Why the Media Hates and Fears the Super PACs

By John Nolte | June 12, 2012 | Breitbart News

To begin with, you can’t look at the mainstream media as a biased or out-of-touch entity. Instead, you have to look at the media for what it really is: a gaggle of left-wing operatives disguised as journalists who use objectivity and a near-monopoly to control the news and information-narrative all in an effort to damage the Right and promote the Left.

The Left’s One-Percenter Problem

By Frank Salvato | May 17, 2012 | New Media Journal

In the aftermath of Vice President Joe Biden’s “Howard Dean” moment in Ohio this week, I was struck by the sheer magnitude of the Progressive-Democrat Left’s hypocrisy when it comes to their political attacks on the so-called “rich.” As the unwashed masses of the Occupy Movement – the overwhelming majority of which are anarchists, pseudo-Socialists, Progressive activists and union operatives – take to the streets of Chicago to protest the NATO summit, I really do have to wonder if they – the useful idiots of the new millennium – know that those who they follow are the one-percenters?

Among the leaders of the Progressive Movement and the Democrat Party, it is nearly impossible to identify anyone among them who isn’t in the one-percent, and that includes President Obama and, yes, Vice President Biden. Maybe that’s why his statement, “They just don’t get us,” made my head cock like a dog hearing a high-pitched noise. “Who’s us,” I thought to myself.

The New Reactionaries

By Victor Davis Hanson | April 29, 2012 | PJ Media

Our New Regressivism

About fifteen years ago, many liberals began to self-identify as progressives—partly because of the implosion of the Great Society and the Reagan reaction that had tarnished the liberal brand and left it as something akin to “permissive” or “naïve,” partly because “progressive” was supposedly an ideological rather than a political identification, and had included some early twentieth-century Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover.

But twenty-first century progressivism is not aimed at political reform. There is no new effort at racial unity. There is not much realization that we are in a globalized, rapidly changing, high-tech economy or that race and gender are not as they were fifty years ago. Instead, progressivism has become a reactionary return to the 1960s—or even well before. The new regressivism seeks to resurrect the machine ethos of Mayor Daley, the glory green days of the Whole Earth Catalog, the union era of George Meany, Jimmy Hoffa, and Walter Reuther, the racial polarization of the old Black Panther Party and the old Al Sharpton, and a Walter Cronkite, John Chancellor, or Peter Jennings reading to us each evening three slightly different versions of the Truth.

The New Old Chicago

Barack Obama is trying to turn back the way of politics to the era of the pre-reform Chicago machine. He was the first presidential candidate to renounce campaign-financing funds since the law was enacted. He opposes any effort to clamp down on voting fraud. Even his compliant media worries that the president’s current jetting from one campaign stop to another in the key swing states is a poorly disguised way to politick on the federal government’s dime. Bundlers are, as was the ancient custom, given plum honorific posts abroad. Obama has held twice as many fundraisers as the much reviled George Bush had at a similar point in his administration. Obama supporters now target large Romney givers and post their names with negative bios on websites, as if we are back to Nixon’s enemies of the people. Websites sprout up that go after administration critics in Agnew style, but without the latter’s self-caricature. The 2008 criticism about ending the revolving door, lobbyists, and pay-for-play renting out of the Lincoln bedroom was, well…just examine the career of a Peter Orszag. An embarrassed media keeps silent about the new reactionary ethics, apparently on the premise that not to would endanger four more years of the “progressive” agenda. On matters of presidential style, we are likewise retro, as Obama sets records for playing golf, and in Marie Antoinette style the First Family bounces between Vail, Aspen, Martha’s Vineyard, Vegas, and Costa del Sol, often in separate jets, as if we, the people, receive vicarious joy from catching glimpses of the Obama versions of Camelot. We have Kennedy wannabes without their own Kennedy money.

