 20-page transcript of the event.

Bush was confident, unapologetic and engaged. He defended his national security and economic records and vouched for House Speaker Dennis Hastert to boot. In his opening summary, he clearly articulated his positions on national security, including Iraq and North Korea, and the economy. In the question and answer session that followed he was unflappable, disarming and winning.

Democrat congressman Charles Rangel and his colleagues would like you to believe that President Bush's speech was so deflating that it -- rather than the small plane crashing into a New York City high-rise -- caused the stock market to momentarily stumble. Wishful thinking, Charlie.

Continue reading "The Underestimated Communicator"

Posted by redguy at 07:52 PM | TrackBack (0)

October 10, 2006

Don't Fall For The Propaganda

By: David Limbaugh

I don't care how many times I hear it, I refuse to believe that significant numbers of conservatives will stay home in November and thereby assist the Democratic Party to regain control of Congress.

Democrats and the Old Media have been working hard to create this perception for several months, citing poll after poll to support their claims. It reminds me of the exit poll manipulation orchestrated by the Old Media and Democrat operatives in 2004 to create the GOP-deflating perception that John Kerry was winning big.

But with the unveiling of the Foley scandal, there is an even bigger spring to their step -- kind of like their perverse, gleeful reaction to problems with the delayed federal response to Hurricane Katrina.

Before Foley I gave conservatives more credit than to believe they would sit this election out over their disillusionment with Republicans concerning immigration and domestic spending. My confidence remains after Foley as well, despite push polling and other techniques designed to discourage conservative turnout.

Continue reading "Don't Fall For The Propaganda"

Posted by redguy at 10:34 AM | TrackBack (0)

October 06, 2006

Distractions and Hypocrisy

By: David Limbaugh

Do you remember how many times during the Clinton years Democrats told us everyone lies about sex and that Republicans were shamefully distracting the Clinton administration by harping on White House cover-ups about sex with an intern?

Well, we have far worse distractions now being promoted by Democrats about far less important matters and during far more dangerous times.

When Clinton was president he lamented, "I just want to get back to the work of the American people." That deserves to be echoed by Democrats today, because we need to have a genuine debate on the issues that really matter -- the war against the jihadists, the economy, marriage and abortion, and other vital issues -- before the November elections.

Will Democrats, if they regain control of either -- or both -- houses of Congress, use their newfound majority to further stifle the president's prosecution of the war on terror? Will they de-fund our soldiers in Iraq and demand a timetable for withdrawal? Their incessant criticisms of Iraq being "the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" imply that they would.

Continue reading "Distractions and Hypocrisy"

Posted by redguy at 09:05 AM | TrackBack (0)

October 03, 2006

Iraq: The Bogus Recruitment Tool

By: David Limbaugh

The November elections are fast approaching, and we still don't have the faintest idea what the Democrats would do in Iraq. That's because they have no earthly idea and certainly no consensus. That's why we should call their bluff and make this the issue of the campaign and debate it every day.

For purposes of argument let's assume as true their debatable allegation that attacking Iraq has set us back in the war on terror because terrorists have used it as a recruiting tool. How should we use this information constructively?

We first have to ask why our attack has driven terrorist recruitment. The antiwar left's unspoken insinuation is that our attack was immoral, perhaps even criminal, and terrorists, being morally sensitive creatures, are justifiably outraged at our alleged neoconservative imperialism.

Without question, Democrats have been trying to paint America's invasion of Iraq as criminal. How else can we interpret their endless allegations that Bush lied about Iraqi WMD and about a relationship between Saddam and 9/11 to fabricate an excuse for war?

Continue reading "Iraq: The Bogus Recruitment Tool"

Posted by redguy at 06:07 AM | TrackBack (0)

September 29, 2006

Sacrificing the National Interest

By: David Limbaugh

The New York Times has again selectively leaked sensitive national security information, this time cherry picking an April National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report to support the left's template that our attack on Iraq has spawned more terrorism. In response, President Bush declassified other portions of the report to complete the picture.

If anything, on balance the report emphasizes how critical Iraq is to our ultimate victory in the war on terror. But how dare Bush defend himself?

Caught crying wolf again, Democrats have pulled a familiar trick out of their playbooks. They are demanding Bush declassify the entire document, knowing he cannot afford to comply and reveal secrets to the enemy, to create the false impression that he has something to hide. In the meantime, the national interest be damned.

Democrats pulled the same kind of stunt during Miguel Estrada's Senate confirmation hearings for the appellate bench. As one of their bogus excuses for filibustering Estrada seven times, they said the White House was not forthcoming enough about Estrada's record. So they demanded the release of intra-office memoranda Estrada had written from 1992 to 1997 as assistant solicitor general.

Continue reading "Sacrificing the National Interest"

Posted by redguy at 06:01 AM | TrackBack (0)

September 26, 2006

Who Makes the Terrorists Hate Us?

By: David Limbaugh

What other nation in history has obsessively investigated itself during time of war? When are we going to quit beating ourselves up and move down the road?

Just a few weeks ago, we were treated to Phase 2 of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report analyzing our failures of prewar intelligence for the millionth time. The Committee -- with a nominal majority of Republicans and a working majority of antiwar members -- reported that the administration had been wrong in alleging a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

As Republican Chairman Pat Roberts made clear, the working majority cherry picked the evidence to conclude there was no relationship when the weight of the evidence indicated there was -- going back 10 years, no less. Condoleezza Rice confirmed that there were always dissenting opinions, but that the prevailing view among our intelligence agencies was that there was indeed a relationship.

The committee demonstrated its absurdity elsewhere, too, when it concluded, preposterously, that Saddam didn't consider the United States an enemy because he said so during his debriefing. The committee chose to believe that obvious lie from a lying, murderous tyrant over his consistently contradictory statements and behavior over the previous decade.

Continue reading "Who Makes the Terrorists Hate Us?"

Posted by redguy at 05:42 AM | TrackBack (0)

September 21, 2006

Playing Into the Enemy's Hands

By: David Limbaugh

Why do politicians who know better portray certain CIA interrogation techniques used to extract life-saving information from enemy detainees as torture?

A cottage industry has developed among disgruntled politicians to suggest America is as barbaric as Islamic extremists. I'm not referring to Rosie O'Donnell, who is not a politician and who limited her criticisms to Christian fundamentalists, as if she has an earthly clue of which or whom she speaks.

I'm talking about former President Clinton, Sens. McCain, Graham and Warner, and many Democrats who are feeding into this third-world hate frenzy against the United States. Is it truly their intention to play into the hands of America-despising tyrants like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

On National Public Radio, Clinton said it would be unnecessary and wrong to give broad approval to torture. Well, yes, Mr. Clinton, but since no one in the Bush administration or Congress is considering that, why do you insist on framing the debate in those terms?

Continue reading "Playing Into the Enemy's Hands"

Posted by redguy at 11:44 PM | TrackBack (0)

September 20, 2006

Values Voters: Can't Live With Or Without Them

By: David Limbaugh

Once again, prematurely sanguine Democrats are caught scratching their heads over the recent drops in their poll numbers and the price of oil. Darn the bad luck. What is an imploding opposition party to do?

Well, now that the well has gone dry on their portraying the GOP as one giant oil cartel bent on gouging consumers, where can they turn?

How about national security? That's not such a slam-dunk either, to borrow former CIA Director George Tenet's terminology, since sagacious voters rightly see Democrats as offering no alternative agenda in the war on terror. They do a masterful job slandering President Bush, but in the process of undermining his prosecution of the war in every particular, they don't inspire confidence about their fitness to lead the nation in war.

How about values issues? If they could narrow the gap here, they might just ease back into control of Congress in November, no?

It seems that every other week since late 2004, when presidential exit polls revealed that "values voters" were one of the largest voter blocs and that they preferred Republicans, Democratic leaders have been lurching for their Bibles and meeting with consultants to discuss how to repackage their moral message to better connect with these ephemeral Cro-Magnon types lurking in the bowels of red-state "Jesus Land." They are doing it again this week.

Continue reading "Values Voters: Can't Live With Or Without Them"

Posted by redguy at 05:45 AM | TrackBack (0)

September 12, 2006

Any Which Way To Get At Bush And The GOP

By: David Limbaugh

Once again the Democratic leadership is giddy about yet another smoking gun "proving" what a liar President Bush is. This time, the Senate Intelligence Committee has issued two "Phase II" reports concerning pre-war intelligence on Iraq that supposedly cast doubt on the administration's claim there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

This has Democrats dancing in the streets, kind of like they were with news of a delay in the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, which they gleefully attributed to Republican racism.

It is not enough for Republicans to answer merely that, "this is old news." They need to respond forcefully and indignantly. The Democrats are claiming, once again, that President Bush lied about a life and death matter: alleging a Saddam/Osama connection to build public support for attacking Iraq. Republicans dare not take this charge lightly.

First, let's not overlook that Republicans don't have a real majority on the committee, as several of the GOP committee members are decidedly antiwar and the staffer for one of them -- Sen. Chuck Hagel -- is reputedly a strong Democrat partisan, having worked on Sen. Kerry's presidential campaign.

Continue reading "Any Which Way To Get At Bush And The GOP"

Posted by redguy at 06:31 AM | TrackBack (0)

September 04, 2006

Bankrupt

By: David Limbaugh

Dear Readers: I have a new book coming out, and I think it's probably the most important book I've written so far. It's titled "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party." And here's why I think it's so important -- and why it must be read before the upcoming elections.

The sad fact is: The oldest continuous political party in the world is bankrupt. While the Republican Party is far from perfect and could do much better on immigration, domestic spending, and other issues, it does stand for principles beyond winning. It is the only party that can be safely entrusted with the most important issue of our day: the War on Terror. What weaknesses it has could be vastly reduced with a renewed commitment to conservative ideals across the board.

Democrats, on the other hand, have few policies beyond attacking President Bush and have long lost any legitimate right to claim they are a responsible opposition party. The "Scoop Jackson" Democrats of the 1970s who understood the need for a strong national defense are long gone, with few exceptions, like Sen. Joseph Lieberman, whose responsible statements on the war have led to his ostracism by the party elites. The 1970s Catholic, Southern, and blue-collar Democrats who stuck by their traditional moral values are now mostly "Reagan Republicans."

In their desperation to regain the power they held for decades, Democrats have seized on a few isolated scandals and manufactured others, trying to paint Republicans as fostering a culture of corruption. But the real systemic corruption is in the Democratic Party, from its highest positions of leadership to the bowels of its Bush-hating, antiwar base.

Continue reading "Bankrupt"

Posted by redguy at 08:53 PM | TrackBack (0)

August 31, 2006

Plain Lies, War Lies and Partisanship

By: David Limbaugh

Democrats are outraged over President Bush's new series of national security speeches. There he goes again, politicizing the war.

The Democratic leadership obviously believes the president should muzzle himself so close to the November elections because what is important for national security might also help Republicans, and that must be avoided at all costs.

Democrats are furious over Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's speech to the American Legion this week, in which he compared today's appeasers to those of the World War II era and warned that we mustn't turn a blind eye to today's terrorists like many did to yesterday's Nazis.

Such talk is off limits because it offends the appeasers, who, by the way, deny they're appeasers, insisting they're "tough and smart" scavengers on the hunt for the only terrorist on the planet, Osama bin Laden. His capture or death, they imply, will shut down terrorism in its tracks like a redheaded stepchild and put an end to this reckless, recreational neoconservative global gallivanting.

Continue reading "Plain Lies, War Lies and Partisanship"

Posted by redguy at 07:46 PM | TrackBack (0)

August 28, 2006

More of Carter's Little Pills

By: David Limbaugh

When I wrote about Jimmy Carter's antics recently, some suggested I should quit wasting my time discussing someone so irrelevant. Well, I'd be happy to comply, except that their assumption is incorrect. What this misguided and increasingly bitter man says, especially on foreign soil, does matter.