Earth Day Forever

On matters of energy, Obama has regressed to the Earth Day mindset of the 1970s, when we were reaching “peak” oil, and untried wind and solar were soon to be the new-age remedy for soon-to-be-exhausted fossil fuels. Add up the anti-empirical quotes from Obama himself, Energy Secretary Chu, and Interior Secretary Salazar (inflate your tires, “tune up” your car, look to U.S. algae reserves, let energy prices “skyrocket,” hope gas rises to European levels, don’t open federal lands even if gas reaches $10 a gallon, etc.) and, in reactionary fashion, we are time-machined back to the campus quad of the 1970s. In this  la la world of Van Jones, evil oil companies supposedly connived to stifle green energy and hook us on fossil fuels, inferior energies that have nothing to recommend them. It is as if the revolutions in horizontal drilling, fracking, and discoveries of vast new reserves never occurred, as if Exxon and Chevron dodge taxes in a manner that Google and Amazon never would, as if efficient smaller gas engines, clean gas blends, and pollution devices have not made the American car both clean-burning and economical beyond our imagination forty years ago. The Obamians, frozen in amber, really believe oil is about to run out, “tuned up” internal combustion engines powering underinflated tires pollute as they did in the 1920s, and Teapot Dome U.S. oil companies need to be “crucified”—as regional EPA director and Obama appointee Al Armendariz, in fact, boasted. So we borrow hundreds of millions of dollars to subsidize money-losing solar and wind plants, while putting federal lands rich in oil and gas off-limits to companies eager to pay royalties, hire thousands, and supply the U.S. with its own energy—and all for a regressive ideology. Few see that Solyndra really is the new Teapot Dome.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Big Oil dominates political attacks on Obama (grist.org)
• A Clueless Obama Abandons Economic Growth (spectator.org)
• Obama’s “Reptile Dysfunction” Energy Policy (canadafreepress.com)
• Oil Price Slippage Constitutes Warning (markamerica.com)
• Obama’s Plan For More Energy Dependence on China (canadafreepress.com)
• Obama’s New Gas Price Scapegoat (canadafreepress.com)
• Let the fainting begin: Obama unveils 2012 stump speech (twitchy.com)
• Kauilapele – “Let Us All Serve The Light” – And Steve Beckow’s “Periodical Reminder That Obama Serves The Light” (lucas2012infos.wordpress.com)
• Obama tells Americans not to take chance on Romney (newsinfo.inquirer.net)
• The Great Green Swindle (theblaze.com)
• Obama ramps up campaign, knocks Romney’s CEO past (lfpress.com)
• The Caucus: Romney Misleads on Obama and Energy Prices (thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com)
• Stimulus Can of Worms: Crony Capitalism, Corporate Fascism, Global Governance, Socialism, Oligarchy (johnmalcolm.me)
• Barack Hussein Obama is NOT a ‘Nice Man’ (gulagbound.com)
• Obama moves on from Lies and Damn Lies, to statistics… (wizbangblog.com)
• Job Numbers Put Obama Between Rock, Hard Place (foxnews.com)
• Romney Resurrects Solyndra, Claims Obama Blew it on Clean Energy (treehugger.com)
• Green at Any Cost: Solyndra was just the beginning (theblaze.com)
• Energy primer (jackrich.wordpress.com)
• VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: Obama’s Faith-Based Energy Policy. When the summer driving season starts so… (pjmedia.com)
• HANSON: Cabinet gone wild (washingtontimes.com)
• U.S. Green Building Council Commends the White House and USGBC Member Companies for Announcing Nearly $4 Billion Investment in Energy Upgrades to Public and Private Buildings (prweb.com)

It Was the Power, Stupid!

By Victor Davis Hanson | April 22, 2012 | PJ Media

I. Power—Always Was and Always Will Be

In my dumber days, between 2001-2008, I used to wonder why the Left relentlessly hammered the war on terror (e.g., renditions, tribunals, predators, preventative detention, Patriot Act, intercepts, wiretaps, Guantanamo Bay) when these measures had not only proven quite useful in preventing another 9/11-like attack, but had been sanctioned by both the Congress and the courts. In those ancient times, I was not as cynical as I am now. So I assumed that Harold Koh and MoveOn.org, though mistaken, were worried about civil liberties, or measures that they felt were both illegal and without utility.

But, of course, the Obama (who attacked each and every element of the war on terror as a legislator and senator) Left never had any principled objection at all. Instead, whatever Bush was for, they were in Pavlovian fashion against. I can say that without a charge of cynicism, because after January 2009, Obama embraced or expanded every Bush-Cheney protocol that he inherited. In response, the anti-war Left simply kept silent, or indeed vanished, or went to work extending the anti-terrorism agenda. Guantanamo Bay, in other words, was a national sin until the mid-morning of January 20, 2009.

II. The Year 4

We are in the year four of our lord, when darkness was made light, the seas gently receded, and the planet cooled. In the space of 24 hours in January 2009 the world was turned upside down: massive deficits were no longer “unpatriotic”; 5% (heck, even 9%) unemployment was no longer to be seen as a “jobless recovery”; $4 plus gasoline no longer would become “intolerable.” Filibusters suddenly became ossified obstructionism. Recess appointments were now quite legitimate; lecturing the media about the myth of objective fairness was salutary. Pay-for-play time with the president was consulting; attacking the “unelected” courts was progressive. Voter fraud was not thugs eyeing polling monitors with clubs, but officials asking voters to present a picture ID—and mentioning any of these inconsistencies or writing about the Trostkyzation of American life was either racism or Palinism.

Around March 2008, the Ministry of Truth had issued new edicts about campaign financing, big Wall Street money, and the supposedly pernicious role of contributions: all bad if Bush trumped Kerry, all now good if Obama trumped McCain. So when Obama became the first candidate in the history of the law to renounce public campaign financing in order to shake down $1 billion, there was silence. The Left never really worried about Big Money, but only if more Big Money went to conservatives than to themselves. (Consider the current shameless money grubbing of Jon Corzine to raise cash for Obama after Corzine’s looting of thousands of individuals’ lifetime investments, or the shrillness over Mitt Romney’s supposed mansion in La Jolla juxtaposed to the prior silence about the Kerry mansions, the multiple Gore residences, or “John’s room,” as in the huge and crass Edwards estate.) What was interesting about Hilary Rosen was not her stupid thoughts on Ann Romney, but her cursus honorum that led to hired-gun riches by parlaying political contacts into commerce.

III. Tongue-tied Presidents

We can play this Orwellian game with almost everything these days. Take presidential cosmopolitanism and the Bush-as-oaf trope. The disdain was not for an inept president, but rather a simple means to destroy an ideological opponent. Why again the cynicism? Because the Left cares little that Barack Obama has no clue where particular islands in the news are and cannot even do political correctness right when he wishes to ingratiate himself to his South American hosts by wanting to trill the “Maldives.” We have a president who can say Talêban, drop the g’s in a black patois, and trill his Spanish words in front of Latin American hosts, but is off 8,000 miles in his geography.

Ditto “corpse-man,” the Austrian language, 57 states, and all the other parochialism and gaffes that remind us not only that it is hard being a president without making gaffes, but that it is especially hard as a conservative president when each gaffe is cited as proof of ignorance.

IV. So What?

What is going on? Two things, really. One, the media believes that the noble ends justify the tawdry means. So if it is a choice between emphasizing the latest Obama embarrassment by digging into the scary Fast and Furious, the “millions of green jobs” Solyndra insider giveaways, the Secret Service decadence, the GSA buffoonery, and the work while getting food stamps con in Washington OR endangering Obamacare and by extension “the children,” or the war to eliminate autism, or the right to breath clean air–well, why would one ever wish to derail all that by weakening a landmark progressive and his enlightened agenda?

Or for you more cynical readers, why would you wish to enervate the present comfortable culture in Washington in which the press and politics are at last one? Or why undermine the first African-American president, who is a constant reminder of our progressive advancement? Or why weaken our only chance some day to have open borders or gay marriage?