Don't forget that the Democratic Party leadership embraces Carter, as witnessed by his prominent role in the party's national convention, where he called President Bush -- in no uncertain terms -- a liar. Remember that when you're tempted to think of Carter as just a benign senior statesman.

I'll concede Carter has done some good works since he was defeated in 1980, but why that should insulate him from scrutiny for the many inappropriate and mean-spirited statements he's made since then escapes me.

I thought Democrats unanimously agreed that one of America's highest aspirations should be to ingratiate itself to its allies and other nations. Above all else, we should strive to be the most popular player on the international block.

Continue reading "More of Carter's Little Pills"

Posted by redguy at 08:25 PM | TrackBack (0)

August 24, 2006

McCain's Machiavellian Miscalculation

By: David Limbaugh

Liberals claim to hold Sen. John McCain in high regard because he is supposedly a straight talker. He tells it like it is. Wednesday evening, MSNBC's Chris Matthews asked on "Hardball," "Is John McCain back on that straight talk express? We actually like him there."

Whether or not Matthews intended this, his question reveals his opinion that McCain, at best, only talks straight part of the time. If he had to come "back" to the truth, he must have been dwelling before in "untruth," which means he is hardly to be revered as a reliably honest person. But liberals are so ends-oriented they apparently miss the self-defeating nature of their praise for McCain.

Liberals are obviously also clueless that McCain is not talking straight on the very occasions they say he is. They laud him for accusing Bush of not leveling with Americans about the difficulties we would face in Iraq. But despite daily opportunities for more than three years, McCain has never made this bogus charge before. The smell of the presidential roses, though, must have overpowered him this week and compelled him to kick the president when he is down.

McCain said, "It grieves me so much that we have not told the American people how tough and difficult this task [Iraq] would be. … It has contributed enormously to the frustration that Americans feel today, because they were led to believe that this would be some kind of a day at the beach, which many of us fully understood from the beginning would be a very, very difficult undertaking."

Continue reading "McCain's Machiavellian Miscalculation"

Posted by redguy at 08:39 PM | TrackBack (0)

August 22, 2006

Avoiding The Flow Chart

By: David Limbaugh

Since the 2006 elections are fast approaching and the war is the most important national issue, wouldn't it be helpful to prepare a simple flow chart to compare the Bush administration's policy on the war with that of his Democratic critics?

One would think such an exercise would be unnecessary, since everyone knows what each side is advocating. But as ridiculous as it seems, no one has yet to flush out the Democrats on their position and the consequences flowing from it. They continue to hide behind their naked criticisms of President Bush and his policies, offering no intelligible alternative policy.

Nonsense, you say. Democrats are demanding withdrawal. Are they? To be sure, they make loud noises about withdrawal, but when Republicans have forced a vote on it, most of them have run for the tall grass. Instead, they throw out meaningless or misleading terms like "benchmarks" or "redeployment," which buy them more time to slander Bush without offering a plan of their own that can be evaluated or for which they can later be held accountable.

So let's proceed to construct a flow chart. On one side we have President Bush's clearly articulated position, which he reaffirmed at Monday's press conference. We will remain in Iraq until the mission is completed: when Iraqi security forces can provide stability and protection for the newly formed government. We will continue vigorous enforcement of the Patriot Act and the NSA surveillance program. We will encourage the ongoing sharing of intelligence between agencies, the tracking of terrorists' finances and will oppose terrorist-sponsoring regimes.

Continue reading "Avoiding The Flow Chart"

Posted by redguy at 05:56 AM | TrackBack (0)

August 14, 2006

Time For Democrats To Get On Board

By: David Limbaugh

The political party that is known for nothing if not for politicizing the War on Terror claims to be upset that Vice President Dick Cheney was "politicizing" the war when he suggested that Ned Lamont's primary victory over Joe Lieberman could embolden terrorists. Couldn't they please spare us the phony outrage for a change?

Adding insult to injury, Lieberman said that Lamont's demand for a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq would be "taken as a tremendous victory" by terrorists.

The victorious and victimized Lamont is beside himself at both Cheney and his temporarily fallen opponent Lieberman for bringing up the subject of terrorists. How dare they address the most important issue of the day? Don't they realize that only antiwar liberal Democrats have the floor on this matter?

Lamont said, "My God, here we have a terrorist threat against hearth and home, and the very first thing that comes out of their mind is how can we turn this to partisan advantage. I find that offensive."

Sen. Ted Kennedy, never one to be outdone in the inauthentic expression of rage department, took to the op-ed pages to decry Cheney's remarks as "ugly" and "frightening." He was obviously upset at Cheney's remarks precisely because they were so relevant, as Kennedy specializes in irrelevant, incoherent rants.

Continue reading "Time For Democrats To Get On Board"

Posted by redguy at 08:15 PM | TrackBack (0)

August 11, 2006

Dems -- Exactly Where We Want Them To Be

By: David Limbaugh

More noteworthy than Ned Lamont's defeat of Joseph Lieberman is the loony left's and Democratic leadership's puffed-up reaction to it. I say give them more rope and let them completely hang the party they've hijacked.

Many are acting surprised at the Democratic Party's readiness to throw Lieberman overboard. They shouldn't be.

Lieberman's 90 percent liberal voting record isn't good enough for the monomaniacal antiwar fringe. Complete obedience is required. No belligerence toward terrorists can be tolerated; all venom must be reserved for President Bush and the neoconservative cabal.

While Joe Lieberman was good enough in 2000 to join Al Gore on the national ticket, he probably wouldn't even be allowed in Jimmy Carter's prestigious box at a Democratic National Convention today, unlike the rabid Michael Moore, who has rooted for the terrorist insurgents against American troops in Iraq.

No matter how loyal Lieberman has been to the party, he violated the cardinal rule against showing civility to President Bush. Worse, he supported him on the War on Terror, Iraq Theater -- a truly unforgivable sin. Didn't he realize that all interests, including America's national interests, must be subordinated to the overarching agenda of hating and demonizing President Bush? Well, he'll realize it now. Or will he?