Two, the Left has always operated on the theory of medieval penance. We surely must assume that Warren Buffett has never had problems with the ethics of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. or had a company he controls sued by the IRS for back taxes. Why? Because he has confessed his sins, and accepted the faith and paid his tithe to the Church. Ditto a Bill Gates or a rich celebrity like Sean Penn or Oprah. In the relativism of the left, if the one-percenters will simply confess that their class is greedy and needs to pay their fair share—even if they are entirely cynical in the manner of GE’s Jeffrey Immelt and penance is written off as the cost of doing business—then they become exempt from the wages of them/us warfare and the “you want to kill the children” rhetoric.

V. Good and Bad Fat Cats

There is no difference in the way the Koch brothers or Exxon run their empires and the way that  GM, GE, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, and Google do. But the former are enemies of the people, while the latter are protectors who have have confessed to their bishops and agreed to mouth doctrine and thereby obtained penance to make as much money as they want and to spend it as they damn well please. Suddenly in America after 2009 there are good and bad cable networks, good and bad celebrities, good and bad CEOs, good and bad sports teams (ask Lovie Smith), good and bad states, good and bad everything—not adjudicated on the actual basis of behavior, but rather on whether some are willing to go to reeducation camp, admit their errors, and join the effort to clean the air and feed the kids.

Or do any of you believe there are not Google “corporate jet setters,” or Facebook “fat cats,” or GE executives who didn’t know when it was time not to profit, or Microsoft grandees who ignored the point at which they had made enough money? (For that matter, why could not Barack Obama have made $550,000 last year; had he not reached the point where he didn’t need any more cash?)

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Goldberg: Corzine tarnishes Obama (goerie.com)
• Hypocrisy is exposed (thegazette.com)
• VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: IT WAS THE POWER, STUPID. What is going on? Two things, really. One, the me… (pjmedia.com)
• Liar of the Week: Mitt Romney’s Brain Fehrnstrom Says Auto Bailout All Romney’s Idea (crooksandliars.com)
• POLITICAL FOOT-DRAGGING in the Jon Corzine probe? Well, he is one of Obama’s top bundlers. Plus: … (pjmedia.com)
• What’s with Obama? His Falklands gaffe angers Brits, puzzles others (tarpon.wordpress.com)
• Why Does Obama Continuously Get a Pass On ‘International Stupidity’ (thewesternexperience.com)
• President Obama’s Sisters’s Book (alan.com)
• President Obama, Warrior in Chief – NYTimes.com (policyabcs.wordpress.com)
• BILL CLINTON: Mitt Romney’s Policies Are George W. Bush ‘On Steroids’ (businessinsider.com)

There Is Not Going To Be A Solution To Our Economic Problems On The National Level

Staff Report | April 18, 2012 | The Economic Collapse Blog

For those waiting for our economic problems to be solved, you can quit holding your breath.  There is simply not going to be a solution to our economic problems on the national level.  So why is that the case?  Well, it is because the economic policies of both major political parties are very, very similar when you take a close look at them.  Yes, that statement may sound downright bizarre to many Americans, but it is true.  Both major political parties supported the Wall Street bailouts, both of them fully support the job-killing “free trade” globalization agenda, both of them have dramatically increased the national debt when in power, both of them fully support the currency-killing policies of the Federal Reserve, and neither major political party would get rid of the income tax and the IRS.  And that is just for starters.  Yes, there are some minor differences when it comes to taxing and spending between the two parties, but the truth is that they are a lot more similar on economic issues than they are different.  What we desperately need on the national level is a fundamental change in direction when it comes to economic policy, but we simply are not going to get that from either the Democrats or the Republicans.  That means that there is no hope that the economic storm that is coming will be averted.

So why are the Democrats and the Republicans so similar on these issues?  Well, a big reason is because of who they are trying to please.

The reality of the matter is that most politicians do not really care about what you or I have to say.  Instead, what they are really concerned about is getting as much money for their campaigns as possible so that they can keep getting elected.

When you take a close look at the results of federal elections over the past several decades, it quickly becomes apparent that the candidate that raises the most money almost always wins.

So most politicians have learned to please those that fund their campaigns so that the money will keep rolling in.

Yes, there are a few candidates that are willing to rebel against “the system”, but they are few and far between and the major parties tend to marginalize them.

Once again in 2012, political races will overwhelmingly be won by those that raise the most cash.  The following is from Politifact….

In congressional races in 2010, the candidate who spent the most won 85 percent of the House races and 83 percent of the Senate races, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That’s a large percentage, but it’s lower than what the sign indicated.

Indeed, the percentage for 2010 was lower than it had been in recent election cycles. The center found that in 2008, the biggest spenders won 93 percent of House races and 86 percent of Senate races. In 2006, the top spenders won 94 percent of House races and 73 percent of Senate races. And in 2004, 98 percent of House seats went to candidates who spent the most, as did 88 percent of Senate seats.

Once you understand how Washington works, it becomes easier to understand why our politicians do such stupid things.

For example, big corporations tend to donate large amounts of money to political campaigns and they love the “free trade” globalization agenda.

They love to import massive quantities of super cheap foreign goods so that they can undercut the prices of goods made in the United States.

They love to set up manufacturing facilities on the other side of the globe where it is legal to pay slave labor wages to workers.

The “free trade” agenda is great for the largest corporations, but it is horrible for the average American worker.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, the U.S. economy loses approximately 9,000 jobs for every $1 billion of goods that are imported from overseas.

Trade with other countries can be good as long as it is balanced.  Unfortunately, the U.S. trading relationship with the rest of the world is tremendously imbalanced.

In 2011, the United States bought more than 550 billion dollars more stuff from the rest of the world than they bought from us.

This trade deficit has enormous consequences that most Americans simply do not understand.

Over the past decade, tens of thousands of businesses, millions of jobs and trillions of dollars have left our country.

Our industrial base is being dismantled and we are rapidly becoming poorer as a nation.

According to U.S. Representative Betty Sutton, an average of 23 manufacturing facilities a day closed down in the United States during 2010.

Just think about that.

Every single day we lost 23 more.

Overall, America has lost a total of more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities since 2001.

Why do you think cities like Detroit are dying?

The truth is that we killed them with our idiotic policies.

America has a trade imbalance that is more than 5 times larger than any other nation on earth has.  We are losing wealth, jobs and businesses at a pace that is absolutely astounding.

It is neither “conservative” nor “liberal” to commit national economic suicide.

Our trade imbalance with China is particularly bad.  The U.S. spends about 4 dollars on goods and services from China for every one dollar that China spends on goods and services from the United States.

Does that sound fair to you?

China slaps huge tariffs on many of our products, they deeply subsidize their own national industries, the brazenly steal technology from us, and they manipulate currency rates so that their products end up being significantly cheaper than ours.

Our trade deficit with China in 2011 was nearly 300 billion dollars.  That was the largest trade deficit that one country has had with another country in the history of the world.

Yet both major political parties refuse to do anything about it.

Back in 1985, the U.S. trade deficit with China was only 6 million dollars for the entire year.

In 2011, our trade deficit with China was more than 49,000 times larger.

The consequences of this trade deficit with China are being felt all over the United States every single day.

For example, the United States has lost an average of 50,000 manufacturing jobs per month since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.

Do you support losing more than half a million manufacturing jobs a year?

If not, then you should be for “fair trade” instead of “free trade” where other nations can cheat us blind as often as they want.

The Economic Policy Institute says that since 2001 America has lost approximately2.8 million jobs due to our trade deficit with China alone.

Do you think that the U.S. economy could use an extra 2.8 million jobs right now?

Sadly, if current trends continue things are going to get a lot worse.

According to Professor Alan Blinder of Princeton University, 40 million more U.S. jobs could be sent offshore over the next two decades.

So why won’t our politicians do something?

The United States has run a trade deficit every single year since 1976.

During that time, America has had a total trade imbalance of more than 7.5 trillion dollars with the rest of the world.

That 7.5 trillion dollars could have gone to support U.S. jobs and U.S. businesses.

Taxes could have been paid on that 7.5 trillion dollars.

Instead, it went out of the country and made foreigners wealthier.

So what is Barack Obama doing about all of this?

Well, Obama has been aggressively pushing for even more “free trade” agreements.  The Obama administration has inked deals with Panama, South Korea and Colombia and the Obama administration is making the Trans-Pacific Partnership (“the NAFTA of the Pacific“) a very high priority.