Continue reading "Dems -- Exactly Where We Want Them To Be"

Posted by redguy at 06:35 AM | TrackBack (0)

August 07, 2006

Democrats' Gloating is Premature

By: David Limbaugh

While liberals are licking their chops in anticipation of the demise of conservatism, Democrats are proving they are incapable of capitalizing on any electoral difficulties Republicans might encounter in November.

Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne recently argued, "that this is the week in which conservatism... reached the point of collapse." He said the Republican's hypocritical support of an increase in the minimum wage was symptomatic of "profound fissures within the right." He listed differences among conservatives over Iraq, immigration, stem cell research and federal spending.

Dionne said, "Between now and November, conservative leaders will dutifully try to rally the troops to stave off a Democratic victory. But their hearts won't be in the fight. The decline of conservatism leaves a vacuum in American politics. An unhappy electorate is waiting to see who will fill it."

I believe Dionne makes some valid points about certain internecine struggles on the right. But he misdiagnoses the basic problem, overestimates its significance and completely ignores the left's deeper internal difficulties.

Continue reading "Democrats' Gloating is Premature"

Posted by redguy at 08:14 PM | TrackBack (0)

August 04, 2006

An Unappeasable Global Jihad

By: David Limbaugh

We are fighting a global war against international terrorists because the terrorists are engaged in a global jihad against infidels. The scariest thing about it is that a good many people in this country believe we actually have the luxury of opting out.

Isn't the operative assumption that we are dealing with a reasonable enemy that doesn't want war any more than we do?

Why else would Democratic Congressman Martin Frost tell Fox News -- approvingly -- that "a majority of the American people has now decided that it was a mistake for us to go into Iraq … "? Why else would certain media elites treat the ranting, spooky 18-page letter of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to President Bush as a thoughtful, serious piece warranting the president's good faith consideration? Ahmadinejad, by the way, said on Aug. 3 that the solution to the Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel.

Why else would the Left be so quick to declare moral equivalence between the actions of the Hezbollah terrorist aggressors and those of Israeli defenders? Why else would the liberal media downplay Hezbollah's raining of over 200 rockets on potentially civilian targets in one day while ignoring the possibility that the report of civilian deaths in Qana from Israeli airstrikes was part of a terrorist-staged propaganda event? Doesn't the fact that terrorists traffic in lies as well as murder warrant skepticism at least?

Continue reading "An Unappeasable Global Jihad"

Posted by redguy at 05:42 AM | TrackBack (0)

July 31, 2006

Bolton K.O.'s Kerry

By: David Limbaugh

Perhaps the best reason to support John Bolton's confirmation as our nation's United Nations ambassador is that his approach to foreign policy is radically different from John Kerry's, as illustrated by their exchange during Bolton's confirmation hearings. It is a shame anyone had to miss this delicious slap-down.

Bolton said that for the United Nations to be effective on Iran, North Korea and Lebanon, the 15 members of the Security Council (and particularly the "PERM 5,") would have to reach policy agreements concerning those countries.

Kerry's reflexive response was: "And isn't it fair to say that we're sort of the odd person out on most of those policies?"

You don't need an interpreter to understand Kerry's message: The United States is the problem; it is the obstacle to meaningful policy consensus. This is the same theme Kerry and other Democrats advanced in blaming President Bush for not building a broad enough coalition to attack Iraq when they should have been questioning the reasonableness and motives of the "allies" who refused to join us.

Continue reading "Bolton K.O.'s Kerry"

Posted by redguy at 08:08 PM | TrackBack (3)

July 24, 2006

Bolton Must Be Confirmed

By: David Limbaugh

Why are Democrats -- in the words of Sen. Christopher Dodd -- promising a "bruising" battle over the confirmation of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations?

Bolton is serving under a recess appointment because Democrats twice filibustered a vote on his confirmation last year, preventing a full Senate vote. They were upset that Bolton had made disparaging remarks about the United Nations and that he was tough on subordinates. They were afraid he would alienate our allies.

Now they are sure he has done just that. Dodd said, "I'm sorry the administration wants to go forward with this. The problems still persist. Many ambassadors at the U.N. feel he hasn't done a good job there. He has polarized the situation."

There you have your answer. The liberals' opposition to Bolton lies in their attitude toward the United Nations, which they regard as a largely positive institution rightly frustrated with the arrogance of President Bush and the United States.

Continue reading "Bolton Must Be Confirmed"

Posted by redguy at 08:01 PM | TrackBack (3)

July 21, 2006

Resisting The Propaganda Tendency

By: David Limbaugh

This week the Washington Post gleefully reported that serious fault lines are developing among conservatives over President Bush's foreign policy. While I don't deny the president has been under strong criticism from the right and that significant disagreements exist among conservatives, the rifts are far from fatal.

The antiwar right has long since given up on Bush, but the Post is talking about attacks from so-called "neoconservatives," who, until recently, have been among Bush's staunchest supporters on the Iraq war.

Lately, however, they have criticized him for not being aggressive enough in Iraq and, more recently, toward Iran and North Korea. And they are upset by his guarded response to the attacks against Israel.

The Post, while delighted, seems perplexed by these divisions. It refers to this criticism of the administration "from its own side of the ideological spectrum" as "an odd irony for a president who has inflamed liberals and many allies around the world for what they see as an overly confrontational, go-it-alone approach."

Continue reading "Resisting The Propaganda Tendency"

Posted by redguy at 06:20 AM | TrackBack (7)

July 18, 2006

Who Is The Real Threat To America?

By: David Limbaugh

Sometimes you have to just wonder if these liberal geniuses at the New York Times and elsewhere have the slightest scintilla of common sense, let alone goodwill. At a time when the global conspiracy of Islamic terrorists to wage war against the civilized war is on display for all to see in Israel, the New York Times chooses, once again, to downplay -- if not dismiss -- that threat and, instead, demonize President Bush.

For several years the Democratic leadership and the mainstream media have been depicting President Bush as a power-hungry executive who "tramples on" the Constitution. But the New York Times, in its July 16 editorial, wrote, "It is only now, nearly five years after Sept. 11, that the full picture of the Bush administration's response to the terror attacks is becoming clear. Much of it, we can see now, had far less to do with fighting Osama bin Laden than with expanding presidential power."

Maybe Charlie Sheen has become a shadow member of the editorial board. Sheen, you will recall, recently demonstrated he had his father's penchant for radical left-lunacy when he hinted that a U.S. government conspiracy was behind the 9/11 attacks. Twenty Muslim hijackers just couldn't have pulled off the attacks absent collusion with the government.

Well, go ahead and write Sheen off as a fringe leftist kook if you choose, but when the leading liberal editorial page of the nation is saying things just as maliciously preposterous, it's hard to describe far-left kooks as "fringe" anymore.

Continue reading "Who Is The Real Threat To America?"

Posted by redguy at 05:03 AM | TrackBack (4)

July 10, 2006

Old Media Unrepentant On Damaging Disclosures

By: David Limbaugh

The Old Media are far from contrite about their latest national security betrayal. Instead, they have begun attacking their accusers.

Every time the Old Media are criticized, they trot out the First Amendment, as if they are its exclusive guardians. Heaven help us if that's the case. For it's not the First Amendment they worship, but their self-anointed stewardship of it. Why else would they so adamantly favor suppression of political speech for all but themselves during the 60 days preceding elections? Why else would many of them favor the "Fairness Doctrine" to squelch their successful conservative competitors on radio? Why else would they defend draconian campus speech codes?

The New York Times and Los Angeles Times came under deservedly harsh criticism for reporting -- over the administration's vigorous objections -- the CIA's program of tracking terrorists' financial transactions.

Instead of apologizing, they congratulated themselves for defending the Constitution. Bill Keller of the New York Times and Dean Baquet of the Los Angeles Times co-wrote an op-ed defending their decision. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof followed up with a supporting editorial.

Continue reading "Old Media Unrepentant On Damaging Disclosures"

Posted by redguy at 07:35 PM | TrackBack (1)

July 06, 2006

Hillary's Democrat Problem

By: David Limbaugh

There has been much speculation lately over whether Hillary Clinton is a shoo-in, after all, for the Democratic presidential nomination, let alone the general election. I happen to think the doubts are warranted, not so much because of Hillary's weaknesses, but those of the Democratic Party.

I used to be among those who thought the nomination was Hillary's for the taking but that she would have serious difficulties winning the general election. After observing her relentless commitment to transforming her image, however, I grudgingly softened about Hillary's general election prospects.

Sometime later, I changed my opinion again to wondering whether she even had a lock on the nomination. Lately, those doubts have been validated by certain events and the anxiety of Hillary and her handlers.

The New York Post's Deborah Orin noted that Hillary recently hired a liberal blogger and pandered to antiwar Democrats by promising to abandon Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) should he lose the primary and file as an Independent. More significantly, Democratic strategist James Carville and pollster Mark Penn co-wrote a Washington Post op-ed assuring Hillary's electability "if she does run."

Continue reading " Hillary's Democrat Problem"

Posted by redguy at 11:03 PM | TrackBack (0)

June 29, 2006

Sucker-Punch Immunity

By: David Limbaugh

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean was spewing bile again this week, this time at a Sojourners Convention in Washington, D.C., where Dean likened the Bush administration's "authoritarian government" to the "McCarthy Era."

Such hyperbolic language is nothing new for the Bush-hating left, which has long been painting Bush as a Nazi -- literally -- and an abuser of civil rights. The "Bush is a dictator" theme got a boost with the Supreme Court decision holding -- incredibly -- that the Geneva Convention applies to terrorist enemy combatants. So we can expect a new round of Democratic condemnations of the president. But if he dares to challenge their allegations, they'll accuse him of "stifling dissent."

On "Hannity and Colmes," Alan Colmes interviewed Democratic Sen. Barack Obama about Dean's latest outburst and related issues. Obama is seen by many as a rising star in the Democratic Party, and fairly representative of the party's "mainstream," if you'll excuse the oxymoron, so his responses are telling.

While Obama said he didn't think the administration was blacklisting its political opponents, he said, "There is a mood in the country where dissent is considered unpatriotic. And I think that's a dangerous move. I think we want to have a situation in which dissent is perceived as part and parcel of who we are as a people and what our democracy is about. And that we can have vigorous disagreements without assuming that, you know, the other side is somehow venal or doesn't love their country."

Continue reading "Sucker-Punch Immunity"

Posted by redguy at 09:19 PM | TrackBack (1)

June 26, 2006

Shouting "Fire" in a Crowded Theater

By: David Limbaugh

Would the New York Times pubish our nuclear launch codes if it acquired access to them because it "may be ... a matter of public interest"?

The Bush administration pleaded with the New York Times not to publish its story revealing the existence of a secret government program to track the financial transactions of international terrorists.

The program, headed by the CIA and overseen by the Treasury Department, is known as the "Terrorist Finance Tracking Program" (TFTP) and was begun shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Under it, government officials trace the international financial transactions of those with suspected ties to Al Qaeda by examing data -- only after obtaining an administrative subpoena -- of the Society of Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT).

SWIFT is not a financial institution but a Belgian cooperative owned by more than 2,200 organizations that oversees the routing of funds between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The CIA, under the TFTP, examines mainly wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Under the program, for example, the CIA could track funds from a personal bank account of a suspected terrorist in Jordan to a mosque in Philadelphia.

Continue reading "Shouting "Fire" in a Crowded Theater"

Posted by redguy at 07:56 PM | TrackBack (1)

June 22, 2006

American and European Leftists: A Symbiotic Relationship?

By: David Limbaugh

At a press conference in Vienna on Wednesday, a questioner asked President Bush, "Most Europeans consider the United States the biggest threat to global stability. Do you have any regrets about that?" Could that man with a British accent actually have been a DNC plant?

Of course, I don't believe DNC Chairman Howard Dean really put him up to the question. I don't think Dean was there. He was back in the United States collaborating with his party leaders to write lyrics for the very same songbook.

For years, Democrats have charged that President Bush has employed an arrogant approach to foreign policy and alienated our European allies. They denounced him for refusing to endorse the Kyoto climate change treaty and the International Criminal Court. They shuddered with horror when he designated Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an "axis of evil." They said he acted unilaterally on Iraq. They said he hasn't been deferential enough toward the United Nations. They said his cowboy approach to the war on terror was creating more terrorists than it was capturing or killing.