Well, Mitt Romney must be criticizing these moves, right?

No, Romney has actually criticized Obama for not pushing for more “free trade” fast enough.

Mitt Romney wants to make it even easier for jobs to go out of the country and for other countries to drain our wealth.  The following quote comes directly from the Romney campaign website….

Access to foreign markets is crucial to growing our economy. We must reassert American leadership in international negotiations, follow through on commitments we have already made, and push aggressively for advantageous new agreements.

So we are not going to see a change in direction in trade policy no matter who wins the next election.

Well, what about the national debt?

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Every country for itself (salon.com)
• Facilitating trade among Muslim nations (dawn.com)
• A call for a new economics: It’s time to redefine success (grist.org)
• 10 Important Issues Only Ron Paul is Addressing (activistpost.com)
• Abhijit Banerjee: ‘The poor, probably rightly, see that their chances of getting somewhere different are minimal’ (guardian.co.uk)
• Follow the Leader (standupforamerica.wordpress.com)

Digging Deeper Into Who Controls The World

By Susan Jennings | February 10, 2012 | Activist Post

As we delve deeper into world control, more information arises that helps us understand the current global situation.  Many people are unaware of the interconnectedness between the largest global companies.Eighty percent of the world’s wealth appears to be earned by a “core” of 1,318 corporations, which in turn are being controlled by only 147 companies. Seventy-five percent of these companies are financial institutions — and the top companies on the list are the Federal Reserve banks.

The Federal Reserve created 26 to 29 trillion dollars’ worth of bailouts for their own companies between 2007 and 2010. This was revealed in their own audit statements, and confirmed by United States Congressmen and prominent financial analysts. (Source)  Please note that the Federal Reserve, created in 1913, is a private corporation controlled by international bankers. (Source)

Anytime the ‘Fed’ prints money-Federal Reserve Notes, the American taxpayer is charged interest on the amount printed.  Alan Greenspan admitted that “the Federal Reserve is an independent agency . . . there is no other agency of government who can overrule actions we take.”

As they understood the extreme dangers to our life and liberty, our founding fathers were adamantly opposed to a central privately controlled bank. 

This global control occurs in multiple ways:

1. Different companies having the same board members (this also includes members of the same family who may be on different boards).
2. The ongoing movement between government leaders into private sector executive/board positions or lobbying positions for companies they formerly regulated and visa versa (Tim Geithner – former New York Federal Reserve Bank President becomes Obama administration’s Treasury Secretary).
3. Stock or bonds held in other companies (Goldman considering keeping majority of Facebook shares in Initial Public Stock Offering).
4. The division of competing brand names owned by the same company (Proctor and Gamble).
5. Funding through private foundations for various associations (The American Medical Association since 1910 and National Education Association are heavily funded by the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations.  Hmmm…helpful when you want to control public health and education).
6. The ease with which those in power move between the fewer and fewer global companies and political offices.

The majority of radio, television and large Internet companies has become concentrated into the hands of just few companies.  Fifty independent companies once comprised the media as of 1983.  Now, Time Warner-CNN/TBS/TNT/AOL/Fortune/People; News Corp-Fox/New York Post/Wall Street Journal/MarketWatch.com; Walt Disney-ABC/ESPN/Miramax//Pixar; Bertelsmann-Most EU stations/Random House/National Geographic magazines; Viacom-CBS-Simon & Schuster/Comedy Central/BET/Paramount; and GE-NBC/Telemundo/MSNBC/ decide what is news. (Source) Such consolidation creates the ability to easily manipulate the masses via television, radio and printed media.  This includes global news, political information, science, health and social values — which we have all seen go down the toilet.  The desensitization to dead bodies &amp, increasing violence, glorification of anti-social behavior, i.e. the ones doing the most lying/cheating/stealing are the winners; the invasive surveillance systems to acclimate the public to a complete loss of privacy, and the lack of unbiased, actual reporting on critical events.