Former President Clinton snuggled up to the America-bashers at a global conference in Montreal last December, telling them Bush was "flat wrong" that signing on to the Kyoto treaty would damage the U.S. economy. An appreciative attendee, Kenya's Emily Ojoo Massawa, chair of the African group of nations at the conference, said, "It's such a pity the United States is still very much unwilling to join the international community, to have a multilateral effort to deal with climate change." Obviously, the Democrats' talking points memo on Bush's "unilateralism" made its way to Kenya.

Continue reading "American and European Leftists: A Symbiotic Relationship?"

Posted by redguy at 08:15 PM | TrackBack (0)

June 19, 2006

The Democrats' Withdrawal Conundrum

By: David Limbaugh

The only thing more pathetic than the Democrats' floundering disunity on the war is their timing. They have renewed their demands for a precipitous withdrawal in Iraq at a time when even they would be hard pressed to deny that the momentum has changed against the terrorists.

Don't get me wrong. I think we have been winning all along in Iraq, despite the wall-to-wall negative coverage. But recent developments must surely give the naysayers pause as well.

The death of Iraq terrorist chieftain Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a watershed event. That we were able to find this elusive leader in the Iraqi haystack was a remarkable achievement and one that signaled the fruits of a sustained intelligence effort. The event itself was monumental in that the primary leader of our enemy in Iraq was eliminated.

But perhaps the most significant aspect of the event is that it led to a bonanza of intelligence discoveries that both shed light on the enemy's mindset and provided information that allowed us to conduct further highly productive raids. Yet despite these developments, defeatist Democrats see only gloom and doom.

Continue reading "The Democrats' Withdrawal Conundrum"

Posted by redguy at 07:49 PM | TrackBack (2)

June 15, 2006

A Religion or Cult?

By: David Limbaugh

With all the controversy surrounding Ann Coulter's new book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," some might overlook important substantive points she has made.

Critics may say, "Precisely. That's our complaint with Ann. Her insulting remarks deflect attention from the points she's trying to make."

Not so fast. Whether she intended it this way or not, the "harsh" remarks she made in the book have proven one of her theses in a way the book alone could not have done -- at least not as effectively.

She contends that liberals have employed certain "human shields" to advance their unpopular arguments, especially those pertaining to the war on terror. These people have either earned respect, like military heroes, or become sympathetic figures through personal tragedy, like Cindy Sheehan and the widows of 9/11 victims.

Continue reading "A Religion or Cult?"

Posted by redguy at 09:22 PM | TrackBack (0)

June 13, 2006

In Search of Relevance

By: David Limbaugh

Sen. John Kerry's brand-new legislation to withdraw our troops from Iraq is the latest example of Democrats undermining our war effort and trying to make themselves relevant.

Kerry said his legislation would pull the majority of U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of 2006, contingent upon establishing a schedule with the Iraqi government. "This will legitimize the new Iraqi government, enable the Iraqis to become more self-reliant, and undermine support for the insurgency."

Try to forget, if you can, Kerry's ridiculous statement that a bill telegraphing U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would "undermine support for the insurgency," when it would do precisely the opposite.

Every time there is good news coming out of Iraq, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death, Democrats can't allow the news cycle to pass without trying to put a damper on it. It's as if they're saying, "Hey, look at us. We matter, too. We also have ideas on Iraq. Pay no attention to the good news. The news is all bad all the time. Remember: Bush is a liar."

Continue reading "In Search of Relevance"

Posted by redguy at 07:08 AM | TrackBack (44)

June 08, 2006

Surpise: Old Media Downplay Zarqawi's Death

By: David Limbaugh

Before you assume liberals are acting in good faith in casually dismissing the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as "symbolic," don't forget their endless carping about our failure to capture Osama bin Laden.

Zarqawi, Al Qaeda's lead commander in Iraq, was arguably more important to the terrorist movement these days than Osama, since the terrorists' primary focus has been on Iraq, pouring the lion's share of their energies and resources into preventing the Iraqi people from succeeding in their quest for liberty and constitutional self-rule.

These perennial critics aren't the least bit sincere. Before Saddam was captured they complained of our failure to bring him to justice. When he was captured, they said his evil sons were still on the loose.

Liberal bloggers are unnerved, realizing it will be difficult to spin Zarqawi's death to deny Bush and the American military credit. If they truly supported the troops, they wouldn't be investing one second strategizing over how to control damage to their miserable cause, but rejoicing in this American military triumph. But don't be too hard on these amateurs. They haven't been spinning as long as their mentors in the Old Media. Maybe they should take notes and learn some lessons.

Continue reading "Surpise: Old Media Downplay Zarqawi's Death"

Posted by tom scerbo at 09:53 PM | TrackBack (3)

June 06, 2006

Put Away the Broad Brushes

By: David Limbaugh

Where are O.J. Simpson's and Bill Clinton's defenders to complain about the "rush to judgment" concerning the alleged Marine atrocities in Haditha? Why are their sympathies free flowing for criminal defendants, but nowhere to be seen when military personnel are accused of wrongdoing?

What has been reported about the Haditha tragedy is that a terrorist improvised explosive device (IED) blew a Marine in half, literally, and wounded several others. Afterward, our soldiers responded to the attack, killing 24 men, women and children.

We don't know for sure yet if the killings were indiscriminate or even if those killed were victims, as opposed to being armed, hostile and threatening to our soldiers.

We do have reports that Haditha is a terrorist hotbed -- referred to by some as a miniature Taliban-like state -- in which the terrorists rule with an iron fist and perform daily executions of those not sufficiently obedient to their rule, or Sharia law, or who knows what else. We are told that Haditha citizens live in fear and may prefer to cooperate with the terrorists purely for self-preservation.

Continue reading "Put Away the Broad Brushes"

Posted by redguy at 06:42 AM | TrackBack (0)

June 02, 2006

Howard Dean's Fruitless Outreach

By: David Limbaugh

At least Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean is colorful; you've got to give him that much. But he's not the guy to be leading the charge to reunite the Democratic Party with so-called "values voters."

The Washington Times' Greg Pierce reports that Dean was outraged when he heard that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist intended to call to a vote a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

Dean called opponents of homosexual marriage "bigots." He said, "At a time when the Republican Party is in trouble with their conservative base, Bill Frist is taking a page straight out of the Karl Rove playbook to distract from the Republican Party's failed leadership and misplaced priorities by scapegoating LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) families for political gain, using marriage as a wedge issue." It's not only morally wrong, it is shameful and reprehensible," said the enlightened Dean.

Now flashback a week or so and picture Dean on the set of the evil bigot Pat Robertson's "700 Club." Dean appeared as part of his effort to reclaim "values voters" for the Democratic Party. On that program Dean reportedly said the party's platform provides that "marriage is between a man and a woman." Later, Dean had to apologize to gay rights leaders for incorrectly stating the party's platform position.

Continue reading "Howard Dean's Fruitless Outreach"

Posted by redguy at 09:25 AM | TrackBack (0)

May 31, 2006

Conservatives Must Hold Firm On Immigration

By: David Limbaugh

The prevailing mentality among Beltway Republicans is that passage of an imperfect immigration bill before the November elections is better than no bill at all. They might just find out how wrong they are when they experience the inevitable conservative backlash.

Why do we have to be faced with these false choices? The enactment of an imperfect bill, even if it would help to preserve the Republican majority in November, would be a classic case of sacrificing the long-term good for short-term political benefit.

I strongly believe we need to preserve a Republican majority, even though that majority is often controlled by dictatorial moderates -- as in the Gang of 14, seven of which are Republicans. The election of a true Democratic majority would have potentially horrifying consequences on domestic and national security issues across the board.

But with the immigration, we're not talking about some little throwaway issue, but one whose resolution could determine whether this country will ultimately retain its national identity. If anything closely resembling the Senate bill becomes law, we will be stacking the decks against ourselves in what already promises to be a formidable struggle to preserve the unique American culture.

Continue reading "Conservatives Must Hold Firm On Immigration"

Posted by redguy at 09:02 AM | TrackBack (0)

May 23, 2006

MSM Never Tires of Antiwar Propaganda

By: David Limbaugh

With the mainstream media's (MSM's) co-conspiratorial role in highlighting the bad news, suppressing the good news and repeating the Democrats' propaganda, it's no wonder a large chunk of the American people have bought into the Democrats' revisionist history of the Iraq War.

NBC's Tim Russert, who is far from the most administration-unfriendly member of the MSM, gave a seminar on liberal media bias with his interview of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Sunday on "Meet the Press."

Russert said that when the war began in March 2003, 70 percent of the public approved of how President Bush was handling the war, but now only 32 percent approve. "What happened?" asked Russert.

When Dr. Rice responded that it is discouraging for Americans to see violence on their TV screens day in and day out, but harder to see the "quiet progress on the political front," Russert wasn't satisfied. He then launched into the Democrats' talking points.

Continue reading "MSM Never Tires of Antiwar Propaganda"

Posted by redguy at 06:56 AM | TrackBack (1)

May 19, 2006

Immigration: At The Tipping Point

By: David Limbaugh

Political commentators -- both right and left -- who think the outrage over the immigration crisis is a conservative fringe phenomenon are sorely out of touch. That may have been true some time ago, but the sleeping giant of American goodwill and apathy has finally been jolted out of her sleep.

It's hard to deny that the catalyzing events were the audacious protests of illegals throughout the country, waving Mexican flags, disrespecting the American flag and demanding, sometimes in Spanish, their "civil rights." Perhaps Sen. Ted Kennedy's pathetic pandering to this burgeoning new constituency contributed to the national wake-up call as well.

I recognize that certain eastern-corridor economic conservatives may have lofty motives in their undying advocacy for open borders. They continue to romanticize immigration as some innocuous boon to our economy with comparatively minor downsides. But they grossly underestimate the magnitude of the angst of mainstream conservatives over this issue and misjudge their motives. They betray their elitism by implying that those roiled about the issue are "anti-immigrant" or "impervious" to facts that only those in their perches of erudition can clearly see.

The overwhelming majority of people exercised about immigration are not remotely racist, prejudiced, bigoted or nativist. They are, however, unapologetic patriots, believers in the American ideal, the American identity and the American culture. They are not slaves to an exclusively capitalistic perspective, realizing that economic considerations -- pro and con -- are only one part of the equation.

Continue reading "Immigration: At The Tipping Point"

Posted by redguy at 06:57 AM | TrackBack (0)

May 16, 2006

Gay "Rights" -- Who Is Harassing Whom?

By: David Limbaugh

I suppose it's a matter of one's perspective, but it sure seems to me that if there is any special interest group aggressively pushing its agenda on society, it's the radical homosexual lobby. I don't assert this as some earth-shattering revelation or to prove my superior powers of observation. But it is amazing how many people have swallowed the homosexual activists' propaganda that it is heterosexual conservatives who are picking on them rather than the other way around.

A month or so ago I wrote a column about the incredible story of a librarian at Ohio State University at Mansfield who was met with a sexual harassment claim from three professors for suggesting that a number of conservative books be included on a recommended reading list for incoming freshmen. Since then, in my routine daily scanning of the news, I have come across stories almost every other day -- without particularly looking for them -- involving controversy over homosexual-related issues. Could this be an accident?

From April 27 through May 11, I ran across the following headlines: "Anti-Homosexual Bullying 'Endemic' in Schools, Study Says," "Parents' Suit Challenges Gay-Themed Book," "Christian Students Considering Lawsuit Over Suspensions," "California's 'Gay History' Bill Advances," "Gays Fight Citizens in Court," "Gay Ice Skaters Settle Hand-holding Harassment Case" and "Supreme Court Lets Lesbian Partner Be 'De Facto Parent.'"