As a result, the NDAA, SOPA and PIPA legislation have all had a positive slant on them in Mainstream Media. The NDAA wipes out the 4th Amendment right to due process; and the latter two proposed laws remove our free access to websites, giving the government the right to take down Internet sites at will.  Thus, their interests seem to be solely in maximizing their profits no matter the detrimental effects on the environmental, social and health of all life.  All the while maintaining control of the global population through massive manipulation.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• David Wilcock: Major Event: Liens Filed against all 12 Federal Reserve Banks (the2012scenario.com)
• David Wilcock: Major Event: (nalonmit.wordpress.com)
• The Federal Reserve’s Medicine Men: Heroes Of A New Dawn, Or Vampires Of A Dying Night? (blacklistednews.com)
• Legislation to Audit the FED inches Closer (alakhtal.wordpress.com)
• Citi’s Pandit To Employees: Capital Goals Haven’t Changed (blogs.wsj.com)

Obama Puts Out Figurative Bounty on Supreme Court

By Rush Limbaugh | April 03, 2012 | RushLimbaugh.com

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Obama and his attack on the Supreme Court yesterday.  It happened toward the end of the program in the last half hour and it was happening on the fly.  I didn’t really have enough time to listen in detail to what Obama said, and thus I didn’t have a chance to, in detail, reply.  I’ve now listened to what Obama said.  I’ve got three sound bites here.When I got home yesterday at about six o’clock last night I got a flash encrypted message from a friend who says, “You know, somebody in the court leaked to Obama. That’s why he went out there and did this today. Somebody called him. He lost the vote, the preliminary vote on Friday. He lost it, and somebody leaked it.” And that became an active theory that began to be bandied about amongst a lot of people that I know. Because people were saying,

“Why go out,” as Obama did yesterday…? It was in the form of a question. We must remember that he was asked a question about this. He didn’t launch into this on his own, but once he got the question, it was, “Katie, bar the door,” and he was off to the races.

And the question everybody was asking is: “Why do this? Why attack the court? Why intimidate them, why threaten them if they had voted to uphold the mandate?” And I have an answer for that. See, I know these people. I know liberals. I don’t want that statement to sound bombastic. You people here — new listeners to the program — that’s not a braggadocios statement. It’s not bombastic. It’s not outrage or any attempt to shock. I just know them, and so when somebody asks me, “Why would Obama say that if he didn’t have to? If he had been told that the preliminary vote on Friday was in his favor, why take the attitude that he took?” There is an answer to that. I don’t know if it’s right, but there is an answer.

He’s a thug.

And again, I’m not trying to be provocative when I say this. I’m just quoting Bill Clinton, folks. Bill Clinton referred to Barack Obama as a Chicago thug during the 2008 presidential campaign. This after Clinton some years earlier had told Juanita Broaddrick, “Put some ice on that lip” after she said he raped her. (I mentioned that for this “war on women” that supposedly the Republicans are waging.) But there’s every possibility that Obama feeling his oats, being told that the vote went his way, would still go out and do this, ’cause he knows there are more votes to come. I’m not predicting it. I’m just saying I could understand it.

It’s easier to understand that somebody leaked to him that the preliminary vote went against him and that the mandate fell by whatever the preliminary vote was and that explains his attitude yesterday. But I can see him saying what he said if the vote went in his favor as well, as a means of further intimidation, making sure they don’t change their minds or whatever. You might say, “Well, how would that work? Wouldn’t that just kind of make them be more resistant?” The reason this is all a crock in the first place is that (and we will go through this as we play the Obama sound bites) it is obvious that to the left this is an entirely political process.

There’s nothing judicial going on here. There’s nothing legal. This isn’t even really about the Constitution. This is about politics, pure and simple, and Barack Obama’s reelection. It’s all it is. But he says things in these sound bites which you’ll hear coming up and they’re chilling to me. “The court has to understand…” “The court must understand,” is one of his sound bites. No, the court must not — does not have to — listen to you. What is this, “The court must understand”? That is a threat! How many of you think it possible that Obama will make a trip to the Supreme Court before the vote, before the final vote? Can you see it happening? I can.

I’m not predicting it. (interruption) You’re shaking your head. You don’t think it would ever happen? Why would he be…? Why would Obama visiting the Supreme Court between now and June be any more unconscionable than what he did yesterday? (interruption) It’s a visual? No! He’s just going up to say hi to Kagan. He’s going up to say hi to Kagan and Sotomayor, to see how they’re doing. (interruption) He called ’em out of the State of the Union right to their face. Remember that with Justice Alito? Anyway, let me take a break. We’ll come back and we will get into some of these sound bites and we’ll tear this down as it happened sometimes line by line. Mike, be prepared when I say, “Stop.” There might be some frequent stops and starts as we go through this.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Reuters was just as excited as they could be over what Obama did. “Obama Takes a Shot at the Supreme Court Over Health Care — President Obama took an opening shot at conservative justices on the Supreme Court on Monday, warning that a rejection of his sweeping health care law would be an act of judicial activism that Republicans say they abhor.” Warning? Warning? And Reuters is happy! (That’s right! You take it to these conservatives!) Judicial activism? You know, the debate is constantly held: “Is he really this ignorant or naive, or is this just strategic?”

Everybody knows that judicial activism is not what Obama is explaining it to be. Judicial activism is the court MAKING law. Judicial activism is the court WRITING law. What Obama is trying to say here is that the court will be engaging in judicial activism if it judges the law according to the Constitution. That’s not what judicial activism is. I know exactly what they’re doing. They’re trying to take this term, and they’re trying to redefine it publicly to fit their needs and redefine the language (as they constantly are). But, folks, I’m gonna tell you something. It is preposterous, and it’s even a little scary to hear such abject ignorance from a supposed constitutional scholar.

This is a man, Barack Obama, who was once paid to teach law, constitutional law, and he doesn’t even know the meaning of the term “judicial activism.” No one ever accuses any judges of judicial activism for following the Constitution! Judges are accused of judicial activism for not following the Constitution, for legislating from the bench, for writing their own law. This is basic knowledge. Now, maybe this is why we’ve never seen Obama’s grade transcripts, if he really doesn’t know the difference. But I suspect that he does know the difference, and I suspect that he’s trying to redefine terms here to fit. Because this has become a template argument for the left.

You remember Jeffrey Toobin? You talk about a guy who’s done a 180 here, turned on a dime. During the week of oral arguments, Jeff Toobin, CNN legal analyst, was in an abject panic. These people on the left… And again, ladies and gentlemen, this is the solid truth. They do not expose themselves to any ideological thinking other than their own. They have assumed that conservatism is racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, all of these cliches they attach to it. And they’re not interested in talking to anybody that they think is a conservative. They really are not familiar with other ideas. They don’t speak the language. We, of course, can speak liberalism as well as they do. We understand it.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• The Vetting: Obama Channels Derrick Bell in Attack on Supreme Court (johnmalcolm.me)
• Romney smiles at Obama’s ‘judicial activism’ charge (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)
• Liberals and Conservatives and “Judicial Activism” (glitternight.com)
• Judicial Activism 2012 (wnyc.org)
• Obama Predicts Health Care Victory, Labels Vote Against Law As “Judicial Activism” (danmillerinpanama.wordpress.com)
• The Dictator Wannabe (thecheeseheadconservative.wordpress.com)

The Ryan Test: Demagoguery Versus Ideas

August 12, 2012 By John Malcolm Leave a Comment

By Jonathan S. Tobin | August 11, 2012 | Commentary Magazine As John wrote earlier today, liberals are convinced that Mitt Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan to be his running mate offers them a golden opportunity to savage the Republicans about the Wisconsin congressman’s budget plans. Predictably, the New York Times delivered one of the first such salvos in its editorial posted […]

Smoking Obama’s Crack and Yearning for the Mud

August 12, 2012 By John Malcolm Leave a Comment

By Vanderleun | August 10, 2012 | American Digest [From 2008. Only the names have been changed because the target has changed.] This downward flight of intellectuals has been going on ever since the Romantic movement began its counter-revolution a couple hundred years ago. No matter how much they flap their lips it’s a fall, not […]