The first story reports that 64 percent of homosexual students "reported feeling unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation," according to the fourth biennial National School Climate Survey conducted by the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN). Activists are reportedly lobbying state and federal legislators to pass laws forbidding "harassment" based on sexual orientation or gender expression. If indeed these statistics are accurate, why won't ordinary school policies against harassment apply? Some believe the survey, which is apparently based on subjective impressions, is a tool for homosexual activists to normalize their lifestyle and suppress the expression of those who disagree.

Continue reading "Gay "Rights" -- Who Is Harassing Whom?"

Posted by redguy at 08:10 AM | TrackBack (3)

May 11, 2006

Fatherly Lessons From President Ahmadinejad

By: David Limbaugh

What is most noteworthy about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rambling letter to President Bush is that certain people actually want to treat it as a good faith effort to open up a dialogue between our two nations and believe President Bush should jump at the opportunity.

The Associated Press presents it in that light and points to Ahmadinejad's desire "to build on a shared faith in God," even though the letter is a scathing indictment of the American government, which Ahmadinejad says is the object of an "ever-increasing global hatred."

Those trifles aside, the AP observes, wistfully, that "Ahmadinejad strikes the tone of a man who is troubled by a friend's actions and decides to sit down and give him a little advice." Yes, the benevolent dictator "delivered U.S. President George W. Bush a history lesson, philosophy lecture and religious sermon laced with references to Jesus Christ."

Liberal talk show hosts Bill Press and Thom Hartmann also regarded the letter as "thoughtful" and containing "good ideas." Likewise, television hosts Matt Lauer and Charlie Gibson were impressed that Ahmadinejad initiated direct communications with our government for the first time in 27 years. Why would the administration reject this "overture"?

Continue reading "Fatherly Lessons From President Ahmadinejad"

Posted by redguy at 09:22 PM | TrackBack (1)

May 08, 2006

Time for Honest Debate On NSA Surveillance Program

By: David Limbaugh

Does anyone really believe President Bush wants to spy on innocent old ladies or any other group of innocent Americans? Does anyone -- besides the loony left and unwitting dupes they have convinced -- really believe President Bush has a sinister desire to consolidate executive power, make himself a dictator and eviscerate the Fourth Amendment? These are some of the things the knee-jerk opponents of President Bush's selection of Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden to head the CIA apparently believe.

Gen. Hayden is considered to be one of the architects of the administration's NSA warrantless surveillance program, so critics and skeptics of that program have jumped in to oppose him for that reason alone, though other objections have also surfaced, such as that a military leader shouldn't run a civilian intelligence organization.

Political leaders, even certain Republicans like Sen. Arlen Specter, have promised to exploit the Hayden confirmation hearings as an opportunity to inquire into the propriety of this controversial program.

Like some other people, it occurred to me that President Bush is more than ready to have a public debate over his NSA program. Otherwise, he surely wouldn't have chosen a man whose intimate connection to the program is well known and vulnerable to political posturing.

Continue reading "Time for Honest Debate On NSA Surveillance Program"

Posted by redguy at 07:49 PM | TrackBack (7)

May 04, 2006

Republicans Earning Grassroots' Disfavor

By: David Limbaugh

When are Republican politicians going to wake up and quit playing footsie with obstructionist Democrats? Come November, how will Republicans credibly be able to make the case that they deserve to be reelected to majority status when they have unilaterally surrendered their current majority position?

Based on their repeated behavior, these Beltway politicians couldn't possibly comprehend the degree of angst, disgust and frustration swelling in the conservative base of the Republican Party.

The tepid, feckless reaction of Republicans to the Senate Democrats' latest assault on President Bush's judicial nominations is a perfect illustration of their recurring abdication. More and more they think like Democrats, act like Democrats and get in bed with Democrats. And why? Democrats do not come to them bearing gifts.

Like the unmitigated minority bullies they are, Democrats are threatening to filibuster White House aide Brett Kavanaugh, President Bush's nominee for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and Judge Terrence Boyle, his nominee for the 4th Circuit.

Continue reading "Republicans Earning Grassroots' Disfavor"

Posted by redguy at 08:15 PM | TrackBack (4)

May 01, 2006

Time to Extend the Bush Tax Cuts

By: David Limbaugh

It's past time for President Bush to make a strong push to extend his income tax rate reductions before they expire in a few short years. The tax cuts have been instrumental in stimulating economic growth, and their extension is absolutely essential to meet the onerous challenges we'll be facing, including the ongoing war on terror and rising fuel prices.

The president's newly appointed chief of staff, Josh Bolten, appearing on "Fox News Sunday," made encouraging statements about the president's plan to reenergize his domestic agenda, including extending the tax cuts.

But Democrats have a vested interest in blocking the extension and seeing to it that the confiscatory, government-empowering rates enacted in the Clinton years are restored. Democrats are using three principal -- and familiar -- arguments against extending the cuts, all of which are fallacious and deceptive. All are rooted in destructive class warfare.

First, they say that our deficits have skyrocketed under President Bush (which is true) because of his tax cuts (which is patently false). They say that this was entirely foreseeable because Reagan's tax cuts produced similar -- though not as severe -- drains on the national treasury, which is also empirically false.

Continue reading "Time to Extend the Bush Tax Cuts"

Posted by redguy at 09:27 PM | TrackBack (1)

April 27, 2006

Big Awl and Gasbags

By: David Limbaugh

I am no economist, though I did minor in economics at some distant point in the past. I remember a visiting lecturer in my labor economics class one day preaching gloom and doom and telling us we would run out of oil in the next generation or so.

There have always been gloom and doomers and charlatans, and there always will be. There will always be a receptive audience for them. And when their predictions fail, there will always be people who still swear by them -- and even more who refuse to hold them accountable.

I don't want to mention any names -- like Paul Erlich -- of alarmists who were highly popular around the time I was taking labor economics and Money and Banking. Nor do I want to mention that many of their predictions were not just wrong but embarrassingly wrong -- so wrong that they are walking advertisements for the incompetence of their author. Yet, Erlich remains an icon among those who prefer their secular faith of gloom and doom over facts and reality.

Though some of the stated bases for the alarmism of the Sixties and Seventies may have changed (example: from global c